Hold The Call

A fair amount of chatter has erupted in this first month of President Joe Biden's term over Biden not calling right-wing Israeli Prime Minister and Trump's BFF Bibi "Bomb Bomb" Netanyahu. It's the result of the Beltway media trying to play "gotcha" with the new Administration and likely some mischief by Bibi's Likudnik supporters here and in Israel. The Biden Administration says it's just a matter of focusing on pressing domestic issues, and Netanyahu claims not to be concerned by the silence.

Biden would have good reason not to rush to call Netanyahu, recalling his intrusive attempted sabotage of the Iran nuclear deal that the Obama Administration worked out with its European allies, Russia and China over a period of years. Netanyahu was giddy over demagogue and seditionist loser Donald "Mango Mussolini" Trump's withdrawal from the agreement.  There's also the matter of Netanyahu honoring Trump by naming a Golan Heights settlement "Trump Heights." Netanyahu is still facing corruption charges from years ago, with a trial in the offing, something that would offend anyone other than a thug like Trump. Finally, there's the matter of waiting out the clock on Bibi, who would try to use his opposition to any revived deal as an issue in next month's close elections in Israel, where support for his party has dipped.  What better way to flaunt his "patriotism" and garner votes than with a tiff with the new Biden Administration over Iran? 

There's every indication that Netanyahu will try to derail any attempt by the U.S. to return to the deal, and Netanyahu would like nothing better than to give Biden the metaphorical finger (and his dear friend Trump satisfaction). Biden should hold off on any call to Netanyahu until after their elections, or even after Netanyahu's corruption charges are adjudicated. 

(photo: "I can recommend a good defense attorney, Donald."  Carlos Barria/Reuters)

 

Reactionary Sabotage Round-up

The nihilists, thugs and sociopaths of the Trump regime and Republican Party are busy making sure you can't have nice things ... because Obama. Here's a brief, and not inclusive, summary (our emphasis throughout).

War On Women:

The Trump administration loosened Obama-era birth control requirements Friday, saying most providers of health insurance could refuse to pay for an employee’s birth control if the provider shows “sincerely held” religious or moral objections. [snip] 

“By taking away women’s access to no-cost birth control coverage, the rules give employers a license to discriminate against women,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center. 

“This will leave countless women without the critical birth control coverage they need to protect their health and economic security. We will take immediate legal steps to block these unfair and discriminatory rules.

Obamacare Sabotage:

For months, officials in Republican-controlled Iowa had sought federal permission to revitalize their ailing health-insurance marketplace. Then President Trump read about the request in a newspaper story and called the federal director weighing the application. 

Trump’s message in late August was clear, according to individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations: Tell Iowa no. [snip] 

And with the fifth enrollment season set to begin Nov. 1, advocates say the Health and Human Services Department has done more to suppress the number of people signing up than to boost it. HHS has slashed grants to groups that help consumers get insurance coverage, for example. It also has cut the enrollment period in half, reduced the advertising budget by 90 percent and announced an outage schedule that would make the HealthCare.gov website less available than last year. 

The White House also has yet to commit to funding the cost-sharing reductions that help about 7 million lower-income Americans afford out-of-pocket expenses on their ACA health plans. Trump has regularly threatened to block them and, according to an administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly, officials are considering action to end the payments in November. 

The uncertainty has driven premium prices much higher for 2018. A possible move by the Treasury Department to ease the requirement that most Americans obtain coverage could further erode a core element of the law.

Tax Cuts For Me, Medicare and Medicaid Cuts For Thee:

The House on Thursday passed a $4.1 trillion budget plan that promises deep cuts to social programs while paving the way for Republicans to rewrite the tax code later this year. 

The 2018 House GOP budget reprises a controversial plan to turn Medicare into a voucher-like program for future retirees as well as the party's efforts to repeal the "Obamacare" health law. Republicans controlling Congress have no plans to actually implement those cuts while they pursue their tax overhaul. [snip] 

The House measure, passed by a near party-line vote of 219-206, calls for more than $5 trillion in spending cuts over the coming decade, promising to slash Medicaid by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years, cutting other health care costs, and forcing huge cuts to domestic programs funded in future years by Congress. 

Stripping Away LGBT Protections:

In an order that undercuts protections for LGBT people, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a sweeping directive to agencies Friday to do as much as possible to accommodate those who say their religious freedoms are being violated. 

The guidance, an attempt to deliver on President Donald Trump’s pledge to his evangelical and other religious supporters, effectively lifts a burden from religious objectors to prove that their beliefs about marriage or other topics are sincerely held. 

Under the new policy, a claim of a violation of religious freedom would be enough to override concerns for the civil rights of LGBT people and anti-discrimination protections for women and others. The guidelines are so sweeping that experts on religious liberty are calling them a legal powder-keg that could prompt wide-ranging lawsuits against the government. 

Decertifying the Iran Nuclear Deal:

President Trump is expected to announce next week that he will “decertify” the international nuclear deal with Iran, saying it is not in the national interest of the United States and kicking the issue to a reluctant Congress, people briefed on the White House strategy said Thursday. 

The move would mark the first step in a process that could eventually result in the resumption of U.S. sanctions against Iran, potentially derailing a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear activities reached in 2015 with the United States and five other nations. 

Moral: When you put dangerous, ugly people in power, you get dangerous, ugly results.

Tweet Of The Day - When A Story Isn't

Have you heard or read about that story that was being reported on the "news" today (we saw the breathless "reporter" breaking it on NBC's "Today Show")?  You know, the $400 million "ransom" paid to Iran when the nuclear deal went into effect and the hostages were released?  The story that's causing dumbass wingnuts' and their elected officials' hair to catch fire today?  Well, not everyone bit on the story that appeared in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal Urinal:

The cash payment to Iran that is causing such commotion today was reported on at the time of the hostage release https://t.co/Q403RuygR7

— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) August 3, 2016

Here's today's mendacious story in the Urinal.  Here's the story, from January of this year.  Here's the White House explaining it so even a "reporter" can understand.

Unfortunately, we have a right- wing media empire that is hardwired to lie -- especially during election season and especially when it needs a distraction from the spectacle of the Republican Party imploding.  Unfortunately, we also have the journalistic equivalent of ambulance chasers, credulous types that have no sense of history, much less a recollection of events within recent memory, who are useful idiots in sensationalizing and mainstreaming the original lie.  Sic transit gloria, America.

Israeli Defense Forces Chief: Iran Nuclear Deal "Hysteria" Was Manufactured

Gosh.  It appears Bibi "Bomb Bomb" Netanyahu, AIPAC and Republicans manufactured "hysteria" over the Iran nuclear deal.  Who would've thunk:

Benny Gantz was Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2011 until he was succeeded by Gadi Eizenkot this February. He spoke on Friday at the AIPAC-aligned Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He said that he thought a better deal could have been negotiated but nonetheless saw the deal as an important "achievement" in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for at least 10 or 15 years. Here are the exact quotes from the JTA ...

“I do agree a better deal could have been reached,” one that more extensively restricted uranium enrichment, Benny Gantz said Friday of the sanctions relief for a nuclear restrictions deal reached in July between Iran and six major powers.

“But I see the half-full part of the glass,” he said. “I see the achievement of keeping the Iranians, 10-15 years into the future, postponing their having a nuclear capability at the right price.”

He also criticized the "hysteria" over the deal and said that the greatest threat to Israel's future comes not from Iran but from internal divisions within Israeli society.

We would offer that a more specific "greatest threat to Israel's future" is the continuance in power of one Bibi "Bomb Bomb" Netanyahu.

Gen. Brent Scowcroft: "No Credible Alternative" To Iran Nuclear Deal

Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser under Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, voices strong support for the Iran nuclear agreement:

Congress rightfully is conducting a full review and hearing from proponents and opponents of the nuclear deal. However, the seeming effort to make the JCPOA the ultimate test of Congress’s commitment to Israel is probably unprecedented in the annals of relations between two vibrant democracies.* Let us be clear: There is no credible alternative were Congress to prevent U.S. participation in the nuclear deal. If we walk away, we walk away alone. The world’s leading powers worked together effectively because of U.S. leadership. To turn our back on this accomplishment would be an abdication of the United States’ unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay among our allies and friends. We would lose all leverage over Iran’s nuclear activities. The international sanctions regime would dissolve. And no member of Congress should be under the illusion that another U.S. invasion of the Middle East would be helpful.

He's not likely to find any support among craven, Obamaphobic Republicans in Congress, nor with the Likudnik warriors (with someone else's children) here and in Israel.  But maybe he can provide enough of a bipartisan fig leaf to sway one or two faltering, spineless Democrats.

* Take that, AIPAC and Bibi "Bomb Bomb" Netanyahu!

"Disqualified"

After taking a week to digest its implications, influential blogger Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a must read essay today on why Sen. Schumer's plan to vote against the Iran nuclear deal disqualifies him from being the next leader of the Democrats in the Senate.  Please read his arguments, which lead to this conclusion:

So why did Schumer oppose the deal? I think he moves in circles, personal and financial, where this deal is simply anathema and he doesn’t feel he can or wants to buck that opinion. He may also believe he can have his cake and eat it too - vote against, satisfy, and stay good with key supporters and not block its adoption. This is actually what I see as the most likely answer. He may also feel uncomfortable enough on this hot seat that he simply won’t look at the logic of the situation.

I can't know and frankly I don’t care. The bright line is that he’s smart enough to know better.

I’ve heard some say that this creates tension for him “on the left” in his quest to become Minority or Majority Leader. This is silly pundit talk. This isn’t the public option. This isn’t something supported by the foreign policy “left”. It’s very basic and mainstream and necessary. The fact that the neoconservatives who gamed the country into the Iraq disaster favor it does not change that.

Democratic senators who don’t reconsider support for Schumer as the leader of their caucus are making a big, big mistake. He should be ruled out of consideration for the job.  (our emphasis)

As Marshall demonstrates, surely Schumer is intelligent enough to know that the arguments he used to advance his position are dishonest and destructive.  That's what makes putting him into any future leadership role in the Senate so toxic.  Far from taking a principled position of conscience, Schumer has succumbed to the most banal impulses at a most critical moment in the history of our nation and of the nations in the Middle East.  This too- clever- by- half pol is hoping things will blow over (as opposed to blow up?) by the time Democrats vote for their next Senate leader.  There will be many of us trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

Marshall links to an op/ ed today by Fareed Zakaria, who takes Schumer's "reasoning" and demolishes it point by point, much as Jeffrey Lewis did earlier in Foreign Policy. Both are well worth reading to get a sense of how Schumer, a man who clearly knows better, has stood logic on its head for his own selfish reasons.

Arguments For The Iran Nuclear Deal

As noted in the post below, the Iran nuclear deal is under heavy fire from well-financed lobbyists representing dead-end Republicans and Likudniks.  But, there's some good reading this morning on why the Iran nuclear deal is the best option for the region and the world.  Here are snippets to whet your appetite:

Vali Nasr, Dean of the School of International Studies, Johns Hopkins University on the deeply flawed thinking of opponents of the deal:

Opponents of the nuclear agreement with Iran see it as a license for Tehran to wreak havoc in the region. Freed from economic pressure and flush with financial resources, the thinking goes, Iran can be expected to unleash its emboldened minions upon Israel and Arab states and undermine U.S. interests. However, contrary to what the critics say, the nuclear deal is far more likely to curb Iran’s regional ambition. It is rather the instability that would follow the failure of the deal that should worry them.

The New York Times on the fact-free assault on the deal by ideologues and dead-enders here and in Israel:

What should be a thoughtful debate has been turned into a vicious battle against Mr. Obama, involving not just the Republicans but Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies.

Policy considerations aside, what is most striking about the demagoguery is how ahistorical, if not downright hypocritical, it is. Negotiating with adversaries to advance a more stable world has long been a necessity, and Republican presidents have been among its most eager practitioners.

Suzanne Nossel, Foreign Policy, on the dire consequences that scuttling the deal would lead to for America's strategic and national security interests:

To the extent that the campaign against the agreement goes beyond posturing, though, and aims to actually muster the votes to defeat the agreement, the effort risks doing enduring damage, not just to the drive to defeat Iran’s nuclear program but also to U.S. strategic interests and power writ large. While the administration has rightly focused its case to Congress tightly on the effects of the congressional vote for Iran’s nuclear program, the implications of achieving a veto-proof majority opposed to the deal will reverberate far more widely. Though the prospect may seem relatively remote, the ripple effects of the deal’s defeat — not just for America’s national security, but also its global diplomatic and political clout — are grave enough that they should be weighed by every member of Congress before they cast this historic vote. 

It remains the best bet at this point that the Obama Administration will prevail in saving the agreement.  But with universal Republican opposition, it would only take a handful of spineless Democrats to pass a bill over the President's veto.  Make sure you contact any home-State Democratic Senators who are officially "on the fence" (we're thinking of you, Sens. Cardin and Mikulski), and let them know you'll be taking note of their vote.

UPDATE:  Many former Israeli military and intelligence chiefs are now urging Netanyahu to accept the deal.

Rejecting The Iran Nuclear Agreement Would Be "A Historic Mistake"

We're offering two good reads this morning on the Iran nuclear agreement which, to absolutely nobody's surprise, is under mindless assault by "just say no" Republicans and Likudniks alike.  Here are brief tastes, but please read the entire op/ eds.

Fareed Zakaria lays out some facts that make opposition to the agreement all the more incomprehensible and appalling:

Let’s imagine that the opponents of the nuclear agreement with Iran get their way: The U.S. Congress kills it. What is the most likely consequence? Within one year, Iran would have more than 25,000 centrifuges, its breakout time would shrink to mere weeks and the sanctions against it would crumble. How is this in the United States’ national interest? Or Israel’s? Or Saudi Arabia’s?

Philip Gordon takes a historical perspective and concludes:

If the U.S. Congress kills the current Iran deal and the alternative approach leads the Iranians to come back to the table and accept a much better agreement, it will deserve enormous credit. If, as seems far more likely, the death of this deal instead leads Iran to resume the expansion of its nuclear program even while under sanctions and the threat of force, just as it has for the past decade, Congress will have made a historic mistake. And the next generation will wonder why we did the same thing all over again and expected a different result. 

In the meantime, diplomats from Great Britain, France and Germany (all co-signers of the agreement with Iran) are in Washington to argue the case for the agreement.  We hope they're not wasting their time with Republicans, who want to deliver a defeat to President Obama no matter what the cost to U.S. and Israeli security;  best to deal with potential spineless Democratic defectors (=cough= Sen. Menendez =cough=) who may be influenced to do the right thing.

Today's Cartoon: "Side Effects Of Diplomacy"

(click on image to enlarge)

(Brian McFadden, via gocomics.com)

Republicans, and their Israeli doppelganger, Prime Minister Netanyahu (R-Tel Aviv), are fast at work trying to sabotage the Iran nuclear agreement (which would take some craven Democrats in the Senate to accomplish - of which there's no shortage).  Meanwhile, Jonathan Alter spoke to former Israeli intelligence chief Ami Ayalon:

"When negotiations began, Iran was two months away from acquiring enough material for a [nuclear] bomb. Now it will be 12 months," Ayalon says, and the difference is significant to anyone with a background in intelligence. "Israelis are failing to distinguish between reducing Iran's nuclear capability and Iran being the biggest devil in the Middle East," he says.

Why has the response been more emotional than logical? "It's very easy to play with fears in a fearful society,” he says.

That's one of the things that bonds Republicans to their right-wing Likudnik allies:  using the tactic of fear to motivate.  But, as Alter goes on to point out,

For six years, Barack Obama has been cautious about calling out Iran. To convince China and Russia not to veto sanctions in the Security Council, he spoke softly. Harsh condemnations might have complicated the nuclear deal, which was rightly his first priority. The same went for pushing too hard on Iran’s outrageous imprisonment of four innocent Americans. 

Now the president will have a much freer hand to confront Iran on its non-nuclear behavior, and has more political incentive to do so. Like the deal itself, that’s good for the world in general, and Israel in particular.

(Identifying the rejectionists in the cartoon above: (top line) Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Scott Walker;  (second line) Jeb! Bush, John Boehner, Mike Huckabee, Bibi Netanyahu.)

President's Weekly Address: The Iran Nuclear Agreement

A big slam for the neocons criticizing the agreement:

"On questions of war and peace, we should have tough, honest, serious debates. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t. That’s why this deal is online for the whole world to see. I welcome all scrutiny. I fear no questions. As Commander-in-Chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war."

Bravo.

Let's Hear What Other Leaders Are Saying About The Iran Nuclear Agreement

In the wake of the orchestrated freak-out by dead-ender Republicans and Likudniks on the Iran nuclear agreement, we thought we'd share the comments of others in the world:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron (Conservative):

"After persistent diplomacy and tough sanctions, the international community has delivered a historic deal with Iran. A deal which secures our fundamental aim – to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon - and that will help to make our world a safer place.  

"I want to pay tribute to all of those who have worked tirelessly over the last few months to deliver this deal. It has required leadership, courage and determination on both sides.

"Now we must ensure that this deal is fully implemented. There is a real opportunity for Iran to benefit from this agreement in terms of its economy but this will only happen if Iran delivers on all the agreed actions required to fully address international concerns about its programme. Of course, this agreement will not solve all the difficulties, especially between Iran and its neighbours. We will continue to work with our partners in the region to ensure stability and security and I hope that Iran will also follow this path."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU-conservative):

German Chancellor Angela Merkel hailed the nuclear deal signed between Iran and six world powers as "an important success" and said she hoped the agreement could be implemented quickly.

Merkel said the result achieved at the negotiations in Vienna meant the goal of no Iranian military nuclear weapons programme was now a lot closer.

"This would be a vital contribution for the security situation in the whole region," Merkel said in a statement on Tuesday. "I appeal on all sides to contribute to a speedy implementation."

French President Francois Hollande (Socialist):

The French President had a conversation this afternoon with Barack Obama about the agreement reached on the Iranian nuclear programme.

The [French] Head of State paid tribute to the efforts of the negotiators, who for many months sought a serious and verifiable agreement. He emphasized that the time for discussion is now over and the time has come for action.

The process under way includes clear limitations on the Iranian nuclear programme, a robust monitoring system and the opportunity to reintroduce sanctions in the event of the commitments being violated.

It is up to Iran to implement all the measures provided for, according to the timeable established. France, with its partners, will ensure rigorously and in good faith that the agreement is complied with.

The result obtained lessens the risk to regional and international security that nuclear proliferation represents.

It is paramount that Iran should now become a responsible player in its neighbourhood's stability.

The Vatican:

"The agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme is viewed in a positive light by the Holy See. It constitutes an important outcome of the negotiations carried out so far, although continued efforts and commitment on the part of all involved will be necessary in order for it to bear fruit." 

Meanwhile, in America puerile Republicans and their Israeli doppelgangers generate fear and misinformation. 

BONUS:  For those claiming that the U.S. and its partners in the negotiations could have struck a tougher deal with Iran on sanctions, experts say "no way".

Today's Cartoon - How Reagan "Negotiated" With Iran

(click on image to enlarge)

You remember Iran-Contra, don't you, Republicans?

(Matt Wuerker, Politico, via gocomics.com)

Republicans React Predictably To Iran Deal: "Verdict First -Then The Facts" (UPDATED)

Predictably, Republicans were quick to condemn the historic agreement on Iran's nuclear program negotiated with that nation by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union.   As Dana Milbank points out, knowing the details of the agreement (included its technical annexes) wasn't as important to Republicans as was getting out those nasty sound bites:

By about 9 a.m., House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had both reached conclusions. Boehner said that Obama “abandoned his own goals,” that the deal would put Iran on “a break-out threshold to produce a nuclear bomb,” and that it would “only embolden Iran — the world’s largest sponsor of terror.”

“It sounds,” a reporter later said to Boehner, “like you’ve already rejected it.”

“I want to review all the facts,” the speaker replied.

Verdict first — then the facts.

Among the worst offenders was struggling- for- airtime Sen. Lindsey "Huckleberry J. Butchmeup"* Graham (R-SC), who headed to the fainting couch with his hair on fire:

“You have created a possible death sentence for Israel,” he declared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“This is a virtual declaration of war against Sunni Arabs,” he said.

“This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast. Barack Obama, John Kerry, have been dangerously naive,” he added.

Of course,when asked if he'd seen the agreement, Huckleberry J. said, "No."

Then there's this reprehensible "moderate."

Would you expect any other response from people who have been reflexively anti- anything President Obama touched for the past 6 years (including, yes, his plan for health insurance reform that was essentially the Republican plan just over a decade ago)?  But, as another op/ ed points out, those voices are more outliers in world opinion than ever before:

In the wake of the agreement, Netanyahu called Tuesday “one of the darkest days in world history.” Republican politicians made similar strident attacks, but the critics appeared to be outliers. The pact has the support of most major nations. Even Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates offered measured comments. Obama seems to have won this round. Netanyahu and his GOP allies are indignant about the deal, but they are taking on the world.

They're also taking on American public opinion, which supports the administration 2 to 1.

For those interested in a readable summary of the historic agreement on Iran's nuclear program, this works pretty well. 

* H/t Charles Pierce.

BONUS:  Andy Borowitz has his special take on conservative outrage.

BONUS II:  Or, as Clay Jones puts it:

(Clay Jones, claytoonz.com)

Historic Agreement Reached With Iran

Six major powers and Iran have reached a long-term agreement to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities in return for a lifting of economic sanctions which have crippled the Iranian economy.  The agreement would allow Iran to research enriching uranium without accumulating it, and would retain UN embargoes on missile technology and weapons for several years.  In return, billions in frozen assets would be released upon verification of compliance with the agreement.

The right wing Likudnik government of Israel -- the region's only nuclear power -- immediately blasted the agreement as a "mistake of historic proportions" and threatened to use "all means to try and stop the agreement from being ratified," a clear signal that extraordinary pressure would be placed on their Republican allies in Congress -- along with some Democrats -- to block the deal.

The agreement has to go to the respective negotiating governments for review before finalization, but the momentum for a more peaceful region without additional nuclear weapons has begun.

Iran Nuclear Deal Reached?

From AP:

Negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks plan to announce Monday that they've reached a historic deal capping nearly a decade of diplomacy that would curb the country's atomic program in return for sanctions relief, two diplomats told The Associated Press on Sunday.

The envoys said a provisional agreement may be reached even earlier — by late Sunday. But they cautioned that final details of the pact were still being worked out. Once it is complete, a formal, final agreement would be open to review by officials in the capitals of Iran and the six world powers at the talks, they said.

To nobody's surprise, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi "Bomb Bomb" Netanyahu (R-Tel Aviv) is already saying the world powers negotiating with Iran have "caved," since to Netanyahu anything short of war with Iran (fought by those same world powers on behalf of Israel) would be "caving." Expect to see the same formulation in Republican talking points if an agreement is indeed announced.

Today's History Lesson (Continued): Always Do The Opposite Of What Netanyahu Advises

J.J. Goldberg at the Jewish Daily Forward (h/t Washington Monthly) elaborates on a point we noted a month ago; it's a bit of recent Middle East history (2002) that illustrates the disastrous consequences of taking advice from Bibi "Bomb Bomb" Netanyahu:

Removing Saddam, [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon said, according to three sources with direct knowledge, will have three main results, all negative. Iraq will implode into warring tribes of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. You’ll be stuck in an Iraqi quagmire for a decade. And Iran, a far more dangerous player, will be rid of its principal enemy and free to pursue its ambitions of regional hegemony. Bush didn’t agree.

Israeli leaders continued pooh-poohing Iraq all spring. Dismissal turned to alarm in August, when Iranian dissidents released evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. In September Sharon told his cabinet to stop discussing Iraq. It was annoying the White House.

On September 12, however, a different Israeli voice visited Washington: ex-prime minister-turned-private citizen Benjamin Netanyahu. A longtime Sharon rival, closely allied with Washington’s neoconservatives, he’d been invited to address the Republican-led House as an expert on Iraq. Baghdad, he said, was hiding mobile centrifuges “the size of washing machines.” Moreover, “if you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” Throughout the Middle East, including Iran, populations will be inspired to topple their own dictators.

Bush, of course, listened to Netanyahu and the neocons, not Sharon and his generals. Alas, Sharon was right. Iraq imploded. Iran surged. The invasion had reverberations, but hardly positive. The rest is history.

Fortunately, there isn't a George "Dumbya" Bush in the White House to take Bibi "Bomb Bomb's" malicious "advice" seriously on the Iran nuclear deal.  But there are plenty of traitors dumb-dumbs in the Republican Party who, for varying reasons, want to stick it to President Obama via Netanyahu's campaign to sabotage the fledgling deal. And, not to beat a dead horse, you also have the "mainstream media," which can always be counted on to uncritically promote lies and liars with gusto.

BONUS:  Here's Nick Anderson of the Houston Chronicle (click on image to enlarge) with further amplification:

(Photo:  "And then Boris and Natasha gave this bomb to the Iranians...")

Sunday Cartoons - Easter Eggs And Ham

(click on images to enlarge)

(Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle)

(Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

Breakthrough On Iran Nuclear Program

Big day: #EU, P5+1, and #Iran now have parameters to resolve major issues on nuclear program. Back to work soon on a final deal.
— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) April 2, 2015

Here's President Obama's remarks on the historic breakthrough in the Rose Garden this afternoon:

Fallout From Republican Attempted Foreign Policy Coup d'Etat Continues

The fallout continues today around the letter 47 traitors radical Republican Senators sent to the mullahs in Iran which, as expected, did not cancel out the manufactured puzzlement and not- ending- soon "questions" about Hillary Clinton's emails.  Really, what's an extra- constitutional attempted coup d'etat compared to Hillary's emails?!

The once-great Washington Post Bezos Bugle neo-con editorial board got around to reluctantly chastising the Republican traitors Senators only after some chin-rubbing about Clinton's emails. Here's what they had to say, in part:

Republicans had an opportunity to focus attention on weaknesses in the emerging accord with Iran and mobilize bipartisan pressure on the administration to demand better terms. Instead they have engaged in grandstanding tactics that have alienated potential supporters while obscuring critical issues. Their antics are making it easier rather than harder for Mr. Obama to proceed unilaterally.

To which we would reply, we would trust the President "to proceed unilaterally" far more than we would trust the instincts of the Bezos Bugle's editors/ armchair warriors and their war-happy neo-con allies in the Republican Crazy Caucus.  In other words, please proceed...

Moving on, though, two frequent blind squirrels found on the Bezos Bugle's editorial pages have pieces worth a read, starting with Kathleen Parker (who, along with the seven Republican Senators who didn't sign the letter to the mullahs, is still coloring within the constitutional lines):

So what was the rush to tell Iran, essentially, “You’re wasting your time” ? The 47 senators are like food critics who condemn a chef before he has finished preparing the entree. Their letter also signals to the world that they have zero respect for our president, or for the other world powers attempting to try diplomacy first. 

This cannot have been helpful to any but the signees’ legendary standing in their own minds.

Parker can't help but engage in some "both- sides- are- to- blame" crap, but is still sentient enough to see a dumbass move when she sees one.

Dana Milbank also looks at the letter to the mullahs, but in the broader context of Republicans trying their damnedest to run a shadow government which he calls "the State of Republicania:"

...It’s true that 47 Republican senators did their level best to bring us closer to war by writing a letter to Iran’s mullahs, attempting to scuttle nuclear talks with the United States. But Republicans aren’t exactly subverting the United States. It’s more as if they’re operating their own independent republic on Capitol Hill. Call it the State of Republicania. 

Its prime minister, John Boehner, invited his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to criticize U.S. foreign policy last week before a joint meeting of the Republicania parliament. The American president wasn’t consulted. 

Mitch McConnell, the Republicania home secretary, wrote an op-ed last week in the Lexington Herald-Leader explicitly urging states to refuse to implement a major new power-plant regulation issued by the U.S. government. 

And now we have Tom Cotton, Republicania’s young foreign minister, submitting “An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” counseling Iran’s leaders that any agreement reached by the United States but not ratified by Republicania could be undone “with the stroke of a pen” (assuming the next president comes from Republicania).

He goes on to cite other examples of crackpot reaction to the twice- elected President of the United States;  it's a bitter and malicious campaign of de-legitimatizing this President and his party that has been unrelenting for over 6 years now.  And if the price of humiliating the President and the United States is a little war with Iran, it's one they're willing to pay with another American's blood.

BONUS:  We're going to have to permanently appropriate Charles Pierce's new nickname for mullah letter author Sen. Tom Cotton (Yahoo-AR):  "Metternich of the Ozarks."

BONUS II:  The Detroit Free Press and the Arizona Republic also have something to say; and many more.

BONUS III:  Drew Sheneman, Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger (click on image to enlarge):

Today's Cartoon Twofer - Get Out The Knives

(click on images to enlarge)

(Jim Morin, The Miami Herald)

(Mike Luckovich, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

When those honest, ready to govern Republicans come for a knife fight, Democrats need to bring their "guns."