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.
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?