One of the tried and true ways of knowing whether something is honest, real, true, and not a partisan piece of nonsense is how honest each side is in how they deal with it, who lies, who tells the truth, who exaggerates, who is willing to play it straight and who tries to play games or use the rules to prevent the will of people from working it's will.
Obama made that very complaint and quite legitimately when Republicans prevented any gun legislation from coming to a vote in the senate after Sandy Hook. Obama and Reid made the same legitmate complaint about Republican use of the filibuster and senate rules to block Obama's judicial nominees and appointments and held up the appointment of the new Attorney General.
But now Obama is playing the same Republican game and both he and Reid are showing they are not as confident as they pretend in having enough Democrats to sustain a veto on what is an absurd Iran deal. And so Reid has very stupidly threatened a filibuster to keep the Iran deal from coming to a vote if it turns out there will be enough Democratic votes to override Obama's veto.
It proves again that ever since Obama's election,between Obama, Reid and Pelosi ,Democrats have had no leadership, are politically tone deaf , ignore what their own voters have wanted and because of their blind partisan sycophancy to Obama, betrayed their own voters and what was promised on things like healthcare reform which led Democrats over a cliff in two elections at the hands of their own voters. Reid is continuing on that path of Democratic defeat by making his filibuster threat if Obama can't get his veto sustained honestly.
That would not sit well with the majority of voters and even the threat has caused damage and the surest way to guarantee Democrats will lose even more seats in congress would be to filibuster and prevent a vote on something as important and controversial as the Iran deal if Obama can't get the votes to sustain his veto on what even supporters call a weak deal that leaves a lot to be desired ("flawed" is their word of choice).
The words used to support the deal prove how bad it is. Virtually every supporter of the deal is making an admission the deal is based on chance not anything that is iron clad, a reality that gets re-enforced every time those who support the deal feel the need to lie about it like MoveOn and other groups or even Obama himself.
Harry Reid said of his preventing a vote if Obama's veto won't be sustained, " As far as procedurally stopping the bill from moving forward (to a vote) I hope it can be done".
Patty Murray, the latest Democrat to support the deal (there are still not enough to sustain a veto) ironcially proved again how weak the deal it is. As has been the case with every other Democrat supporting the deal, not one voicing any actual enthusiasm or praise.
Murray said, " there are several elements I would like to be stronger ...but I am convinced this deal is the best chance we have at a strong diplomatic solution".
Notice the choice of words. Not that this deal achieves the diplomatic goal of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, not that it accomplishes what it was supposed to do, but that its " the best chance" of doing it, an admission that Democrats and everyone else are supposed to support it based on chance when a negotiation which lifts sanctions on Iran and gives them hundred of billions in sanctions relief in return for absolutely making it impossible for Iran to get a nuclear weapon should never be left to chance.
As usual there is not a shred of proof offered by anyone that its the "best" anything when even supporters contradict themselves in their next sentence by saying it's "flawed" or " it could have been stronger". That isn't most people's definition of "best" and if the argument is no one could have gotten Iran to agree to anything stronger reality makes them look foolish since Iran at the very last minute insisted on the end to the arms embargo and the end of the ban on ICBM's. And Obama agreed ( or caved in depending on how Tea Party-ish you want to be). Just to get a deal. Which is what Obama said he'd never do.Which is also typical Obama.
Proof is John Kerry's argument as to why the hostages held by Iran or reining in Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism around the world wasn't made part of the deal:
"This was solely about Iran's nuclear program. We didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing in outside elements as part of the deal."
Fair enough. Except Iran's last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo and ban on their having ICBMs had nothing to do with their nuclear program either. Which shows how weak and fundamentally dishonest Obama's deal is and how disengenuous it's defense.
Which gets re-enforced by it's supporters constant use of the word "chance" as in " the best chance to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon".
There should be nothing left to chance when it comes to preventing Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Nothing. It has been said over and over by Obama himself and everyone else, that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is out of the question. And to concede that this absurd deal has only a "chance" of accomplishing it's goal is to re-enforce its absurdity. And make its supporters look foolish.
As Obama did again in a letter to NY Congressman Jerrold Nadler to get his vote when he promised " I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon including the use of miltary force". Wait a minute. Isn't this supposed to be the "best" way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without military force? Or is this Obama for the millionth time saying whatever he has to say to get what he wants politically?
Hasn't MoveOn, DFA and other Tea Party Left groups touting this deal been shouting from the rooftops that this is the only way to prevent a war with Iran? So it seems Obama made fools out of them too in his letter to Nadler. As usual.
If voters ever think that Democrats in congress are more interested in saving Obama's face than the lives that will be put at risk by allowing the arms embargo against Iran to end which even Obama admits will be used to arm terrorists around the world, and ending the ban on Iran having ICBMs whose sole purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead, and clearing the way for Iran to get s nuclear weapon in 10 years then incumbent Democrats across the country are in very,very big trouble.
No Democrat is ever going to lose an election voting against this absurd deal. But a lot can lose by voting for it.
And what Democrats need to keep in mind is not what Obama says, and not what Pelosi says and not what Harry Reid says, but to paraphrase what Colin Powell said about foreign policy,and that is for Democrats on the Iran deal, if you don't break it you own it. For better or for worse.