Sorry, Senator, I'm not buying it. You can't convince me that you weren't aware of all the aspects of Barack Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran you're apparently panicking about now. You knew, and yet you gave your blessing to the bill that bore your name, the bill that illegally eviscerated the Senate's Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 treaty ratification power, so that a minimum two-thirds majority of the Senate to make an Obama-Iran nuclear deal legally binding - a constitutional roadblock that The One wanted removed from his quest for his Neville Chamberlain Moment - was reduced to preemptive, unilateral imposition by the White House, with a sixty vote Senate supermajority needed to overturn it.
And we knew then, and know now, how full of crap you really are on this wholly unconvincing bleating:
The United States would be better off keeping its interim agreement with Iran and continuing to negotiate, rather than trying to wrap up the talks by June 30th, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said Monday.
Actually, the United States would be better off terminating these humiliatingly farcical "negotiations," delivering an ultimatum to Tehran to give up their nuclear program, including allowing us full access to everything they've got for its confiscation, or face an all-out American invasion. If, by "better off" we're referring to actually preventing the mullahs from possessing and using nuclear weapons against Israel and the West.
But Failure Theater is no place for seriousness.
"The administration has felt like they just had to do this deal," said the Tennessee senator on MSNBC's Morning Joe program.
Which you've known all along, Senator Corker, and evidently think you can convince us all now that you hadn't the foggiest idea would happen. Which renders you either a liar or a drooling idiot.
"I think if we would step away — if they are trying to cross these two remaining red lines, if they try to cross those — I do think we should step away and step away from the table and make sure that we end up with a deal that will stand the test of time."
Or, better yet, forget fantasy "deals" that can only be militarily coerced and just effect regime-change in Tehran and be done with it. But you'd never sign on to that only sane option, would you, Senator Corker?
And yet you just can't help but marvel at how all the scales fall from this man's eyes after he's safely rendered himself impotent to do anything about Barack Obama's Iran endgame:
And finally, Corker said, "it appears the administration may be considering negotiating a way more than just the nuclear-related sanctions, but trying to tie others to it, so those would be three that would be very concerning."
Those were issues that have been "nonnegotiable" up until two to three months ago, said Corker, and already, there have been "multiple red lines" that have been crossed.
"We began with dismantling their program," he said. Then "it was going to be a twenty-year deal. Now it's a ten-year deal."...
Corker said many troubling compromises have come during the negotiations.
"Iraq was not going to produce plutonium," the senator said. "Now it is, but in a more limited way. It was going to be a twenty-year deal. Now it's ten. We were going to dismantle their program. Now we're going to manage their proliferation."
And then this jaw-dropping bit of intelligence-insulting effrontery:
Corker said he knows he is being criticized by raising the issues, "but I would say it's better to raise them on the front end before they reach a deal and hopefully stiffen them. I think it's much better for us to weigh in now and express our concerns, and hopefully stiffen the spines of the negotiators at the table." [emphases added]
Sorry, Senator, but spine-stiffening requires leverage, which you and your colleagues surrendered a couple of months ago. "Too late now," I believe is the applicable expression.
But it isn't in the job description of the professional fool to shut up. Or to have perfectly coiffed hair.
More's the pity.
No comments:
Post a Comment