I don’t think Congress can ultimately impose sanctions on Iran, but it wouldn’t be for lack of trying. With patriots like these who needs Al-Qaeda? The GOP was against this deal even before they knew any of the details, which many are calling beyond a knee-jerk response. So let’s just shorten it to beyond jerks.
Republicans want only one thing, to destroy Obama’s legacy regardless of the consequences. They truly believe everything he is doing is wrong for our country (hint: you’re thinking of Bush). Palin said last week, “I honestly can’t think of one of Obama’s policies that’s working.” She should have stopped after the word “think”. Now if Congress were to work with this President on the issue of sanctions (Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!!!)
“Nominated for The Discord’s Funniest Joke Award 2013.”
—Pierce Winslow, CEO
Seriously. Should Iran fail to comply and then Congress threatened sanctions at the end of this six month period, it could be an effective good cop/bad cop approach. But solving Iran’s nuclear program has nothing to do with this for the Nut-n-yahoos of the world. What?
My guess is this: the base of the base of Congress will try to impose sanctions right now in an effort to derail any of Obama and Kerry’s efforts. The GOP will also stick to the script by continuing to ratchet up the negative rhetoric each step of the way, regardless of the actual negotiation points or the deal itself. Hey, maybe then McCain can have a proper encore for his Beach Boy’s magic?
“And Iran, Iran so bomb away.”
—Flock of Assholes?
I don’t personally care what all the people who got Iraq wrong think about Iran. In a perfect world the neocons would have already been run out of Dodge, or been run over by one. It’s staggering how the right keeps asking the opinion of people who suck at prognosticating, or:
“This guy’s never gotten anything right, I’m curious what he has to say about this topic.”
But could Congress still screw everything up? Brooks doesn’t see much light:
“Any congressional efforts to completely eliminate the president’s foreign-affairs discretion could lead to a constitutional showdown, which Congress would almost certainly lose. If Congress passed new sanctions legislation that the president believed would undermine the deal with Iran, he could veto it; if Congress mustered up the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a veto, the president could simply refuse to implement the sanctions.”
—Rosa Brooks, Foreign Policy
The initial GOP reaction of the Iran deal was covered by The Dish.
“Dana Milbank destroys Ari Fleischer this morning – and deservedly so. Fleischer’s instant reaction to even the news of an agreement – without any knowledge of its details – was to denounce it. Dana calls the faster-than-a-jerking-knee response ‘mindless.’ And how could one argue against that? To denounce something before you even know what it is … well, what else do you call it?”
Then Sullivan lambasts the GOP. I love it when he lambasts:
“It is an attitude – a nasty, belligerent, impulsive attitude, the kind of attitude that gave us the Iraq war and Abu Ghraib, and made the world less, rather than more safe. Or consider Syria. The GOP was determined to stop a military strike and also denounced the UN-Russian deal to secure and destroy Syria’s WMDs! So that’s a no and a no. And the last no was to a policy that has been remarkably successful in ending a major source of WMD worry in the region. They opposed a policy that made Israel more secure.”
As Sullivan insists The GOP remains the party of no, no, no, no, no, no, and no. Wasn’t that a Zombie’s song? Do you think someday it will dawn on The GOP just how much they suck? I’m guessing: Tell her no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no…. How about, It’s the Time of the Season for Bombing? I got a million of ‘em. Okay, not really, I’m already out of Zombie songs. Oh, wait, one more:
“She’s really not there.”
—Mick Zano’s Sarah Palin Zombie joke
Drum weighed in on Netanyahu’s predictable and pointless opinion:
“Given an attitude like that, who’s going to take him seriously? Nobody. Add to that an unending string of personal affronts against President Obama, and it’s a credit to Obama’s self-control that he’s still willing to talk to Netanyahu at all. Obama has been endlessly accommodating toward Netanyahu’s interests, and it’s gotten him nothing in return but condescending lectures and blunt dismissals.”
The GOP hangs on Netanyahu’s every word, because they’re just as radically misguided. Thankfully Obama no longer gives a shit what the neocons think. I like what Mick Zano had to say about this over on The Discord.
“I don’t know how the Syria or the Iran thing is going to go down, but amen we have someone with a brain pursuing all the alternatives. In the context of what he came into and what he has managed to accomplish despite this endless sea of patriotic anarchists remains nothing short of remarkable.”
Hey, I wonder if that link leads right here? When I think about you I link to myself.
“Sorry, this post is getting too silly. Now get on with it!”
Fine. Thus far I give full points to Obama on Syria and Iran, operative words, thus far. But I can smell good stuff-a-coming, or a nuclear holocaust. I’m sure it’s one of the two. This is not going to be easy. The republicans are correct on one point, Iran is not trustworthy. Everything we do in that region of the world is fraught with danger, yet a military strike on Iran would likely be the worst case scenario…you know, what they want to try first.
Post Bush’s infamous strategery any larger military campaigns, land wars, or outright regiment changes are no longer realistic options in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Obama Model—complete with diplomacy, strategic military engagements, and intelligence coordination—has worked amazingly well, at least comparatively.
The best and nearly only tool we have left in our arsenal is diplomacy, so, of course, the republicans don’t want to talk about it.
Tell her no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no…