I dunno, maybe he does think his "historic, landmark deal" with the mullahs is in trouble. The relentless low blows against Republicans is just something instinctive, almost reflexive, but brazenly pretending that every even possible downside to ensuring that the mullahs build a nuclear weapons arsenal not only will never happen, but can't, is so disconnected from reality and the illusion of responsible leadership that it comes across as a retreat into clinical delusionalism:
Barack Obama has expressed disdain for critics of the Iran nuclear deal, saying the accord will be seen for its merits in the years to come.
"When this agreement is implemented and … we've got inspectors on the ground....
That the mullahs can bar from inspecting anything.
....and it becomes clear that Iran in fact is abiding by this agreement....
Based on what they tell us, which you will dutifully parrot because it'll be what you want to believe as well.
....then attitudes will change, because people will recognize that, in fact, whatever parade of horribles was presented in opposition have not come true," Obama told NPR's Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep on Tuesday.
That will depend upon how soon the mullahs schedule the incineration of Tel Aviv. Which will come sooner rather than later to the degree that they anticipate a Republican moving into the White House in January 2017.
"That, instead, what we've seen is an effective way to bind Iran to a commitment not to have nuclear weapons and, in that scenario, it'll probably be forgotten that Republicans uniformly opposed it."...
When in reality, it is we who are effectively bound to a commitment to ensure that the mullahs acquire, have, and use nuclear weapons against us and our allies. At that point, that Barack Obama was the architect of said "agreement" is what will NOT be forgotten.
However, it'll also be too late.
The president said that the deal was a success because it will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
No, it's a success because it's giving him his "Neville Chamberlain moment" and even a second Nobel Peace Prize, if he decides to glom John Kerry's. The Middle East nuclear war that will inevitably ensure will be someone else's problem, whether or not he vacates the White House in 528 days.
"It cuts off all the pathways for Iran getting a nuclear weapon....
No, it opens them up full throttle and requires us to keep them open and protected on the mullah's behalf.
In exchange, Iran gets relief from the sanctions that we organized, systematically, with the international community over the last several years that's crippled their economy and forced them back to the table," he said.
Which they will use to spread nuclear terrorism throughout their region and beyond, as well as expand their military and ICBM forces to dominate the Middle East and make a bid for global domination. Obama, in other words, has enabled the Islamic Empire of Iran to become a world superpower right alongside Russia and Red China. How that's in America's national security interests should make O's next interview even more fascinating for mental health professionals.
Critics have claimed that the deal would give free reign for Iran to act in the region, but the president disputed that notion, pointing to sanctions that will remain in place unrelated to their nuclear activities, such as sponsorship of terrorism or violations of human rights.
"There's no logic to the notion that somehow we will let up on trying to prevent activities that Iran may engage in that would be contrary to our national security interests," he said.
Sure there is. Which is why ninety-four congressman are demanding that O release the unredacted contents of all the secret side "deals" he's withholding. Given that the lifting of unrelated embargoes against Iranian conventional weapons and missile technology got thrown into the "deal," what reason is there to believe that any other sanctions weren't secretly heaved overboard?
Obama emphasized that the deal is not based on trust or an assumption that America's fundamental relationship with Iran is changing.
"It's based on hard, cold logic and our ability to verify that Iran's not pursing a nuclear weapon," he said.
Which is precisely nil, because Obama bargained it away.
He said, however, that the deal could lead to a convergence of interests that would see Iran begin to shift its relationship with other states in the region.
"It is possible that as a consequence of this engagement, that as a consequence of Iran being able to recognize that what's happening in Syria, for example, is leading to extremism that threatens their own state and not just the United States," he said.
"That Iran starts making different decisions that are less offensive to its neighbors; that it tones down the rhetoric in terms of its virulent opposition to Israel. And, you know, that's something that we should welcome."
Despite the fact that you've rewarded them beyond the dreams of Islamic Fundamentalist avarice for acting it precisely the opposite fashion.
I still don't think his "deal" is in any trouble in Congress. Maybe it's that all this "success" is finally going to his head. It's not as if there isn't plenty of room in there for it.
UPDATE: Is this something?:
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has some feedback for Barack Obama: your messaging regarding the Iran nuclear deal is wrong.
With the nation — including lawmakers in Washington — divided over the agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama argues that those opposed to the deal are playing politics.
In a column published Monday, Bloomberg wrote Obama is taking the wrong angle of attack against his foes.
"If you oppose the Iranian nuclear agreement, you are increasing the chances of war. And if you are a Democrat who opposes the agreement, you are also risking your political career. That's the message the White House and some liberal leaders are sending — and they ought to stop now, because they are only hurting their credibility," Bloomberg wrote.
"I have deep reservations about the Iranian nuclear agreement, but I — like many Americans — am still weighing the evidence for and against it. This is one of the most important debates of our time, one with huge implications for our future and security and the stability of the world. Yet instead of attempting to persuade Americans on the merits, supporters of the deal are resorting to intimidation and demonization, while also grossly overstating their case."
Which ought to be all the indication any American should need that there are no merits to this "deal," at least from this end of it, and that it's all about Obama's all-hallowed "legacy" and absolutely nothing else, no matter how many millions have to perish in atomic flames to secure it for him.
Chucky Schumer is (purportedly) against the "deal," along with a handful of House Dems and now Bloomie. Is this just a kabooky sideshow to past the time during the dog days of August, or is this a burgeoning rebellion on the Left? I still lean heavily toward the former, but it should be at least passingly interesting to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment