"Sad"

Overseas at the moment, Barack Obama continues his vilification of anyone who suggests that the Iran "deal" might not be in the best interests of the United States, the western world, and the Middle East. Sitting on his high moral perch, Obama suggests that his critics are "sad" and that it's really all political posturing, i.e., that there is no basis for criticism. It's a familiar trope from this failed president—a man who has a catastrophic foreign policy record, made all the worse by his capitulation to the Mullahs of Iran.

Meanwhile, a pre-eminent member of Obama's Team of 2s, Secretary of State John Kerry, gives new meaning to the phrase "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." In his testimony before Congress, Kerry demonstrated yet again that it's far better to stonewall than to disclose and far more effective to take delusional positions with an air of confidence than it is to tell the truth.

This administration sets all of its hopes on low information voters and loyal democrats, hoping that in their ignorance (actual or willful) they will accept what Obama, Kerry, Rice et al say about the "deal."

Roger Simon comments on the actual "deal":

Unfortunately for me, unlike my liberal friends, I have been following along closely. It gets quite dense, sort of like reading the minutes of the Wannsee Conference in Farsi.

But to make it easy for you, allow me to put it simply. The Iranians made no concessions, only our side did, and we (especially the State Department) have lied continually to the American people about the extent of our concessions, most of which are hidden from view in side letters. But even if that weren’t so — and it is — the basics are clear. We have given Iran a pathway to a plutonium bomb while entirely gutting any possible inspections regime. We did this by abandoning the promised anytime/anywhere inspections for some bureaucratic mishmash that will take anywhere from 24 days to a year (depending on whom you ask) and by collapsing on the so-called PMDs (possible military dimensions) of Iran’s previous nuclear program, so there is no way to prove what is new and what is not in the first place. And to top it off, we have given the Iranians a signing bonus of $150 billion that, no doubt, will be used to finance either the Tehran branch of the Little Sisters of the Poor or another skillion mid-range missiles for Hezbollah. You decide.

And now DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is in a snit because GOP contender Mike Huckabee suggested that the "deal" will "lead Israel to the door of the ovens." So Huckabee, but not the grand Ayatollah, crossed the line? Somehow progressive Dems are perfectly okay with Iran's human rights abuses, Iran's broad-based sponsorship of terror groups, Iran's persecution of gay people, and Iran's weekly claims that Israel be "wiped off the map." Genocide? Nah, the Mullahs are just joking.

And besides, Barack Obama keeps telling them that this is a "good deal" and that anyone opposed wants war. He insists that Iran might moderate as a consequence of his negotiating acumen and join the circle of Obama's confidants as they all sing Kumbayah.

So, lining up like the Stepford Wives, they parrot the president's statements, feeling oh-so-good that they are demonstrably anti-war. Problem is, their blind obedience to this president is setting the stage for war. Capitulation in 1930s resulted in the death of 60 million people. Capitulation in 2015 will have consequences—serious and dangerous consequences. That's what's "sad."