“There’s no reason for anyone to believe a word he says about anything ever again”

Mark Steyn:

Last June I said of Bowe Bergdahl that he was “a deserter at best and at worst enemy collaborator”. It took officialdom another ten months to conclude he was a deserter; now they’re figuring it’s time to reveal that he was an enemy collaborator:

A 2009 NCIS investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s activities while in Afghanistan reveal that there is clear evidence Bergdahl was “going over to the other side with a deliberate plan,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night.

So the Government of the United States had reason to believe six years ago that Bergdahl was a traitor. As I asked last year and again only two weeks ago, why, knowing what he knew, did Obama stage that Rose Garden ceremony? Why did Susan Rice tell the American people that Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction”? Why did Obama put his hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness?

Setting aside the propriety of trading five Taliban A-listers for a traitor, it’s impossible to look at that Rose Garden theatre as anything other than a conscious deception of the American people by the President. Why would he do that?

Launching his presidential campaign by channeling Ronald Reagan, Senator Rand Paul called for “strong verification measures” with the Government of Iran. Yeah, that’s a great idea. And if the “strong verification measures” work with the Government of Iran, maybe we could try putting them into place with the Government of the United States. Until President Obama explains the fraudulent ceremony he staged for Bergdahl, there’s no reason for anyone to believe a word he says about anything ever again.

Reading Mark Steyn Online should be compulsory although what you get for it, other than being sick to death of the dishonesty and corruption, I cannot honestly say.

Is he malevolent or just stupid?

I have my own answer to this. What I cannot work out is why anyone has a different one. From Daniel Pipes on The Obama Doctrine:

Is this a random series of errors by an incompetent leadership or does some grand, if misconceived, idea stand behind the pattern? To an extent, it’s ineptitude, as when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, threatened Syria’s government over chemical weapons before changing his mind, and now sends the U.S. military to aid Tehran in Iraq and fight it in Yemen.

But there also is a grand idea and it calls for explanation. As a man of the left, Obama sees the United States historically having exerted a malign influence on the outside world. Greedy corporations, an overly-powerful military-industrial complex, a yahoo nationalism, engrained racism, and cultural imperialism combined to render America, on balance, a force for evil.

Being a student of community organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama did not overtly proclaim this view but passed himself off as a patriot, though he (and his charming wife) did offer occasional hints of their radical views about “fundamentally transforming the United States.” On ascending to the presidency, Obama moved slowly, uneager to spread alarm and wanting to be reelected. By now, however, after six full years and only his legacy to worry about, the full-blown Obama is emerging.

The Obama Doctrine is simple and universal: Warm relations with adversaries and cool them with friends.

Picked up at Powerline, under the heading, DANIEL PIPES: THE OBAMA DOCTRINE SERVES UP ONE DISASTER AFTER ANOTHER.

All quiet on the Iranian front

There are other news stories, of course, but the virtually instant disappearance of the negotiations between Obama (not America) and Iran as worth even a mention is astonishing. The majority of the American media, who are as inane as they are ignorant, care about no issue other than whatever it takes to keep a Democrat in the White House. Still, you would think there would be ongoing interest in the terms of the deal and what might be the consequences. It is some consolation that there are people who remain concerned. While Drudge and Instapundit, for example, have gone virtually silent, Powerline and Lucianne continue to treeat this like a story worth examining. Added to the honour role is The Australian today, which carried a front-page story from Greg Sheridan, Obama’s Iranian nuke deal a dismal outcome for the world. I would only differ with Sheridan in that I don’t think Obama was out-negotiated. I think Obama got everything he set out to achieve.

US President Barack Obama has now effectively guaranteed that Iran will eventually acquire ­nuclear weapons, in what will be a black day for the hopes of peace and stability for anyone in the world.

The Iranian government has out-negotiated Obama completely. They showed more ­resolve, more cunning and greater strategic patience.

Obama took a strong hand and played it very badly.

The Iranians played a weak hand to perfection. They were forced into negotiations by the overall weakness of their position but have emerged with all the main elements of their nuclear program intact. In time, they will acquire nuclear weapons. Obama will go down in history as the president who made this possible.

The framework that was announced in Lausanne is a most peculiar document. It is unsigned and interpreted differently in Iran, from in the US. It contains very few details. A great deal of the­ ­substance of any agreement remains to be negotiated by June 30. However, as Obama, his Secretary of State, John Kerry, and other senior officials constantly claim that the only alternative to this deal is war, they have effectively given away the last shreds of American leverage.

The Iranians know the Obama administration is absolutely desperate to conclude a deal.

All the leverage now rests with the Iranians.

Even the broad terms of the framework as announced contain all manner of key concessions the Americans not so long ago said they would never make.

Among these, Iran gets to keep nuclear facilities, such as its underground Fordow plant, which it developed illegally, in secret, in defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Similarly, it gets to keep its heavy water reactor at Arak, although it will convert it to a facility that for the moment cannot produce plutonium.

It gets to keep 6000 centr­i­fuges to enrich uranium of which 5000 will remain operational. There is no purpose in having these centrifuges other than to eventually produce material for nuclear weapons. It will also be ­allowed to undertake intensive ­research on building more ­advanced centrifuges that can enrich more uranium more quickly. It will not have to export its enriched uranium but merely convert it into a more benign form in a process that can be reversed. And almost all the notional restrictions on Iran run out in 10 years.

There was actually nothing to negotiate. They just had to say, there are sanctions in place, and if you don’t come to the party and stop your nuclear program, they will get even tougher than they already are. Obama’s problem was not how to get the Iranians to dismantle their nuclear program. It was how to remove the sanctions without having the American political system explode around his head. That he most comprehensively has now done. If you think of Obama as an agent of the Iranians, everything becomes perfectly clear.

ROGER SIMON ADDS: I lack sufficient political imagination to follow the non-Iranian pro-Obama perspective. The agreement with Iran cannot possibly be to anyone’s good.

What we have here is not “a failure to communicate,” but Obama’s moral narcissism gone berserk. Forget his former proclaimed views on Iran. Driven by his need for legacy and his conviction that “he knows best” about world peace, the future, whatever, he has reversed course and powered through to what he thinks, or wants us to think, is the framework for a deal that would prevent Iran from fabricating nuclear weapons. Only — as in Gertrude Stein’s Oakland and Amir Taheri’s translations — there’s no there there.

But never mind. His troops seem to be rallying. Democrats who were initially skeptical are apparently folding in and Senator Menendez, Obama’s greatest thorn on the Democratic side, is currently and conveniently being hounded out of office and possibly into prison.

Meanwhile, Dianne Feinstein — whose greatest worry is making sure her and her husband’s hundreds of millions are kept legally separate — is telling Benjamin Netanyahu — whose greatest worry is a second Holocaust – to “contain himself.” (Anyone who thinks a new Holocaust unlikely should read Howard Jacobson’s magnificent new J: A Novel).

And Iran, the mending of whose evil ways was never addressed by the negotiators, is up to its usual mischief, not just expanding across the Middle East from Iraq to Syria to Yemen (we know that), but now — at the same time Obama has told his lap dog Thomas Friedman that America “has Israel’s back” — is making a new alliance with Hamas:

Iran has sent Hamas’s military wing tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph.

It is also funding new missile supplies to replenish stocks used to bombard residential neighbourhoods in Israel during the war, code-named Operation Protective Edge by Israel.

There was a time that in most ways those on the left had a positive view of the world and held an optimistic view of life’s possibilities. The left has now become a collective of the miserable, the self-hating and the angry. They are no longer looking for a better future and a kinder world. They have only destruction in their hearts. ISIS represents the left as it now is and the bitterness so many feel about the world. The harm they do is not accidental. It is their actual intent.

Let’s talk about how bad the economy is and not the deal with Iran

From Drudge today, the main set of stories, no doubt representative of the distraction on the deal with Iran that will be universal across the American media:

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING…
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force…
Record 56,131,000 Women…
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically…
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO…

And then there’s Iran. A few stories, just below the fold of no prominence whatsoever:

Congress divided on Iran Deal…
Joyful Iranians dance into night…
‘It doesn’t appear as if Iran agreed to do anything specific’…
PRUDEN: A deal built on lies…

Obama’s major policy focus six years ago was on fixing the economy. It’s old news how bad the economy is, but at least it gets the Iranian deal out of the news, stuff that no one is really interested in, these faraway countries of which we know little. What the foreign policy news will be like six years from today no one can know, but it’s likely to be as good as everything else Obama has done. Pure wreckage from end to end.

Iran calls Obama a liar on nuclear agreement

No sooner do I hear Obama lying about the deal he has struck with Iran then I read on Drudge that even the Iranians are accusing him of lying. It is unanimous, except for the media. You can never believe a word Obama says. This is what the Iranians have to say: Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement: Says White House misleading Congress, American people with fact sheet. Love that bit about the “fact sheet”. Here’s how the story starts:

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

And what do the Americans, or any one else who isn’t Iran, get from the deal? You know the answer already. Now read the whole thing, and be sure you get to the very end where you can see this last bit of detail:

Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.

Are you wondering who the buyers of this enriched uranium will be? Undoubtedly insane to the very core, but who was expecting anything else? And no matter what John Kerry and his boss might think, if this is the Iranian interpretation, how is the US going to get Iran to follow what they think the Iranians agreed to unless they leave the sanctions exactly where they are?

But the more interesting question may be whether any of this will be reported in the American media. Not much of a question really, but thought I would mention it just for the record.

Thomas Sowell on “the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history”

Obama knows better than anyone else, just as he did with healthcare and just as he did with the economy. And now he is bringing his same non-existent analytical skills to solving the tensions in the Middle East by engineering a cave-in to every single demand the Iranians are making about building nuclear weapons. A country that literally floats on oil does not need to build a nuclear power plant. This is Thomas Sowell writing on these matters, in a column titled, Etiquette Versus Annihilation. Here is how he begins:

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.

Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called “thinking the unthinkable.” But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.”

Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?

Well, we have seen it, but Obama has not. Or if he has, he has taken a very different lesson from the rest of us. Sowell concludes:

Against the background of the Obama administration’s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.

Meanwhile the most intense current debate in the United States is over whether someone’s religious views should be allowed to influence how they run their business. The US is no longer the leader of the free world. It is even questionable whether Americans are any longer even a free people.

Lies, damned lies and politics

The interviewer is Dana Bash. The interviewee is Harry Reid, former Senate Majority Leader in the United States. During the election in 2012, he helped lie Obama back into the White House by stating that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in ten years. And so, the other day this is what he said:

BASH: So no regrets about Mitt Romney, about the Koch Brothers. Some people have even called it McCarthyite.

REID: Well… [shrug] … they can call it whatever they want. Um … Romney didn’t win, did he?

This is how it works on the left in politics everywhere. There are the “intellectuals”, academics and journalists. And there are those who are on the receiving end of a pipeline of government money, some rich (crony capitalists and all) and most not so rich. Good governance is the farthest thing from their minds. With the media as slanted to the left as Pravda in the days of the Soviet Union, it is a generally winning combination. That the US is now a mess, and becoming less consequential every day, is no concern of theirs. Harry Reid speaks for them all. Admits he lied, but so what. Obama won and Romney didn’t.

And in Australia. You have the same combination of the left intellectual “elite”, who generally are anti-market, and the ALP/Green support base, who have little clue where the good things in life come from, other than knowing they aren’t getting their fair share. What’s cheaper electricity and a more reliable supply got to do with anything? If you can make ownership of poles and wires work for you, you can win government. Everybody at the top of the Labor Party knew Martin Ferguson was right. But had it not been for him and a few others, Labor might have won the election, just as Obama did in 2012.

In Australia, our media is not as slanted. You do get to hear both sides on most issues – although the ABC, being a public broadcaster and the most far left of the lot is a major distortion in our news and information flow. Under the Harry Reid Principle (or lack of principle), Martin Ferguson is being forced out of the Labor Party for telling an inconvenient truth. Truth in politics is what you can get away with.

Victoria’s union chiefs have unanimously called on Labor to expel Rudd-Gillard frontbencher Martin Ferguson from the party as anger rises over recent comments savaging the ALP and the trade union movement.

Mr Ferguson, a former ACTU president and federal resources minister, describes himself as “Labor to the bootstraps” despite now working as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry and representing companies including Shell, Exxon Mobil, Woodside and BHP.

But a slew of recent political attacks by Mr Ferguson have sparked frustration and a strong push to turf out the former Labor heavyweight from the party.

Tensions spilled over this week, with Mr Ferguson publicly supporting the reinstatement of the hardline Australian Building and Construction Commission, claiming the militant construction union must be “brought to heel”.

He also accused NSW Labor leader Luke Foley of “rank opportunism” and “blatant scaremongering” in the run-up to Saturday’s state election. Mr Ferguson became the face of a NSW Liberal Party campaign ad, where he expresses disgust over his party’s anti-privatisation campaign. [Bolding added]

And where are we now? Labor might well have won had Ferguson not said what he said as publicly as he did. The entire east coast would have then had the same junk governments, and Tony Abbott would have had to go. An informed electorate is one thing; a perpetually deceitful and ignorant media class is quite another.

And I draw your attention to the implicit bias in the story which clearly implies that working for the resources sector and trying to control rogue unions is somehow against the Labor Party ethos. It may well be so, but it is not a winning combination for the long-term prosperity of this country.

A sordid and sinister story

More or less, along the right in the US there is general acceptance that the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, was beaten up by mobsters and is, as a result, leaving the Senate.

From the moment the story broke, many have been highly skeptical of Reid’s claim his injuries came from a home exercise accident. Most of this skepticism–based mostly on speculation and the gruesome nature of the injuries—led some to offer a version of an alternate theory that somebody beat up Senator Reid.

“It’s pretty obvious from the photographs that somebody beat the bejesus out of the soon-to-be former senator from Nevada. And yet the national media has uncritically swallowed the cover story that ‘exercise equipment’ was to blame for the loss of sight in the former majority leader’s right eye. Baloney,” Michael Walsh wrote at PJ Media.

Even Rush Limbaugh has bought into this:

Does anybody really believe that’s why Harry Reid is still bruised and is still wearing dark glasses, what, months after this accident with his exercise machine?

I don’t believe for a minute that whatever happened to Harry Reid has anything to do with an exercise machine unless somebody repeatedly threw him intoit. Harry Reid looks like and is acting like — and now with this announcement, behaving like — somebody who may have been beaten up. Nobody… I’ve never seen anybody have an accident with an exercise machine that ends up suffering symptoms much like Harry Reid’s for as long as Harry Reid has.

If it is generally believed that the Senate Majority Leader was hanging out with mobsters, who felt perfectly safe in beating him up with no consequences whatsoever, then the governance of the United States has fallen on some very dark times. This is not a cute bedtime tale, but a sordid and sinister story for which genuine answers ought to be sought.

Do Americans not worry about who is really running their country and on whose behalf? What parts of the way America is governed is governed to benefit people such as this? If there is serious truth to this rumour, you would think people would want to get to the bottom of it. That they do not, is more worrying than anything else, even the negotiating that is now going on in Iran.

Who can explain the anti-American American media

obama iran negotiations cartoon

There was a time I could understand what is going on in politics. I wouldn’t necessarily agree, but I could follow it. But what has me utterly mystified is the negotiations between the Americans and Iran. And it’s not Obama. He’s a known quantity. It’s everyone else, and the absence of any serious reaction.

Let me begin with this. Here’s a story from yesterday: Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran. Here’s what the survey showed, according to the opening para:

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

If it comes to that, I support a deal that restricts Iran’s nuclear program. But it is the second para of the story that brings clarity to what American really believe:

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

So try a question like this instead: Are you in favour of striking a deal that leaves Iran with nuclear weapons while their leaders continue to repeat, “Death to America”, and who threaten to use a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel?

It is media who have asked their own poorly framed but obviously biased question, who have left out the necessary qualification in how they have reported the story, and who have done so to help ease the way towards an outcome that achieves what absolutely no American could possibly want. We know whose side the media are on, but does anyone know why that is? We also know which side the American administration is on, which leads to exactly the same question again.

Then from Drudge, these were yesterday’s sub-heads at the top of the page:

Iran talks lead to more talks…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched nuclear material…
Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Drone Spat in Iraq…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Rabbi compares Obama to Haman, archenemy of Jewish people…
French Fear Plans To Make Iran Key Middle East Ally…
Venue for talks is ‘gilded cage’ under constant surveillance…
ABCWASHPOST POLL: Clear majority of Americans support deal…

About that “nonnegotiable” destruction of Israel. This is the opening of the story linked above:

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

So far as negotiations go, the Iranians are a certainly more hard-edged than the Americans. These are the sub-heads from today:

HOW ABOUT JUNE?
Talks extended past deadline…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched material…
Netanyahu: Deal will allow nuclear breakout in less than year…
Militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Iranian plane buzzes Navy copter…
PAPER: Even Chamberlain would not make deal Obama eager to conclude…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Yemen nears ‘total collapse’ as Mideast powers trade blame…

So why are the Americans so intent on reaching a deal? Anyone’s guess, but protecting American interests does not appear to be amongst them.

UPDATE: I find myself both depressed and very angry, and think of none of the past six years of the Obama Administration as anything other than tragic. But the cartoon added above is not there because it makes you laugh, but because it so perfectly captures our present reality.

American foreign policy crashes and burns

At the end of a successful negotiation, both sides get something they want. The cave-in to Iran over nuclear weapons is absolute and complete: U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together. What is clear is what Iran gets. What is invisible is what anyone else gets, not the US, not Israel, not the Saudis, not any other nation in the Middle East, not anyone else anywhere that I can see. Basically, Obama said, “stop me if you can”, and it turns out no one could.

The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.

This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.

“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.

With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.

“Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source. “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”

The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.

Obama is the international equivalent of the pilot who has crashed the passenger jet into the Alps. Locked into the cockpit at the White House and doing whatever he wants.

WHEN YOU THINK THEY HAVE REACHED THE LOW POINT YOU THEN READ SOMETHING ELSE: This is quite an excellent summary of the unravelling going on in the Middle East: Obama’s Mideast ‘free fall’. It comes with the sub-head, “Mounting chaos in the region puts the administration on the defensive”.

Now the U.S. is in the strange position of fighting ISIL alongside Iran at the same time it backs the Sunni campaign against Iran’s allies in Yemen. . . .

On Thursday, Iran’s foreign minister, who has been meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry in Switzerland to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, demanded an immediate halt to the Yemen incursion.

At the same time, civil war rages on in Syria. On Thursday, Robert Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, sent Obama a letter urging him to respond to charges that the regime of Bashar Assad — a close ally of Tehran — has used chlorine gas against civilians. In late 2013, Obama threatened to punish Assad with airstrikes after his forces deployed nerve gas.

OK, chaotic with the responsibility for most of it the idiocies of the Obama White House. And then the article comes to what it seems to see as upbeat and positive:

The official offered a hopeful note, adding that a nuclear deal with Iran — which some reports say could come as soon as Sunday — could be a turning point for the region.

“The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we’re one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what every one agrees is the biggest threat to the region,” the official said.

There is seemingly no level of stupidity these people are incapable of transcending.