Iran

Hysteria About the Iran Deal

A contest ensues to claim the most ridiculous objection.

|

Credit: blondinrikard / photo on flickr

When the Iran deal was completed, Republicans took on a creative exercise. The assignment: Come up with the most outrageously hyperbolic condemnation you can think of. And they aced it. 

With this agreement, said Mike Huckabee, President Barack Obama "will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." Under it, said Ted Cruz, "The Obama administration will become the world's leading state sponsor and financier of radical Islamic terrorism." 

Huckabee's comment was so over-the-top that Jeb Bush said it was "just wrong." Cruz's charge provoked an objection from Bobby Jindal, who is not normally a model of restraint. 

But Dick Cheney outdoes them all in his new book, Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America. The deal, he declares, will most likely lead to "the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki." 

The critics don't realize that the more extreme their characterizations the less credible they are. It's not hard to make the case that the deal is flawed and inadequate. But it's hard to pretend it is, as Cheney claims, "madness." 

Two of the most interesting moments of the campaign came at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, in July, which several GOP presidential candidates attended. Interviewing Marco Rubio and later Cruz, Republican consultant Frank Luntz asked: "If it's that bad, why would this president do this?" 

Rubio had a simple answer: "Because he wants a legacy. He is dying to build out exhibits for his presidential library." Cruz echoed him: "The answer is simple. They see this purely as a domestic political legacy and agenda." 

Really? According to them, the accord is a catastrophic blunder that will empower Iran, stimulate terrorism and invite a genocidal attack on Tel Aviv. How would a presidential library turn that into a glittering triumph? How could signing articles of surrender elevate your place in history? 

Cheney, hitting a familiar conservative theme, insists the Iran agreement is "tragically reminiscent" of the 1938 Munich agreement, under which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain allowed Nazi Germany to annex a portion of Czechoslovakia. The concession only emboldened Adolf Hitler. 

But Obama, being familiar with Munich, may have noticed that 1) it didn't work and 2) Chamberlain has been notorious ever since as a foolish appeaser. If this deal has half the gruesome consequences the Republicans predict, he will spend his retirement years in disgrace, his name synonymous with monumental gullibility. 

The claim that he is seeking a legacy rests on the assumption that the deal will work well enough, and long enough, to resemble a great achievement. If it's going to lead straight to disaster, Obama had nothing to gain by signing it. 

Assuming the president set out to engage in futile appeasement, he had an odd way of going about it. The Munich agreement was drafted and signed in a matter of days. The Iran negotiations took two years. The Munich agreement was 522 words long. This one fills 159 pages.

Had the administration been willing to settle for simply giving Iran everything it wanted, the talks would have concluded quickly and the text would be very brief.

Cheney explains this deal as part of Obama's plan to disarm and weaken America. "He has dedicated his presidency to restraining us, limiting our power and diminishing us," he writes.

This would come as a surprise to Moammar Gadhafi, Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen and al-Qaida leader who was killed in a targeted strike the president approved.

It would be news to the more than 2,000 people killed by drones under Obama. It might evoke doubt among the Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq, who have been the target of thousands of U.S. air attacks over the past year. It would puzzle Robert Gates, a Republican who ran the Pentagon under Obama as well as George W. Bush.

If the deal were a craven surrender, you would expect some of Obama's national security aides to resign in protest. You wouldn't expect it to win the endorsement of people like Colin Powell, who was secretary of state under George W. Bush and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush.

All those facts don't mean the Iran deal is a good one. They do make it clear, though, that it's a good-faith effort that has to be taken seriously. You can pretend otherwise, but it takes a wild imagination.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Kim Davis Should Not Have Been Jailed

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Has anyone coming out for or against it read the deal in its entirety?

    1. Really, who has the time for that? Can someone just summarize it for me?

      1. “”I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,'” Conyers said. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

        Democrat Congressman John Conyers when asked if he had read the Obamacare bill before voting on it.

        Anyone think this prime example of the Democrat party is gonna take time to read this “treaty” before he votes on it?

    2. Not only read the deal but aware of the secret side deals?

      1. Since even Congress hasn’t, no. But hey, just trust Obama.

  2. Iran is the planet’s # 1 state sponsor of terrorism, they killed 100s of us in Iraq, cheat on every agreement or resolution, and we got nothing out of this but more conventional weapon sales to Sunni clients: a non-nuclear arms race before Iran gets a nuke. So, first, read this:

    Iran Deal Still Far from Settled
    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/423613/print

    Then, if you’ve never contacted your elected reps, consider a simple request (sample below), whether you voted for them or not. If you need help: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

    Dear Rep or Sen:

    It would be a violation of law to proceed with the Corker review because (a) the administration has not complied with the Corker legislation’s mandate that the entire Iran deal be supplied to Congress by July 19 (i.e., the IAEA side deals), and (b) the Corker review process is explicitly limited to Iran’s nuclear program, while Obama’s deal, by contrast, goes far beyond nukes, eliminating anti-terrorism, anti-ballistic missile, and anti-weapons restrictions that the Corker legislation requires to be kept in place.

    I am writing to ask that Congress take up a resolution stating that (a) the Corker review cannot proceed because the Obama administration has failed to comply with the legislation’s express conditions; (b) therefore, under the law’s terms, Congress cannot proceed with an up-or-down vote on the Iran deal; and (c) the sanctions remain in effect, even if temporarily dormant because Obama won’t enforce them.

    1. The 2010 sanctions gave the president authority to lift the sanctions when he certifies that Iran
      1) no longer supports terrorism
      2) no longer is pursuing development of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles

      It may depend on what “certify” means (does Obama get to send an official letter to Congress saying, “The Ayatollah promised me…”)

      But it looks like if Obama says Iran is a good boy the sanctions go away, regardless of Corker. Congress can then only vote to reimpose sanctions, but of course Obama will veto that.

      Because Obama has not submitted this agreement to the Senate, it is only his foreign policy and has no force of law to bind future administrations – but by the time Obama has left office the sanctions will have been gone for 18 months and every short sighted European country will by setting up business in Tehran.

  3. Other than the author’s opinions of Republicans, is there anything in this piece to make me believe this is a good deal? I could have gotten something this bad in an fundraising email from OFA.

    Did you ever consider going point by point over the objections and try to rebut them?

    Sounds to me like we’re going to lift the sanctions because Iran promises to be good (even as they still chant ‘Death to America’), and then having a crappy system of inspections that they can avoid.

    I honestly believe there will be a nuclear exchange in my lifetime. This deal scares the shit out of me.

    1. I hear hysteria from both sides. The Obama people claim the options are this deal or war? Really?

      It seems war is inevitable regardless.

      The entire ME seems to be prepping for a full-fledge regional war. I’m wonder how long before Iran and Saudi start shooting directly at each other instead of just using proxies. How long before Israel is launched on or launches on? Will that mitigate the migration in to Europe or exacerbate it?

      My guess is Obama just wants the US out entirely. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but it does leave our allies (such as they are) holding the bag: the Kurds, the Jews, the Saudis.

      1. The Turks, Egyptians and Saudis will b nuking up in short order.

        A couple years ago when Obama went to Riyadh, I heard that Obama tried to blame everything in the Middle East on Israel and the King went ballistic, referring to Iran as “the head of the snake.” (I don’t know how well “you fucking idiot” translates from the original Arabic)

        1. Is there a citation for that?

          Now that I doubt it much.

          1. I tweeted my source, awaiting a reply

      2. I too would be fine if Obama wanted the U.S. out of the region but he needs to state that and quite playing and supplying both sides of the field.

      3. “The Obama people claim the options are this deal or war? Really?”

        Will our options improve or get worse when Iran gets nukes?

    2. Relax about the nuclear exchange. The Japanese moved back into Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost immediately, and aside from their films, no mutant monsters yet. It is to be hoped that any “exchange” will boil down to some Islamotwit setting off one nuke, followed by the conversion of Iran into on large sheet of glass, thereby ending the problem until the area is resettled.

      1. Still, I can’t be blamed for getting nervous if the nukes start flying around

  4. Ok. So the article goes on about hyperbolic reactions from the GOP regarding the deal.

    However, I’ve yet to read a thoughtful piece explaining the deal itself. It could very well be a good one and usher in a new era of cooperation with a rogue country. Or not.

    This is effen Iran we’re talking about. Not some tinpot, twobit, tincan banana republic.

    We KNOW about Iran’s role in terrorism, its theocracy and its hostile behavior in the region. I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask questions and the more the administration responds with rolling eyes, bumbling explanations and vagueness the more people become skeptical.

    Don’t know about others but watching Kerry talk about it doesn’t instill me with any confidence. Knowing who his boss is even less so.

    1. Yeah I actually didn’t mind Kerry until this fiasco.

      I kinda of agree with Rubio and Cruz. Obama’s all about his legacy.

      I’ll say what I’ve always said about the president. Nice guy but just another progressive with hard right views on national defense. I have less in common with him than I do Bernie Sanders, which says something.

      I guess I don’t fault the administration for trying to workout something with Iran, but what they got is absolutely terrible for us.

      1. Obama’s explaination for not insisting on the release of the 4 Americans held prisoner in return for the 100 billion =/- would have tipped the Irnaians off to his true wants in the negotiations and made their bargaining position even stronger. Huh ?

        He claims if he would have insisted on their release in return for the 100 billion dollars he would have had to give them the 100 billion so he was crafty in his deal making and just gave them the 100 billion and let them keep the prisoners. Whaaat ?

        In every action, or inaction, this Administration has taken in response to events in the Middle East has left the fundamental jihadist Muslims in a better position than before except for Egypt where the Egyptians themselves kicked the jihadists out of power.

        This President is the Manchurian President.

      2. “Obama’s all about his legacy.”

        A mideast with a truly batshit crazy Caliphate today, followed by mushroom clouds a few years down the line.

        Thanks Obama.

        1. C’mon, you know they’ll just pin that on Bush somehow.

    2. A deal is only as good as the countries involved.Iran will never live up to it.I’m not for war with Iran,that’s foolish.Just like the Iraq war.But the deal means nothing.

      1. But it does mean something. It means Iran is now allowed to sell oil again. It means Iran got a100 billion+/- cash infusion. It means Iran has 24 days between the West’s request to inspect a site and them actually getting to inspect it. It means that 4 Americans remain in jail in Iran without trial ( IIRC ).

        It means alot, just not any real restrictions against Iran nuking up.

  5. I think that Obama wanted to free Iran from sanctions from the beginning. If we consider his words during his first campaign, it’s clear that he not only wanted to normalize relations even then, but that he was extremely naive. Cruz and Rubio are right, this is a legacy issue for Obama and perhaps even a campaign promise to some constituent(s).

    Really? According to them, the accord is a catastrophic blunder that will empower Iran, stimulate terrorism and invite a genocidal attack on Tel Aviv. How would a presidential library turn that into a glittering triumph? How could signing articles of surrender elevate your place in history?

    The library presentation will spin the issue in Obama’s favor, no doubt. However, the damage will come after Obama is gone from office making it fairly easy to convince Obama supporters that a later administration screwed up his good work. All he needs for his good legacy is to convince his supporters and to give the press and supportive historians a plausible spin. He will then go down in leftist history as solving a looming crisis that was derailed after he was gone.

    1. Obama believes in the power of his words. He didn’t back the popular revolt in 2009 because if the regime was toppled Obama would lose his chance to show the world how he could bring anyone, even the Ayatollah, around to his way of thinking. After he stopped the rising of the seas, of course.

  6. Look, Obama is too smart to trade 5 militants for Bowe Bergdahl. I think that about sums up the argument.

  7. I know it makes many people butthurt to imagine this, but decades of sanctions on Iran has only made them incredibly resilient to further sanctions and hungry to get access to new markets that our “friends” in Russia and China are more than happy to provide. Anyone who cannot accept this reality is frankly a moron.

    What this deal does is simply provide an incentive for Iran to normalize relations with the US and keep our fingers in the “proverbial pie” rather than ceding all influence over to Putin and Xi Jinping. It also provides a diplomatic roadblock for Israel acting unilaterally without the threat of damaging their US relations.

    Honestly, rhetoric over issues like this from all sides just makes me lose even more respect for our political leaders. It’s quite obvious that this is a case of realpolitik and instead of obfuscating that and putting a spin on it that projects a strong US national interest, they simply attack each other and hence undermine what little remaining influence the nation has in the region. This is why Russia, a country that is arguably three potatoes short of a vodka cruiser, can still remain relevant and a thorn in our butts – they don’t make the mistake of tripping all over their own dicks to undermine their perception of strength. Of course, that’s expected due to the nature of their autocratic regime, but god damn it all – couldn’t we at least pretend that we’re not becoming irrelevant in the middle east?

    1. You have a decent point to make, but you may sway more people with your argument if you don’t first call them morons.

      1. I really don’t know what to call people who don’t want to acknowledge that Russia and China already have a burgeoning trade with Iran in both military weapons and nuclear materials and are eager to increase it.

        What would you call someone who believes that Russia and China has the best interests of the USA at heart? Moronic? Imbecilic? Retarded?

        Maybe I should get a thesaurus.

    2. Realpolitik may have a role, but remember that we are “The Great Satan” so I only think the Iran leadership will only “normalize” relations to the US to the extent that it benefits them. How much is our side getting out of this deal? How much is verifiable? Or are the leaders of the Islamic Republic whispering into Obama’s ear all the things he wants to hear?

      Israel may be more likely to act unilaterally if it loses faith that the US has it’s back.

    3. Iran is a trouble maker.As long as they suppot groups like Hezollah and Hamas they need to be treated like pariahs.I’m also amazed that people think the U/S. should open up to Iran while they refuse to reognize Israel.That’s a double standard.

      1. The US recognizes Israel, what are you talking about?

        Also, the only realistic point of imposing sanctions is to be able to lift them later. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with normalizing relations since the very act of doing so implies a reduction in conflict between the two parties.

        Take for example the case of Vietnam. In 1995 we normalized relations with them under the Clinton administration and today they are one of the most stridently pro-American countries in all of south east asia and this is AFTER having a bloody war with them.

        As early as this year, the Pew Research center released data that showed that the overall favorable view of the USA by the Vietnamese public is at an astounding 78% (and increased over last year).

        This appears to me to be exactly what we would like to accomplish in Iran and perhaps we can do it like we did with Vietnam, diplomatically and without stepping on our own dicks.

    4. If normalizng relations with Iran is worthwhile, we should simply drop the sanctions. This “deal” is bullshit, because they are not going to honor it the moment it becomes inconvenient. That’s how they roll. The “deal” is about making Jug-Ears in the White House look good to his fams.

      Sanctions are almost always a waste of time. If we wanted Iran to do something, we should have sent in the Marines. But no Nation Building.

      1. This is a childish response. By your reasoning we should do absolutely nothing but attack them with our military because they we can’t trust them to adhere to a treaty that actually benefits them.

        Really, what kind of world do you and people who think like you want to live in? One where the worlds largest military just randomly starts unilateral wars simply because they are scared someone MIGHT break a treaty?

        With this particular case in Iran, how does this even serve our interests? I would have hoped that our decade plus long endeavor in Iraq would have tempered the stupidity of some people in regards to how they imagine these conflicts play out. Indeed, just look at all we’ve accomplished there – a failing state, a refuge crisis with one of our allies, diminished influence and respect in the region and a blossoming training ground and recruitment drive for islamic terrorism.

    5. “Anyone who cannot accept this reality is frankly a moron.”

      The Koran allows for and even encourages Muslims to lie if they feel it is in their best interest in their dealings with infidels and doing so is not a bad thing if it aids the Muslims in their spread of Islam.

      Any agreement between a Muslim Iran and a non Muslim country is worthless as the Muslims have free rein to break it and aren’t compelled to keep their word.

      Anyone who doesn’t know and accept that is the true moron.

      1. You do realize that the part of my post that you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with anything you mentioned and in fact I was referring to the desire on behalf of the Russian and Chinese government to not only CONTINUE engaging in bilateral trade with Iran, but to actually INCREASE this trade with them, including trade in existing weapons and nuclear materials.

        But thanks for the lesson on “the Koran” for whatever good that did everyone.

  8. Besides Israel’s past ability to kick-ass on multiple Arab armies at once, its nuclear capability is probably the only reason that it still exists (and its alliance with the “Great Satan”). Once Iran gets a nuclear warhead and the ability to deliver it, Israel will be back to conventional warfare only–unless it wants to start a nuclear war–and that gives Iran the advantage.

    Obama’s currently pending deal with Iran and his signaling that he may not aid Israel if threatened, shifts the balance of power in the ME toward Iran. This is what Obama wants, AFAIC. He and Jarrett blame Israel for the problems in the ME and this is their solution. I hope I’m wrong, but this seems to be a common leftist assumption–that things would be hunky dory with Israel and its occupation of Palestine. From Obama’s and the left’s perspective, this deal will result in peace in the ME even if it means the demise of Israel.

    1. Oops: without Israel and its occupation

    2. “He and Jarrett blame Israel for the problems in the ME and this is their solution.”

      The delusions of morons. Without Israel the rest of the middle east would be exactly as it is now. Without the bugaboo of Israel to direct hate at there would probably be a long bloody shakeup of power, but in the end it would look just like it does now. A blood soaked, early iron age sea of savagery.

      1. Would the ME be the same without Israel? The U.S.-Israel alliance, including U.S. loyalty and generosity, brought real sacrifice. Israel’s mere existence generates bitter hate. Bin Laden cited the U.S.-Israel alliance as a key reason for launching the 9/11 attacks: “Why are we fighting and opposing you? . . . The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. . . . Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its price, and pay for it heavily.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver . IMO, the 9/11 attacks directly led to two wars.

        Maybe the ME would be about the same without Israel, but maybe it would be very different. There is no way to know.

        1. You’re assuming that the victim of hate is the cause of the hate. Not true. The hatred that bin Laden had toward Israel would be directed at someone or something else were there no Israel.

          Furthermore, Islam is a political system bent on conquest first, and a religiousness second. It was born out of war and conquest and it thrives on them. Therefore, fundamentalist Muslims would be fighting and conquering not matter the state of Israel or the USA.

          Osama bin Laden wanted to rebuild a Caliphate that was not even mostly Arab at its zenith. Like ancient Muslims he thought of all non-Muslims as second class people and non-citizens. Of course he hates a free and prosperous Israel.

          Maybe you should stop blaming Israel for the hatred and brutality of waring Muslims. They make their own hate.

        2. An Iranian coworker shared a joke with me.

          A husband was divorcing his wife. It was the Jew’s fault.
          I had a flat tire. It was the Jew’s fault.

          Most of the people on the street see through the BS. The Jews are blamed to deflect criticism away from their own regime for life sucking in their country.

        3. Without Israel, the Middle East powers would have to find a new bogey man to scapegoat so their people don’t realize it’s their own government that’s been fucking them over.

        4. Good grief. I know the thread is long dead but I have to put this in for posterity.

          “Maybe the ME would be about the same without Israel, but maybe it would be very different. There is no way to know.”

          There is no way to know because we have no recorded history without Israel existing in the middle east. Still, I feel that before Israel it must have been the land of milk and honey and peace and unicorns. Yep, feelings tell me it was completely different.

    3. There is no way to know since the deal is so shrouded in secercy but I have read that the deal calls for US defense of Iran if Israel attacks it.

      I read that there is a 24 day window between US inspections and US access to the location. Some inspections will be done by the Iranians themselves. Imagine that, Iranians inspecting Iranians. What could possibly go wrong ?

      We give the Iranians everything they want in negotiations and we didn’t even get the 4 Americans released from prison ?

      This wasn’t negotiation it was capitulation. Ican’t understand why unless one looks at the tract record of Obama in the Middle East.

      In every action, or inaction taken by this administration the fundamental jihadist Muslims ended up better off than theyr were before the event happened. Even if one blames incompetence at least one of the events would have ended with the jihadists worse off.

      This President is the Manchurian President and one day historians will look back and wonder how we could have been so blind.

      1. I don’t usually give this advice, but stop reading.

        1. Tony how old were you when your father abandoned you ?

          1. Tell us more about Muslims.

            1. Did he move out on the family or just withdraw emotionally from his sniveling little twit of a son ?

  9. Wow. That is some projection there.

    What the hell is it with Richman (Iran is a peace loving country that isn’t trying to get nuclear weapons) and Chapman (Objections to the not so good deal are over the top pssssh! )?

    These guys are delusional. Did the Ayatolla announce that Iran has no intention of abiding by any of the conditions of the deal? Did he say that Israel would be wiped off of the face of the earth before 25 years go by and would be harassed by jihadis for all that time? I know Iranians are full of shit, but from their past behavior there is no reason not to take this guy at his word. They have sponsored and engaged in terror all over the world for decades and sent troops and armaments into Iraq that killed American soldiers.

    Putting a guy like Obumbles in charge for 8 years is insanity and the predictable results are in.
    Everyone who voted for this idiot: Fuck you.

    Great. The wife just informed me that our water main is broken and we have no water.

    1. IfIt’s the Jeeeewss

  10. My compliments to Mr. Chapman. His logic is sound and his tone is restrained and reasonable. He sees the complexities and risks of doing a deal and not doing a deal. Maybe that is a sign of sufficient open-mindedness to allow fact and unbiased logic have a chance to be seen and carry reasonable weight. This article is either (i) a triumph of rationality over ideology or (ii) a case where ideology by chance aligns with fact and logic.

    1. No,Iran will never live up to the terms,and everyone knows this. The man hates Israel and believes it should not exist.Irans main foes though are Arab countries and he can see past his hate.Hell,Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are have much close rmilitary contact due to Iran’s actions.BTY,with out the Iraq war this would have been less of a problem..

  11. “a genocidal attack on Tel Aviv. How would a presidential library turn that into a glittering triumph?”
    Its very simple Steve, since it will happen under another presidents term Obama will blame that president just like he blames the president that preceded him. Obama and the left will accept that lie just like the lie about Bengazi and the rest of their revisionist history.

    1. They don’t need nues to attck israel,but,to make them imune to a military attak on other mid east states. If they have the bomb and are sting trouble in the gulf states or,invade one,who’s going to attack them? Attacking a nuclear power is a risk few will take.Unless your willing to obliterate thet country.

      1. They are devoted to bringing the 12th Imam out of hiding, in order to bring about a world wide caliphate. This is accomplished by starting a world war.

  12. We shall see if this agreement prevents Iran from doing what the Bush administration failed to prevent North Korea from doing. Either way, Iran is not going to nuke anybody. The “Iran nuclear threat” is so much smokescreen it makes once wince at the credulity of the skeptics. JJM has a nice summary of the actual goals above.

    Obama’s legacy is not quite so secure as that of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the dozens of other Republicans who are personally responsible for empowering Iran, creating ISIS, and killing far more people in the Middle East than either of those ever has. The gall is breathtaking.

    1. Boooossshhh !11!!

      1. What a clever insight .

        1. Thanks for the compliment.

          It’s past time you finally recognized that your bringing up Bush to try and deflect from Obama’s every shortcoming reflects poorly on your ability to reason.

          Your track record of doing so looks maniacal

          Did your father vote for and support Bush Tony ?

    2. Tony,

      The responsibility for the mess in the middle east, the Theocratic A$$holes in charge in Iran, the popularity of nitwits with bombs and AKs, and so on, predates Obama, Bush, Clinton, and even (to a degree, though he did put some icing on the cake) Carter. It goes back to the UN-centric post-colonial diplomacy of the post WWII era.

      Somebody should have put a bullet in Yasser Arafat’s head early on; he spent the WWII years with his tongue so far up a certain Austrian Corporal’s bottom he could taste the bratwurst ? he was GOING to be a problem. The Jordanians should have been told “You talked the Palestinians into joining your attack on the Jews, and you lost. They’re your responsibility; take them in or we’ll replace you with somebody who will.”. It should not have takes the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime to make Q’daffy Duck scared enough of us to publicly declare he was out of the WMD business.

      1. Cntd.

        We should take down the government of any State that sponsors terrorists. That there have, in the past, been States (like the USSR) that did so which we could’t take on directly does not excuse our not dealing with those we can. Don’t “Foster Democracy”, don’t “Nation Build”; just make some clear distinctions; “If you sponsor terrorists, attack our interests, or our citizens, or (fill in blank), we will remove you from power. Permanently.” Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Until various third-world septic tanks get the idea; Don’t fuck with us.

        We tried being all moral and dedicated to a full and equitable peace process. It didn’t fucking work, and it spread oppression and misery across the globe as jackals like Saddam took advantage. I expect that my position offends a great many Intellectual Progressives, and I don’t care. It doesn’t really take many decades of widespread kleptocracy, inter-tribal genocide, famine and terror as tools of statecraft, and general “revolutionary” douchbaggery to make good, old fashioned, exploitive Colonialism look awfully goddamned good.

        1. Well Bush broke the first rule of maintaining a post-Colonial order. Don’t kill one of the dictators propping up the whole artificial system.

          1. My God Tony. C.S.P. just laid out an opinion to which you can respond almost anything to and you choose to once again get lazy and reply, ‘Bush’? Seriously?

          2. It’s Booosh again Tony Troll ?

            My my my, bless your heart Tony, you are one pitiful little organism.

          3. You have a conveniently distorted memory, Tony. Hussein was hanged after a trial conducted by the Iraqi government. Hanged against the better wishes of the US government.

            Maybe you’d have more integrity here (and in other aspects of your life) if you were less disingenuous. I too think the attack on Iraq was a mistake. But it was very little different than LBJ’s Tonkin Gulf Resolution and his consequent escalation of the Vietnam war. IOW, these mistakes have gone on since at least as far back as Wilson’s WWI involvement. Your focus on Bush shows your shallow understanding of the history of American war.

            1. “Your focus on Bush shows your shallow understanding of the history of American war.”

              Tony’s knowledge, or lack of knowledge has nothing to do with his repetitive Bush blaming as an excuse for every Obama misdeed.

              With The Tony Troll it is pathalogical.

            2. A history of not learning from the same mistakes over and over again?

              Why can’t I mention Bush? Why does it send everyone here into a fit? It’s almost as if you mean to defend him.

              So it wasn’t our explicit goal to remove Saddam from power?

              1. The maniacal repetitiveness of it, no matter the topic, is funny.

                We’re not having a fit like you would like to posture.

                We’re having a fit of laughter at you.

                It shows you have no intellectual comeback to the subject matter and so we laugh at you once again. Your response to any critisism of Obama is so predictable and shallow it is childish and silly.

  13. So Obozo gives the Iranians everything they want, he makes no mention of the American citizens being held captive there, and he gives them billions of dollars to boot? Yep, great deal there Reason, can’t believe those stupid Republicans can’t see the complex nuances that make it smart to pay your insane enemies to develop a nuclear weapon to destroy you and your allies with. Oh, and it also seems that indefinite detention is A-OK, as long as it’s Iranians doing it to American citizens.

  14. I wish Reason would give a definitive answer to the question “Is it a good deal?” So far, all Reason articles talk about is the rhetoric. I’ve read the first 47 pages of the Iran Deal text and still can’t figure it out. If we don’t sign the deal, will Iran develop nuclear weapons, and how long will that take? Is a nuclear Iran that big of a deal?

  15. I wish Reason would give a definitive answer to the question “Is it a good deal?” So far, all Reason articles talk about is the rhetoric. I’ve read the first 47 pages of the Iran Deal text and still can’t figure it out. If we don’t sign the deal, will Iran develop nuclear weapons, and how long will that take? Is a nuclear Iran that big of a deal?

    1. There are actual coherent sentences past page 20?

  16. Iran will develop nuclear weapons with or without this deal. The deal will have no other effect than to eliminate the sanctions, providing more resources to the vile regime running Iran and therefore increase global terrorism. That said, the sanctions are history one way or another. The fact of the negotiations gave our sanctions partners the opening needed to opt out of the sanctions regime. It is done.

    1. ^This.

  17. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  18. “If this deal has half the gruesome consequences the Republicans predict, he will spend his retirement years in disgrace, his name synonymous with monumental gullibility.”

    Yea…because historians don’t carry the water for and protect the legacies of progressive presidents. FDR and Wilson are still seen as some of our greatest presidents ever.

  19. “But Dick Cheney outdoes them all in his new book, Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America. The deal, he declares, will most likely lead to “the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” ”

    Because apocalyptic theocratic nutjobs yearning for end times would never ever ever use nukes if they got them. It’s not like they’ve ever blown themselves up trying to kill other people. And they’re especially guaranteed to be sane, stable, and peaceful if they really really really hate Da Joos.

  20. Yeah! Why is everyone so bent out of shape? Don’t we have to agree to these deals to find out what’s in them?

  21. What are The Saudis paying the Clintons for? http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/…..di-arabia/

  22. But Obama, being familiar with Munich, may have noticed that 1) it didn’t work and 2) Chamberlain has been notorious ever since as a foolish appeaser. If this deal has half the gruesome consequences the Republicans predict, he will spend his retirement years in disgrace, his name synonymous with monumental gullibility.

    it would not be the first time Obozo has failed to learn from history. Perhaps he is hoping his legacy will be as the appeaser who gave a rogue nation of islam the bomb?

    Assuming the president set out to engage in futile appeasement, he had an odd way of going about it. The Munich agreement was drafted and signed in a matter of days. The Iran negotiations took two years. The Munich agreement was 522 words long. This one fills 159 pages.

    Had the administration been willing to settle for simply giving Iran everything it wanted, the talks would have concluded quickly and the text would be very brief.

    Have you ever heard anyone accuse Obozo of being brief? Or intelligent?

  23. The upshot of the article seems to be “Why would Oblama make a deal that could result in bad consequences? That would make his legacy a negative one?”
    The same answer would be given as to why demoncraps lie, like rugs, virtually every time they open their pie-holes.
    Because we have a sycophantic media, that never holds those people accountable for their words, or actions. And media reports are how history gets written.
    The Mullahs could lob a bomb at Israel, tomorrow, and the media will say that Oblama, and Kerry were responsible for the delay, through their tough negotiating.

  24. They said Sherman was crazy back in the summer of (18)61 regarding the length and extent of bloodshed in the Civil War. I hope Mr Chapman is right.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.