Washington Post: Republicans Mindlessly Oppose Iran Going Nuclear

kerry-khatami1

That assessment comes from the mindless Dana Milbank who dedicates the bulk of his column to taking cheap shots at Republican tweets because apparently the Washington Post now doubles as Twitchy. Few people can invest gravitas into a tweet. And they rarely bother.

Dana Milbank doesn’t particularly bother defending the Iran sellout because it’s easier to mock Tweets than to defend letting a terrorist state go nuclear.

Somewhere near the end he writes, “In the eyes of Republicans, the agreement with Iran has a fatal flaw: It was negotiated by the Obama administration. This president could negotiate a treaty promoting baseball, motherhood and apple pie, and Republicans would brand it the next Munich.”

And Churchill only opposed Munich because of his political ambitions. Not because of the whole “Giving in to Hitler” thing. Political cynicism of that kind is easy and cheap. And no doubt politicians have their own career angles. But it doesn’t make a bad decision any less bad.

Considering the lack of appetite for conflict and the unfolding ObamaCare disaster, Republicans would have found it easier to say nothing and let Obama own the disaster.

In his sole paragraph addressing the actual merits of the deal, Milbank writes; “The opposition in this case is particularly mindless. Certainly there are reasons to be skeptical that Iran will act in good faith. But the deal is temporary — six months — and easily reversible. In the (likely) event that Iran doesn’t agree to a permanent accord to end its nuclear program, the tougher sanctions contemplated in Congress could be applied. Would it be better to go to war now without exhausting diplomatic options? We’ve been there and done that — when Ari Fleischer stood on the White House podium.”

Iran’s nuclear development over six months is easily reversible? Remember Milbank is one of those smart liberals. Not one of those dumb Republican tweeters. So when he says that a nuclear program’s development over six months is easily reversible, it must be true.

Just like North Korea’s program was easily reversible when it turned out that Clinton’s agreement with North Korea was worthless.

And don’t worry. If Iran gets the bomb, there will be tougher sanctions. Those worked on North Korea. Right?

We haven’t exhausted all our diplomatic options yet. Not in Iran. Or in North Korea. Or in Sudan. Why rush into a war now when we can fight a war against a nuclear armed terrorist state. Only mindless Republicans would turn down that deal.

  • vespo08

    No one is rushing into war. When your enemy tells you their mission is to annihilate Israel and inflict damage on the United States you may want to take that warning serious. When Iran refers to Israel as the Little Satan and U.S. as the Big Satan and seeks to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, you may want to take them serious? Just saying.

    • DogmaelJones1

      Well, yes, taking them seriously enough to eradicate a state that sponsors terrorism. It’s quite simple. Remove the Iranian mullahs and their psychopathic government from existence, and the fat lady sings.

  • http://fdnyretiree.com/ Ed FDNYRetiree

    The only “mindless” activity here is imbecile Obwana and traitor Kerry advocating for nukes for the world’s most treacherous rogue nation.

  • Johnnnyboy

    The deal is not so much about Israel as Saudi Arabia. The Saudis would very plainly prefer not to go nuclear. That is why they keep talking about it. But they are going to be largely compelled to become a nuclear armed country if this deal goes forward. If we can not halt it, we should still be trying to deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Instead this deal encourages it.

    What it amounts to is that even if you are indifferent to Israel this deal is a bad business. And as for Israel, they could easily end up being collateral damage in an nuclear exchange between more populous nations.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “If we can not halt it, we should still be trying to deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Instead this deal encourages it.”

      Excellent use of extreme understatement.

      Notice that in Berkeley it’s against the law to merely transport any “nuclear materials” but few if any mind Iran working on nuclear weapons and compatible missile delivery systems. They must assume that the entire west coast won’t be targeted because Ca is so “multicultural.”

  • glpage

    Obviously, Milbank controls the Iranian nuclear effort rewind button.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “This president could negotiate a treaty promoting baseball, motherhood and apple pie, and Republicans would brand it the next Munich.”

    Or he could cure cancer. The racists would be against him no matter what. How do we know? Well because he…almost did those things with 0′Bamacare and the racists still hate him! Even when it’s clear that Utopia is imminent, they’ll still hate him and deny his role in bringing forth our perfected government and the value of the lives our government will save spiritually with new social justice paradigms.

  • Texas Patriot

    Israel needs to go into immediate lock-down mode and total nuclear war defense footing for the foreseeable future. If Israel’s borders are not secure, they need to be. If “Iron Dome” is not totally impenetrable by any missile from anywhere, it needs to be. If Israel’s strategic air defenses are not on full alert all the time, they need to be. If a “suitcase nuke” can be carried in across Israel’s borders at any time or by any means, that possibility needs to be eliminated. From this point forward Israel should consider itself ground-zero for a nuclear strike from multiple Islamic states, and be prepared for any eventuality. The bozos in Washington have no clue what nuclear war in the middle east may look like. The bottom line is that, come what may, Israel needs to make sure that she comes out on top.

  • http://www.twitter.com/changeirannow Change Iran Now

    Let’s not forget PM Chamberlain appeasing Hitler and saying to the Brits that he “brought home peace for our time” and that “you can go home now and sleep peacefully in your beds”. That entire Chamberlain’s peace agreements with Hitler did was to allow Hitler more time to build up his war machine and to invade the rest of Europe. As we all know, Hitler then waged a bombing campaign upon Briton with such ferocity that nobody could “sleep peacefully in their beds”