The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015


The Wall Street Journal reports what most of us have feared but expected:
More than a month after global diplomats struck an agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for international sanctions relief, the White House secured the backing of 34 senators—the minimum needed to guarantee the deal can advance despite deep and divisive reservations in Congress, especially among Republicans.
Why is it that virtually every major deal (or legislation) that Barack Obama proposes is accompanied by "deep and divisive reservations in Congress?" Why is it that this president can't seem to get bipartisan support for any legislation (or deal) of consequence? Why is it that Obama must lobby his own party to ensure that they support the Iran deal. After all, if the deal was as good as the mendacious claims of Barack Obama and John Kerry, wouldn't democrats flock to support it without reservation or equivocation?

The Democrats own the Iran deal. When violations begin to occur (and they will begin to occur sooner, rather than later), it will be interesting to see if the Dems will be held accountable. My guess is that Obama's trained hamsters in the media will refuse to report violations and that this administration will refuse to admit they have occurred.

When the tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief are funneled by Iran to Islamic terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, in South America, and Indonesia, it will be interesting to see if the Dems will be held accountable. This administration will obfuscate and stonewall, suggesting that any reports of sanctions money flowing to Hamas, Hezballah or dozens of other groups is "just partisan politics."

When Iran uses sanctions relief money to buy long-range missiles and sophisticated defensive weapons to protect those missiles, it will be interesting to see if the Dems will be held accountable. My guess is that Obama's trained hamsters in the media will conveniently forget to report those acquisitions.

When a nuclear arms race commences in the Middle East, it will be interesting to see if the Dems will be held accountable. The administration will point the finger elsewhere, trying to muddy the waters by arguing that it would have occurred anyway.

But no matter. The Democrats own the Iran deal. And a decade from now, when Iran threatens its neighbors with nuclear weapons, when war is imminent, I wonder how many cowards like the 34 Democrat senators who held their noses and supported this deal will say, "we had the best of intentions."

If the Dems truly had the best of intentions, they would have told this president to negotiate a deal that avoided the outcomes I've just discussed. Because they did not, the Democrats own the Iran deal. And they own every negative consequence as well.

UPDATE-I,  (9/3/2015):

The Wall Street Journal is echoing my position that the democrats, in their puppy dog support for Barack Obama and his Iran dead, now own the consequences:
Maryland’s Barbara Mikulski on Wednesday became the 34th Senate Democrat to announce her support for President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, enough to sustain a veto on a resolution of disapproval. So the deal will proceed, and Democrats had better hope it succeeds because they are taking responsibility for Iran’s compliance and imperial ambitions. Politically speaking, they now own the Ayatollahs.

The Democratic co-owners include Vice President Joe Biden, presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and nearly every member of the Congressional leadership. While New York Senator Chuck Schumer came out early against the deal, he has done nothing publicly to rally opponents. His silence suggests he has long known Mr. Obama would have enough votes to prevail.

Democrats will reinforce their ownership if they now use a Senate filibuster to block a vote on the motion of disapproval. More than 50 Senators are expected to oppose the deal, and a large bipartisan majority will oppose it in the House. Yet the White House is pushing for 41 Senate Democrats to enforce a filibuster, so that a bipartisan motion of disapproval dies in the Senate and Mr. Obama wouldn’t have to veto.
The fact that Barack Obama is working double time to encourage a Democrat filibuster of a bipartisan congressional vote that would disapprove of his "deal" is telling, but typical. The "victory" that Obama's trained hamsters in the media crow about isn't a victory at all. It's entirely possible that if they are allowed to vote, 64 to 66 U.S. Senators will express bipartisan displeasure with the deal—about 2/3 of the Senate. Obama can't have that—after all, the "entire world" is for the deal, isn't it.

UPDATE-II,  (9/3/2015):

"Ownership" is becoming a watchword as the enormity of this disastrous Iran deal sinks in. Here's Jonathan Tobin on the subject:
... the most important point to be gleaned from Obama’s seeming triumph is that he and his party now bear complete responsibility for Iran’s good conduct as well as its nuclear program.

Let’s remember that, up until this past winter, it could be argued that Congressional Democrats were as ardent about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the Republicans. Sanctions on Iran — that were opposed by the Obama administration — got overwhelming Democratic support with members of the party like Senator Robert Menendez leading the fight for them. Even tougher sanctions that were also opposed by the president last year also had the support of the vast majority of the Democratic caucuses in both the House and the Senate. Nor was there much enthusiasm among Democrats for the string of concessions that Obama made to Iran in the negotiations led up to the deal.

But once the president got close to achieving his goal of an entente with Iran, he set about the business of peeling away Democrats from that consensus position. To date only two in the Senate — Menendez and New York’s Chuck Schumer — resisted the pressure and even Schumer promised not to try and persuade other Democrats to join him. The power of the presidency and the threat of unleashing a wave of slander and perhaps primary opposition from the president’s left-wing admirers was enough to force Democrats into his camp.

The statements of support from each Democrat betrayed their lack of enthusiasm for a deal that all admitted wasn’t the triumph that Obama was crowing about. They know it doesn’t achieve the administration’s stated goal when the negotiations began of stopping Iran’s program. At best it postpones it for a decade or 15 years. Meanwhile Iran is allowed to continue research and keep its advanced infrastructure as well as the right to go on enriching uranium.
Barack Obama views the Iran deal as a historical capstone for his foreign policy. In a way, it is. Barack Obama's foreign policy is a litany of failure, bad decisions and disastrous consequences. Why should the Iran deal result in anything different.