Thursday, March 12, 2015


Dan Slott launched a faux-outrage over GOP senators who sent a special letter to Iran making clear they won't stand for their nuclear missile construction:

Umm, I think Fox would be very stupid if they condemned Dem senators for indicating they wouldn't stand for an autocracy building nuclear bombs. USA Today says Nixon's sabotaging Vietnam peace talks in 1968 is far worse than some mere letter making clear nuclear terror is unacceptable. I'd also suggest Slott take note of this important reminder about what a Dem senator did several years ago:
According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senator sent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.

That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.
And Slott thinks the GOP's letter condemning Iran for their totalitarianism is worse? Tsk tsk. He should read what Ruthie Blum says:
On Monday, a group of 47 Republican senators released an "Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

The letter, initiated by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, was notably addressed to the Islamist regime in Tehran rather than to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. And rightly so.

It is not Rouhani, after all, who has the final say about anything that goes on in the would-be global caliphate where he was elected as a "moderate," or with regard to the nuclear program whose contours Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has been dictating to the United States and the other members of the P5+1.

No, the person who pulls the strings -- and will push the nuclear button -- is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So it is to him that the Republican politicians were actually sending their message. At the same time, they were conveying a similar sentiment to President Barack Obama -- about the invalidity of a deal cooked up by the administration in Washington to please the palates of the mullahs in Tehran behind the back of Congress and without its consent.
So why is Slott apologizing for an autocratic guru who promotes destruction by jihad? Why does he want to support a real life variation on Doctor Doom? Slott also won't admit that Bush accepted a lot more blame than Obama has:

Oh, and that's just another declaration he sits squarely in the Blame-Bush camp, condemning Dubya for all the wrong reasons. What about ex-New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, who abandoned the city at the time, and is now facing a decade in prison for fraud and laundering? How doesn't he count?

And why is Slott using milk as an example instead of fizzy soda? That causes nostril flares more easily than dairy products.

No comments: