Obama’s terrible Iran speech: My Republican critics are making “common cause” with Iranian hardliners

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Hot Air:

The lowest moment from what was probably the lowest speech of his presidency — so far. David Harsanyi, watching this, asks a good question:

 

Imagine what would have happened if Bush had said that Democrats were caucusing with Saddam Hussein?

 

 

The GOP opposes the nuclear deal because they think it’s too favorable to Iran and not favorable enough to America. The hardliners in Iran’s parliament oppose the deal for the opposite reason. Insofar as they both want the deal to fail, I suppose that’s “common cause.” But then, as Harsanyi says, it must also be true that Barack Obama made “common cause” with Saddam Hussein since both of them thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obama thought it was a bad idea for U.S. and Iraqi security whereas Saddam thought it was a bad idea for his own personal security, but the reasoning is immaterial apparently. All that matters to “common cause” is how the parties to an issue align. Or at least, 12 years after the invasion of Iraq, that’s all that matters now. I wonder what Democrats like Steve Israel, who came out against the Iran deal yesterday, thought when they found out today that they’re on the same side as the worst fanatics in Iran’s government.

 

Actually, Obama’s insult may be worse than it at first appears. The major theme of this speech, as it always, always is — and always disingenuously — when Obama talks about diplomacy with Iran is that the only alternative is war. Reportedly he went so far today in a private meeting with Jewish leaders as to claim that Iranian rockets will rain down on Tel Aviv if the GOP-led Congress blocks the deal, because that will lead to war with Iran and war will lead to Iranian reprisals against Israel. Never mind that Iranian-made rockets already rain down on Israel every few years thanks to Hezbollah and that the sanctions relief Iran is getting from this deal will help pay for more of them. Never mind too that Israel’s own prime minister seems to think reprisals are a risk worth taking in the name of stopping an Iranian atomic bomb. The point, at least to Obama, is that only a warmonger would oppose this terrible deal, which all but endorses an Iranian bomb 10 years from now. Equating the Republicans in Congress with Iran’s hardliners was his way of suggesting, I think, that both of those groups actually seek war with each other in the name of advancing their own political interests. There’s no such thing as good-faith opposition to an Obama policy, at least outside the Democratic caucus. If GOP hawks hate his nuclear deal, it can only be because they’ve got Gulf War III on the brain and refuse to let some master stroke of diplomacy deter them.

________

 

Remember, if you don't like this deal, you don't like America. Yeesh.

[Valin]

I also liked the part about the moderates to the Iranian government.

[Valin]

 

791 comments

 

I really love this well informed double plus more smarter person

 

Evan Witt 3 days ago

+Xxpsphacksx

Iran is not at war with the US, and claiming that there's no difference between open hostility and open warfare betrays all sense of political nuance. Prager seems to believe that Iran, while at war with the United States, will also be allowing United States inspectors into the country to review their nuclear capabilities. Can you think of another time when one country at war with another allowed their inspectors into their nuclear facilities?

________________________________________________________________________________

There is stupid, then there's stupid them there's Evan Witt, who takes stupidity to a whole new level.

[Valin]

MSNBC Calls Out Earnest to His Face When He Denies Obama Compared GOP to Iran Hardliners

 

[Geee]

Who Is the One Actually Making Common Cause with Iran’s Hard-Liners, Mr. President?

 

Charles Krauthammer

 

he latest Quinnipiac poll shows that the American public rejects the president’s Iran deal by more than 2-to-1. This is astonishing. The public generally gives the president deference on major treaties. Just a few weeks ago, a majority supported the deal.

 

What happened? People learned what’s in it.

 

And don’t be fooled by polls that present, as fact, the administration’s position in the very question. The Washington Post/ABC poll assures the respondent that, for example, “international inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again. Do you support or oppose this agreement?”

Well, if you put it that way, sure. But it is precisely because these claims are so tendentious and misleading that public — and congressional — opinion is turning.

Inspections? Everyone now knows that “anytime, anywhere” — indispensable for a clandestine program in a country twice the size of Texas with a long history of hiding and cheating — has been changed to “You’ve got 24 days and then we’re coming in for a surprise visit.” New York restaurants, observed Jackie Mason, get more intrusive inspections than the Iranian nuclear program.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422180/obama-speech-iran-hard-liners-republicans