"
For the past 10 years, world powers have been talking to Iran. Meanwhile, Iran has been creating facts on the ground by building the elements of a nuclear weapons program and the long-range missiles needed to deliver a nuclear warhead."
Yet once again, the Obama administration is asking Congress to hold off on additional sanctions to give time for diplomacy to work. Tougher sanctions, we are warned, could upset the delicate balance inside Iran and poison the well for a deal.
I disagree. Tough sanctions are exactly what has brought Iran to the table now, and tightening sanctions as we engage diplomatically affords us the opportunity to apply further pressure and force Iran’s leaders to choose between regime survival and a nuclear weapon.
... we should take this opportunity to meet with Iran. We should test out the sincerity of Iran’s proposals, but our patience must be limited. The past decade should give us little optimism and great skepticism about Iranian intentions.
It is far too premature to let up the pressure.
Portions of a Marco Rubio piece on Politico
15 comments:
"We can't wait. I don't care what Sollozzo says about a deal. He's gonna kill Pop. That's it. That's the key for him. Gotta get Sollozzo."
-- Michael Corleone, The Godfather (1972)
This administration is going to do everything in its power to assure that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and change the dynamic for leverage with regards to the middle east as a whole. Then Iran is going to threaten if not outright use a nuke. The rest will be pure speculation. Israel isn't going to wait and they will give Urkel the middle finger.
Lem, your post "Dont Go Wobbly On Iran" is operating under the false assumption that the Obama Administration has not already gone wobbly on Iran.
Methadras said...
This administration is going to do everything in its power to assure that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and change the dynamic for leverage with regards to the middle east as a whole.
The left doesn't want Iran to get a nuke, they've just backed themeselves into a corner. A belligerent Iran means a reduction in military spending is risky. It's so much easier to advocate reductions in defense spending (to increase spending on their voters) if you also claim to believe America faces no military threats. It's always about the money.
I am convinced this administration and its sponsors are back in the "Fortress America" mentality. They don't care what stirs up the enemies, in the false belief that said enemies can't reach us here. Further that they, the grand sponsors of our punk status today, don't see any "gain" in anything else for them.
I think I will go visit NYC to see the twin spires of the WTC. Whot? You say....?
Evi L. Bloggerlady said...
Lem, your post "Dont Go Wobbly On Iran" is operating under the false assumption that the Obama Administration has not already gone wobbly on Iran.
No shit. This administration went wobbly punk puke ass on day one. They failed to achieve a SOFA agreement in Iraq, and will do so as well in Afghanistan. They do-not-care. In the last 3 years in Afghanistan they managed the genius tactics to lose more American lives than in the entire 7-8 years prior to their expertise and advent of their political generals du jour. The administration only likes killing enemies when they can do it in secret with a drone, which means if they miss or or goes badly, they can deny knowledge. The think that a fuck up like Bengahzi orchestrated by John Brennan deserves a promotion to D-CIA. Go figure.
We're fucked until we are rid of the punk fucker in the White House and all of his acolytes and sponsors.
Any time some gormless little shit like Rubio says that we aren't 'tough' enough you know for certain that everything else you are going to hear will be complete BS, and it won't involve any personal risk on his part. Rubio is trying, desperately, to distance himself from his very prominent role in immigration reform. Good luck with that Marco.
I saw a "RUBIO 2016" bumper sticker just off Maitland Blvd today. That's all it said, so it wasn't clear if the sticker was advocating a reelection for Rubio to the Senate, or advocating a Rubio Presidency. Either way, the person driving was a complete moron who sat parked at a green light and then sped through the intersection after the light turned red.
Meanwhile, back at the farm:
This is another case of the government picking winners and losers. Losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.
By design, this favors large organizations over small businesses. The Dems want a country of aristocrats and peasants.
And I should be clear that I think Republican elites want a country of peasants and aristocrats as well. And libertarians claim they don’t want that, but the policies they end up supporting tend to work that way.
I think a Perot-type could probably get over 30% of the vote in a Presidential election now. Unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen. Hell, I think someone running on the reforms that that arch-conservative Douglas MacArthur insisted on in post-war Japan could score about 30% of the vote. But both parties are wedded to one-way free trade, and both parties are wedded to Big Finance, and they’re not going to let anyone else crowd their space.
For once, I must agree with Troll.
Get a job.
Rubio has fatally damaged himself with much of the base because of his immigration bill.
It seems unlikely that he can recover when there are people like Cruz or Walker who will take his votes.
He is dead in the water.
The thing is, Trooper, that Rubio was never anything other than another establishment Republican. He just got elected in 2010 because the choice was between him, Crist (ugh) or some nameless worthless Democrat (ugh).
Marco Rubio = Mitch McConnell - (29 years) - (Scottish sounding name) + (Spanish sounding name)
Phil 3:14 said...
Reference: " We're fucked until we are rid of the punk fucker in the White House "
Ahh, I so enjoy the witty repartee
Give the remark fuller context ...
Reference: " In the last 3 years in Afghanistan they managed the genius tactics to lose more American lives than in the entire 7-8 years prior to their expertise and advent of their political generals du jour ... They think that a fuck up like Bengahzi orchestrated by John Brennan deserves a promotion to D-CIA."
This is fairly aggravating to me based upon some of my former lines of work. So, yes, we truly are fucked until the artificial magic weasel and his cohorts are gone.
A man, among all his grand "successes" of course, who does not care who gets killed or who he kills is perfectly capable of hurting you and feeling no remorse. Now you tell me when the punk fucker in the White House has ever said "I regret the additional unnecessary loss of lives caused" and we can have some "repartee."
Maybe we can find an undelivered memo in his belongings years hence like was found in Eisenhower's papers written the morning the day before D-Day that expressed profound regret and sense of responsibility.
If you like having blue lips, hold your breath....however, even under Obamacare that is not recommended unless you are already over 64 YOA.
Post a Comment