This is exactly the outcome we should have expected from the generation that thought that we were morally wrong in Vietnam, rather than just strategically wrong.
The generation that came up with the slogan What if we had a war and nobody came? in order to oppose that war is attempting to impose upon us a peace to which no one will pay attention --a peace that could very well lead to another war, a worse war, under the worse possible conditions.
Like a lot of things with liberals, their politicians are living in a world that makes little sense outside the White House.
After all the handwringing, all the posturing, Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out that the agreement with Tehran that the Obama administration is trying to get done – the one that would help Iran gain a nuclear weapon and peace (?)—is after all largely symbolic.
That’s because it won’t be legally-binding.
Ever wonder how politicians make their money in the stock markets? I can help you unlock that secret. Studies show that members of Congress and their staff enjoy HUGE benefits over average investors when it comes to the stock market. Get your FREE report from me, John Ransom, on how to make money on what insiders know right here: http://www.FreeRansomReport.com
“We are not negotiating a legally binding plan,” Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
Duh. Of course it won’t be.
I mean it WOULD be if Democrats had control of the Senate. Because of course the Senate has to approve the treaty. And they won’t approve it; at least not in time for Obama to sign it. And that’s because the Senate is controlled by Republicans.
Lost in all the phone-wielding and pen exercising that Obama has done in the executive office is the fact that treaties with foreign powers have to be OK’d by the Senate.
To this extent Obama has done the GOP a big favor.
Now every Senate candidate up for reelection will have to go on the record as to whether they would support or oppose Iran getting the bomb.
Make no mistake, polls may say Americans want to negotiate limited uranium enrichment for Iran, but polls also say that Americans overwhelmingly support military action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear device. Even the Washington Post has been forced to acknowledge this.
“But polls do indicate Americans are looking to deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program,” wrote the Post at the beginning of the month, “and are willing to back it up with the full force of the U.S. military.”
That aren’t many places today where a majority of both Democrats and Republicans are willing to deploy military forces.
But Iran is one of them.
And as per usual, Kerry, Obama and their Merry Band of Misfits have it exactly wrong.
Last week I wrote about Kerry and Obama’s apparent willingness to deploy military force in Syria, Libya and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa to enact regime change.But for some unaccountable reason, they seem to OK with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.
It’s like Lt. Gen. (Ret) William Boykin told me on Ransom Notes Radio: If the Obama administration isn’t intentionally helping Iran get a bomb, they certainly are doing it unintentionally.
It’s ironic and perhaps fitting that the last worst president in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter was undone by Iran. It’s ironic and perhaps fitting that the Democrats could be undone by the new worst president’s policy on Iran.
In both cases, American will just have to accept that for the next two years hostages will be held by Iran—again.
But this time, it’s all of us.