Here we go again with the idea that a deal with Iran would be a similar geopolitical triumph:
Obama's 'Nixon Goes to China' Moment?
I have no doubt that the president wants a major foreign deal for his "legacy."
But the reason we have the expression, "only Nixon can go to China" is because Nixon had a solid anti-Communist record and so had the credibility to argue that moving to ally with communist China to resist the Soviet Union was in our interest.
In what alternate universe has President Obama earned credibility for his resolve to resist anything other than Republicans and the dread Straw Man?
A deal with Iran wouldn't be a "Nixon goes to China" moment. It will be a "Chamberlain goes to Munich" moment, with equally wrong-headed boasts that we have achieved peace for our time.
Although if President Obama claims we've achieved "peace with honor," maybe I'll reopen the Nixon comparison.
Of course, that utterance would still leave the Munich comparison open. So the scale of our defeat may be subject to debate--after we awaken from our nice quiet sleep, of course.
UPDATE: Stupidity continues:
News that 47 Republican senators sent a signed letter to Iran's leaders warning them against cutting a deal with the Obama administration had many Americans openly questioning whether the action constituted treason.
I sincerely doubt that "many" Americans are actually questioning that.
If Iran is the enemy in question, Democrats should be careful about throwing that charge around. Just who in this drama is "giving aid and comfort" to Iran, a country that has the blood of a lot of Americans on its hands?
That letter gave Iran a lesson in separation of powers, and that an agreement with President Obama not ratified by the Senate is not an agreement with the United States.
Of course, Iran might think two more years are enough.
UPDATE: I don't know if actual people are questioning the letter, but Democrats sure are.
But their charge of "treason" or like attacks questioning the patriotism of Republican senators rests on shaky ground for them. It rests on the notion that Iran is our "enemy."
You can't have treason if you don't have an enemy to give aid and comfort to, no?
So perhaps this is progress. The Left has generally defined nations as either friends who are not pure enough to be our friends and countries we just haven't tried hard enough to make our friends. "Enemies" had no place in their lexicon.
Maybe Republicans should amend the AUMF against ISIL to include Iran, eh?
And check out Hillary Clinton desperate for people to believe the vast majority of her private off-the-books emails were about funerals and cat videos and talk about anything but that:
"There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters' signatories," Clinton added.
Look!
Say, here's a third logical answer. The Republican senators are letting Iran (and our president) know that if the Iranians manage to get a deal from President Obama and that idiot savant, Kerry, that is so good for Iran's nuclear ambitions that the mullahs cannot avoid concluding that God really is on their side, that our Senate will not go along with the fiction of peace for our time.
UPDATE: If President Obama wants a real "Nixon goes to China" moment for Iran, here's an old post of mine that argues that only a future President Obama could get away with striking Iran.
