|Don't know why they gave Israel a bishop, or a pawn down there among the Marsh Arabs. Via Gordon Campbell Plans to Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities. No, he didn't really, and it was 2009.|
So BooMan gave his readers a challenge: to read what Mr. Speaker Boehner said this morning about the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the P5+1—
—and then answer a question:Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday said he hopes the Obama administration fails to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.Boehner said he did not believe Iran would ever live up to its side of a bargain that would lift U.S. sanctions on Tehran.“I’ve never been optimistic that we’d get to an agreement, a real agreement that would stop the nuclear threat from Iran and I don’t think the Iranians have any intention of giving up their desire for a nuclear weapon,” Boehner told Fox Business Channel’s “Opening Bell with Maria Bartiromo.”
Asked whether he’s expecting an agreement, Boehner said: “I would hope not.”“I don’t think we can get to agreement with people who have no intention of keeping the agreement,” he added.
tell me if it is in any way unfair to come to the conclusion that he wants and expects to go to war with Iran.
I mean, I'm just talking about inescapable logical implications here, not psychology. Am I right?I figured two things:
1: There's never been a logical implication John Boehner couldn't escape. He's the Houdini of the syllogism, and in fine form right here, where he says he's "never been optimistic" about the prospects of a deal and "hopes" we don't get one. I.e., he's optimistic that his pessimism will work out. My head exploded.
2. There is one other logical possibility for what he's aiming at, with some solid Republican history to back it up. Remember North Korea?
The G.H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations worked starting in 1989 negotiating with those lunatics on a deal that would stop them from making a nuclear weapon, and finalized a deal in 1994, but then in the elections of that November Republicans took over the House of Representatives and Congress refused to carry out its part of the deal (funding two light-water nuclear reactors for power production, which couldn't be used for anything but power production).
So eventually the North Korean government got tired of waiting for the US to fulfill its responsibilities under the agreement and started working up its program with help from Pakistan; G.W. Bush became president and complained that North Korea belonged to the Axis of Evil. The war in Washington, between helpless General Powell at State and the combined forces of Rumsfeld, Rice, and the Dark Lord Cheney, prevented new negotiations from getting anywhere. And by October 2006, they were ready to test their first nuclear weapon. The role of neo-conservatives led by Cheney in achieving this result is pretty well documented.
So I figure what Boehner wants is for Iran to have a nuclear device. It worked great with North Korea, let's do it again!
I've already said it's what Netanyahu wants. It's for the clarity, of knowing absolutely who your enemies are, and the fear that gets you elected, if you're a conservative who refuses to do anything to help the mass of voters, focusing instead on things like eliminating the inheritance tax and means-testing Social Security to make it easier to destroy down the line. It's a win for everybody! Except, you know, the world.