Did you happen to hear or read president Obama's speech delivered today about why the Iran nuclear deal ought to be approved by Congress? If so, then you already know that it was vintage Obama. The president set up a straw man and argued against it rather than dealing with the realities of the Iran deal. Obama, as usual, announced in solemn tones that the choice America faces is one between approving the Iran deal and war. That's it; it's a binary system; you just get one or the other. The only thing that Obama got right was the initials of binary system. His argument was pure BS.
It's pretty funny if you can take a step back and look at the Obama argument. The choice is supposedly between the deal he negotiated and war. Strange enough, however, we have just gone through nearly a decade of worrying about the Iranian nuclear program, and there has be no deal and no war. How can that be if Obama is correct? We had no deal, but there was no war? How puzzling that must be for Obama. In fact, we had some rather strong sanctions that were imposed on Iran (over Obama's objections), and yet there was no war. There was no attack on Iran by the USA. Even when Iranians were arming those who fought against the USA in Iraq making Iran responsible for thousands of American casualties, there was no attack on Iran by the USA. Nor was there any attack on Iran by other countries. That's right, there was no war. But Obama tells us that it is either his deal or war. How can that be?
The truth is that there are a whole host of other choices besides war and the current deal. For one thing, there could be a better deal; you know, one that actually prevents the Iranians from getting nukes. Then there's the choice of continued sanctions which will squeeze Iran. We also have the alternative of even stronger sanctions to force Iran to submit.
Watching Obama make his phony arguments is extraordinarily upsetting. If the agreement with Iran were not so bad, it would be easier to tolerate the lies and misdirection. But Obama's deal will result in a real detriment to America. Selling that bad deal with blatant lies makes it that much worse.
It's pretty funny if you can take a step back and look at the Obama argument. The choice is supposedly between the deal he negotiated and war. Strange enough, however, we have just gone through nearly a decade of worrying about the Iranian nuclear program, and there has be no deal and no war. How can that be if Obama is correct? We had no deal, but there was no war? How puzzling that must be for Obama. In fact, we had some rather strong sanctions that were imposed on Iran (over Obama's objections), and yet there was no war. There was no attack on Iran by the USA. Even when Iranians were arming those who fought against the USA in Iraq making Iran responsible for thousands of American casualties, there was no attack on Iran by the USA. Nor was there any attack on Iran by other countries. That's right, there was no war. But Obama tells us that it is either his deal or war. How can that be?
The truth is that there are a whole host of other choices besides war and the current deal. For one thing, there could be a better deal; you know, one that actually prevents the Iranians from getting nukes. Then there's the choice of continued sanctions which will squeeze Iran. We also have the alternative of even stronger sanctions to force Iran to submit.
Watching Obama make his phony arguments is extraordinarily upsetting. If the agreement with Iran were not so bad, it would be easier to tolerate the lies and misdirection. But Obama's deal will result in a real detriment to America. Selling that bad deal with blatant lies makes it that much worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment