Saturday, March 14, 2015


Democrats smell blood. They haven’t had much good news lately, so they are jumping on what appears to be a great opportunity.

Like hungry sharks they are feasting on Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s open letter (co-signed by nearly fifty other senators) to the Iranian ayatollahs. They have called it appalling, treasonous, traitorous and embarrassing. They are using a level of vituperation and vilification that had previously been reserved for the prime minister of Israel.

Cotton’s letter was posted on his website, for all to see. It was not a back-channel attempt to undermine Obama administration efforts to give Iran the bomb. Surely, it has not undermined Obama administration efforts to give Iran power over Iraq. That part of the Obama policy is advancing apace.

It’s easier to denounce Senator Cotton than it is to defend Obama’s negotiating skills. After all, Obama’s Iraq policy was defined by his failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq. And, lest we forget, Obama did manage to trade five Taliban commanders for an army deserter.

When his presidency is over he can moderate: Let’s Make a Deal.

The parents of Kayla Mueller, a hostage executed by ISIS suggested that the terrorists increased the price for her release substantially after they saw the how poorly Obama negotiated for deserter Bergdahl.

Time to call the Priceline negotiator. Where’s William Shatner when we need him?

The army has now finished its investigation of Beau Bergdahl’s desertion, but the Obama administration has suppressed the report. Guess why?

Anyway, the Democrats are caterwauling about how Sen. Cotton is undermining the brilliant negotiation efforts of Sec. of State John Kerry and Wendy Sherman.

Who is Wendy Sherman? Glad you asked. She forged the deal that helped North Korea acquire nuclear weapons. Perhaps, you don’t remember, but the deal that Sherman, working for the Clinton administration negotiated was supposed to ensure that North Korea did not go nuclear.

We know how that one worked out. Obviously, Sherman is eminently qualified to do the same for Iran.

Like I said, where’s William Shatner when you need him?

If Cotton was trying to undermine negotiations with Iran, one might say that he was doing God’s work. By now the Obama administration has helped the mullahs to acquire everything it wants. To fulfill its wishes, the administration needs only to legitimize Iran’s future nuclear weapons?

Whatever the merits of the case, the Cotton letter provoked a fury. Among the cries emanating from Democratic (and some Republican) precincts is the word “unprecedented.” Apparently, certain politicians and pundits want us to believe that it has never before happened that a sitting United States Senator has interfered with the nation’s foreign policy.

Yesterday, Obama the negotiator weighed in himself. The Washington Post quoted him:

"For them to address a letter to the ayatollah ... who they claim is our mortal enemy, and their basic argument to them is, 'Don't deal with our president because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement.' That's close to unprecedented."

In truth, Senator Cotton was reminding the ayatollahs—who, despite what Obama said, are our mortal enemies—that the United States constitution grants the Senate the power to ratify treaties—otherwise called the power to advise and consent.

Since Obama will not be president after January, 2017 his ability to abide by the terms of the treaty is not at issue. And besides, only Barack Obama believes that the problem lies in whether or not the United States abides by its treaty obligation. The real problem lies in whether or not we can trust Iran.

And yet, Obama is offended by the Cotton letter because the senators “claimed” that Iran was our mortal enemy. Does anyone but Obama believe that Iran is not our mortal enemy?

That Obama is treating a mortal enemy as a friend, lifting sanctions against it and giving it control over Iraq… should give us pause.

A man who knows no shame, who has no shame about the extraordinary failure of his Middle East policy should not try to shame anyone else. He should not say that anyone should feel “embarrassed” for pointing out obvious facts.

At the least, Obama’s statement is intellectually incoherent.

To add injury to insult, we read on Powerline that, in 2008, candidate Barack Obama actively undermined ongoing negotiations between the Bush administration and Iran. He let the mullahs know that they could get a far better deal with him.

In that, dare we say, he was good to his word.

On June 8, 2008 Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for president. On July 20 the Iranian regime withdraw from negotiations with the Bush administration about its nuclear weapons program.

Why did it do so?

Michael Ledeen reported:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Again, Obama kept his word to the mullahs. To the American people, not so much.

Hinderaker explained:

Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on. When an interim agreement in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” was announced in late 2013, Iran’s leaders exulted in the fact that the West had acknowledged its right to continue its uranium enrichment program….

Of course, the Cotton letter was not communicated in secret. It did not establish a de facto alliance between an American presidential candidate and the Iranian mullahs.

Effectively, Obama’s actions were more reprehensible. They demonstrated his manifest sympathy for the Iranian Islamist terrorists.

In Hinderaker’s words:

 Unlike Obama, they [the Senators] have done nothing in secret. They have published an “open letter” that is intended for the Obama administration and the American people as much as for Iran’s leaders. The letter spells out basic truths relating to our Constitution and the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties. Unlike Obama’s secret overture to Iran, the GOP senators aren’t discouraging Iran from dealing with Obama so that they can get a better deal later. On the contrary, their letter strengthens Obama’s bargaining position. He can say, “Even if I wanted to, I can’t give in on nuclear enrichment. It would never get through the Senate.” But of course, that isn’t what Obama wants to do. He wants to agree to a weak deal that will allow Iran to become a nuclear power. The Democrats are upset because the senators’ letter shines the light of truth on the Obama administration’s plan to give away the store.

As of now, the Obama administration does not plan to submit any Iran nuclear deal to the Senate. It has announced, however, that it will submit the agreement to the United Nations Security Council.

When a president defies the United States Constitution, when he considers himself to be a citizen of the world before he is the leader of the United States, what else can Senators do?


priss rules said...

"Who is Wendy Sherman? Glad you asked. She forged the deal that helped North Korea acquire nuclear weapons. Perhaps, you don’t remember, but the deal that Sherman, working for the Clinton administration negotiated was supposed to ensure that North Korea did not go nuclear."

Well, it didn't help that US invaded Iraq(over lies about WMD) and then declared North Korea and Iran as the next targets.

However evil an regime may be, it tries to survive, and threatening North Korea in such manner was bound to drive to acquire nukes.

Also, what happened to Libya after Gaddafi cut a deal to end his nuclear program?
US and NATO toppled him and turned Libya into a viper's nest of terrorists who then went off to destabilize Syria.

US is simply not to be trusted.
It's not just Democrats but the GOP too.

Ares Olympus said...

re: When a president defies the United States Constitution, when he considers himself to be a citizen of the world before he is the leader of the United States, what else can Senators do?

Such an innocent rhetorical question, how does one respond?

I'll take Eric Black's opinion:
The Cotton et al letter is not unconstitutional (not to mention that it’s covered by the unquestionable First Amendment right of the senators to express themselves). But it’s reckless and dangerous. It’s a product of Obama Derangement Syndrome. If, in fact, there’s an argument that blowing up the current negotiations will lead to a happier ending, let’s hear how that would happen. It’s a tough case to make, but let’s hear it. But such rational discussion is unnecessary to Syndrome sufferers who know that the deal, which they haven’t seen, will be a bad one because Obama is for it.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

priss rules @March 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM:

"However evil an regime may be, it tries to survive..."

Okay, so what are we supposed to do? Enable them? Or should we do nothing? Or should we say we're doing something, while we're really doing nothing? You pick. But doing nothing is, in fact, a choice.

Obama is currently enabling the Iranian theocracy's nuclear ambitions, and we have no options because we've largely disengaged from the world, jetsetting around using hollow rhetoric instead of powerful diplomacy backed by an actionable military deterrent. Sure, evil regimes may try to survive, but we need to back up our words with the possibility their regime WON'T survive.

"The US is simply not to be trusted. It's not just Democrats but the GOP too."

Okay, then let's just disengage from the world and enjoy the array of beautiful colors that a nuclear detonation makes. Who do you trust? If your answer is "no one," then I guess we're screwed. The United States of America sucks. Game over. Thank you for playing.

When North Korea is eventually liberated from the last vestige of true Stalinism, and you see the human devastation, I hope you'll be there to say "Ahem, they were just trying to survive... all regimes do that, ya know?" That'll make a real difference in the state of our world. Indifferent hanndwashing in the face of unimaginable, evil, calculated suffering. So we made the North Koreans go nuclear? Yeah, right. Did we also make the North Koreans export their nuclear technology to Syria?

Dennis said...

Does this sound familiar?
Leftism requires an army of propagandists and indoctrinators.
It demands fealty in vicious and brutal cult shunning, smearing, slandering, assaults for the slightest divergence.
It suppresses facts, information and evidence that shines the barest glimmer of light.
It is hostile, punitive, angry, jealous and narrow. It is paranoid, illogical, stagnant and toxic.
Leftism is the art of finding old wounds and picking at the scabs to keep them permanently bleeding. It not only does not seek to heal, it is a bloodsucking parasite that requires open sores, oozing, seeping, festering to sustain itself, devouring its host.
It is the long con. Promising a scheme that suckers the gullible and tempts the impressionable. Fools and dupes abound, parroting The Narrative like obedient cultists. Straying from the cult will be met by a swarming, buzzing, stinging, biting hive attack.
ANY ideology that needs to deny truth to exist such as this one requires deprogramming efforts and constant vigilance. The Gruber Droolers will not recognize or accept truth. They are too brainwashed. They are too indoctrinated. They are too terrified of shunning.
Leftism is the world's largest cult. And the most evil.
Socialism is fascism's front man. The shill in the long con of totalitarianism. It strips bare all freedoms and does so by getting the indoctrinated lemmings to vote for their own suicide.
We are at the sunset of resistance to this evil. We have run out of daylight.
I fear for humanity. The next chapter is very likely to be written in darkness .

Read more:

CFBleachers on Professor David Solway's commentary which fits the narrative here.

If much of the democrat party was not guilty of taking the same actions it would be hypocritical of them at the very least to challenge Cotton, who I believe is setting them up. The democrats perfidity is just on too grand a scale to take them seriously.
Considering the fact that Obama was trying to insinuate himself in Israeli politics well before Netanyahu's speech and other places as well.
There are just too many people who think that if we procrastinate, Obama et al, long enough it will all take care of itself, but history has demonstrated that this only magnifies the problems and leads to bigger wars with larger loss of life. One of our problems as we get further away from having had to defend the freedom's we take for granted is we no longer understand the ramifications of inaction and our oceans not longer act as a deterrent to terrorism and war happening here. It is just assumed that ISIS et al will just leave us alone because we ignored them or stated theirs was a peaceful religion. In many ways we have becomes as narcissistic and aloof as those we elect to represent us. When we have significant numbers of people die fro nuclear detonations in this country I wonder how the people who blame America first will blame then?

priss rules said...

"However evil an regime may be, it tries to survive..."

"Okay, so what are we supposed to do? Enable them? Or should we do nothing? Or should we say we're doing something, while we're really doing nothing? You pick. But doing nothing is, in fact, a choice."

How about not driving them into a state of panic so that they will do their utmost to get nukes?

Even before the dust settled in Iraq, Bush was calling out on North Korea.
What do you expect North Korea to do? Just wait like a sitting duck?

Also, US has to win the trust of the world.
Gaddafi was a bad guy but he did scrap his nuclear program in good faith.
So, what happened to him?

Why should any nation trust the US now?

US is also hypocritical on democracy. It fully supported the coups against democratically elected regimes in Egypt and Ukraine.

US plays gangster politics.

Sam L. said...

priss rules wrote, "Well, it didn't help that US invaded Iraq(over lies about WMD)..." Not so. That was the accepted intel position from the time of Clinton, both here and abroad. Saddam said he had them. He gassed (WMD) the Kurds. Such weapons were found in Iraq, and the factories and preparations for building them were found.

Cotton's letter did not and does not negate or interfere with Obama's negotiation. It states that Congress has to ratify any such agreement, and if it doesn't, the agreement will not carry on past January of 2017.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

priss rules @March 15, 2015 at 8:26 AM:

The North Koreans are in a state of panic because they're a Stalinist hermit regime. They're paranoid. That's what Stalinists do. My goodness, you say "wait like a sitting duck?" Are you serious? We've has tens of thousands of soldiers stationed on the DMZ since the "end" of the Korean War. The North Koreans believe that we're still at war. I fully expect them to be in a state of panic. And if you believe the North Koreans started pursuing nuclear weapons because of George W. Bush, I've got a luxury condo in Pyongyang to sell you, stocked with limitless Hennessey cognac, Doritos and kidnapped South Korean actresses... all courtesy of "The Great Successor." He's really smart. He went to karting school in Switzerland. Yeesh.

With Gadaffi, you equate "good faith" with a knack for self-preservation. True scum. We told good ol' Moammar we'd leave him alone, not protect him. He got his just desserts. Just ask Klimghoffer.

I guess we Americans play "gangster politics" because they made us do it... why should we trust anyone anyway?

You're desperate to find anything to draw moral equivalence to. In your mind, Saddam Hussein was practically Santa Claus... cute as a button! Yeah, Saddam... now there's a rational actor.

It's all Bush's fault. Both of them. After all, George H.W. Bush made Saddam try to assassinate him. What kind of great statesman wouldn't try to assassinate a former U.S. president? We made him gas the Kurds. We made Uday and Qusay into the monsters they were. The CIA did it... no, the DIA... no, the NSA... no, Smersh!

Whatever. You probably believe U.S. criminals carry guns because American police officers carry guns.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @March 15, 2015 at 6:02 AM:

Well said.

Yeah, let's try to negotiate with ISIS and maybe they'll leave us alone... just like the last village they razed. After all, my last tarot card reading told me ISIS is just misunderstood by the mean, gangster Americans. Did you know Mars and Aquarius are in Jupiter this month? And the UFO convention is just a week away!

The world is really a safe place. It's just ruined by the bad, bad, bad Americans!

priss rules said...

"The North Koreans believe that we're still at war. I fully expect them to be in a state of panic."

North Korea only exists because US cut Korea like a steak and gave half to Stalin at the close of WWII.
It was FDR's idea to cut Korea in half and hand half to Stalin to do as pleased. Just like how Hitler came up with a deal to cut Poland in half and give half to Stalin.
Ironic, isn't it?
WWII begins with Hitler dividing Poland with Stalin, and WWII ending with FDR offering a similar deal with Korea. Koreans had no say in this whatsoever. That was the nature of their 'liberation' that set the ground for the Korean War that killed 3 to 4 million people.

FDR admired Stalin and his administration was filled with Soviet agents.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Okay, so FDR is responsible for North Korea getting nukes? Should we hold him accountable? Or just Bush?

North Korea invaded South Korea to start the Korean War. Result: stalemate. But South Korea survived, and now has a standard of living many times that of the North Koreans. Should FDR have kept Korea whole and given it to Stalin? Should we have fought a war with Stalin on the heels of World War II so we could've kept the Korean peninsular free? Japan controlled all of Manchuria and Korea, and the Soviets moved in.

So did we make Stalin go nuclear, too? Did is evil regime just want to "survive"?

And the Polish issue isn't ironic, it's normal for nutty totalitarian states to carve up neighbors. They both invaded Poland. It wasn't just Hitker's operation.