Clown College Commencement Address

Jonathan Alter argues that a bad deal with Iran is better than no deal because with a deal Iran won't pursue nuclear weapons for a decade; while without a deal the Iranians will race faster to nukes.

The article starts:

The president looks to secure his legacy with a deal that would prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. But can he stave off the hawks both here and in Tehran?

Ah, the president's legacy. Yes, Israel getting nuked would do terrible things to the president's legacy. That's really the important issue here, right?

Oh, wait. What's that thing Alter wrote about holding off hawks here and in Tehran?

Yeah:

If President Obama and his defenders can't tell the difference between Iran's hardliners who want nukes and our "hardliners" who want a deal that actually keeps Iran from getting nukes, how am I supposed to trust the administration can tell the difference between Iranian hardliners and "moderates?"

So I'm going to stop commenting on a silly author making silly points about a very serious topic.