Originally posted at American Thinker blog
After proselytizing the Kenyans on the subject of gay rights, Barack Obama, the man who becomes irate if people disagree with him, dropped in on Washington D.C.’s American University to badger Iran deal critics into submission with a baffling amount of bombast.
The premise of the president’s argument is that it’s not fair to oppose the Iran deal, or justify war, without first giving a diplomatic agreement the chance to fail.
Barack Obama’s posturing began when he linked his anti-war stance with JFK’s “concrete actions and effective agreements,” which, according to Obama, “avoided nuclear catastrophe…and…created time and space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.”
After admitting that the agreement with Iran “does not resolve all problems,” the Nobel Peace Prize winner contended that the deal with Iran is his effort to avoid the unilateral U.S. action vs. international consensus and exaggerated “mindset” that led us into the Iraq war.
Then, without accepting one iota of responsibility for the obliteration of everything that was accomplished in Iraq prior to his taking office in 2009, Obama the Arbitrator said that when dealing with a lying regime that vows to wipe Israel off the map and declares “Death to America, his “preference [is] for a peaceful diplomatic solution.”
Barack Obama began setting the opposition straight by injecting political put-downs and references to “partisan prisons, headline-grabbing headlines… [and]…virulent opposition.”
Among other things, the president clarified that even though the process for resolving inspections of an Iranian “suspicious undeclared site,” could take up to 24 days, inspectors “will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites.”
Great. If the Iranians deny inspectors daily access, a mere 24 days after being denied, access will be granted.
Obama also mentioned that he didn’t believe the Iranians would behave like Bruce Jenner did for 65 years and hide nuclear material, because “nuclear material isn’t something you hide in a closet.”
What the president didn’t elaborate upon was whether or not Iranians would bury nuclear material in a covert facility similar to the secret enrichment facility discovered in Fordo.
Either way, no worries, because although Obama has been unable to find Lois Lerner’s emails or been successful at catching illegal felons with stolen guns running around sanctuary cities, and despite his inability to catch Jihadi John, Barack Obama vowed that after 24 days, “The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.”
When referring to prohibition of weapons-related research, the president threw around the word “permanent,” but then went on to admit that the peaceful program limitations would last only 15 years, which is a far cry from permanent.
Then, after reassuring the supportive audience that his diplomatic expertise alone can prevent war, the president offered the disclaimer that if the permanent measures fail, in 15 years the U.S. will have better tools to stop what could have been prevented 15 years earlier.
From there Obama segued to the $56 billion in sanctions relief Iran will receive, which is probably enough money to finally accomplish the full ushering in, via world chaos, of the 12th and final Imam/savior of humankind, aka Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Mahdī.
In the president’s limited, one-sided mind, disagreeing with sanctions is on par with rejecting diplomacy. In other words, just to make a new friend, Barack Obama would hire a known pedophile to run a preschool based purely on the child abuser’s promise to keep his hands off the children.
Conciliator Barack did concede that Iran would funnel money into their military, as well as other “pernicious activities” America objects to. However, according to President Mediation Expert’s estimation, Iran will use most of the sanction relief to improve the lives of the Iranian people.
So the president, who doesn’t trust law-abiding Americans with legal firearms, believes that a terrorist regime, rather than use the money to advance their nuclear capability, will fund pensions, pay salaries, and pave the very streets where Iranian leaders hold public beheadings.
Then, in an effort to convince those who oppose the diplomatic deal with Iran, the president acknowledged that the group we’re about to bestow $56 billion upon “supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah… proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq…[and]… tried to destabilize our Gulf partners.”
Barack Obama explained that with or without the sanctions relief, Iran has been engaged in these sorts of nefarious activities for decades. So in other words, giving Iran money is similar to the liberal ‘they’re going to do it anyway’ argument that drug addicts should be provided with clean needles and that free condoms should be handed out to sexually active 13-year-olds.
The president also contended that risking Iran getting the bomb is reasonable because although “Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America’ [that] does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.” In fact, said Obama:
[i]t’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.
So, in an attempt to convince Congress to support his diplomatic deal with a genocidal terrorist state, Barack Obama gave a pass to Iranians he doesn’t know while comparing the Republican Caucus, not to mention 50% of the American people, to Iranian hardliners who chant ‘Death to America.’
Leaving no stone unturned, the president rationalized that if he agreed with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu’s defiant stance against the Iranian deal he would be “act[ing] against his better judgment,” which would be an “abrogation of [the] constitutional duty,” he habitually flouts.
Then, for good measure, to those who he says “have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong,” repeatedly wrong Obama issued the same confrontational dare he posed concerning Obamacare and immigration reform when he “challenge[d] anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, more plausible alternative.”
Finishing up his Iran-bad/Iran-deal-good spiel, peacenik Obama placed the full onus on Congress:
If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.
On the other hand, if Congress doesn’t kill this deal and Iran does acquire a nuclear bomb, what the world stands to lose thanks to Barack Obama will be more precious than our “credibility as a leader of diplomacy” or our standing as the “anchor of the international system.”