The humor of having liberal beginners in the positions of power in the United States has to constantly tickle the odd little leprechaun with the lousy leisure suit from Iran. Our wonderful “talkers” are all agog at the chance to “negotiate” with this oily reptile. The historical lessons that the rest of us learned from the last liberal who gaily waved a “document” around after “negotiating” the 1938 Munich Agreement with a demonic despot have escaped the brilliant modern day appeasers who are simply hypnotized by the timbre of their own hollow voices and the resonance of their empty words..
In an article entitled, “U.S. does not see Iran’s nuclear claims as rebuff”, we read that our Secretary of Statists is apparently confused by this whole Secretary’s post that she was gifted for failing miserably as a Presidential candidate. “We don’t know what to believe..” I have yet to decide which is more frightening, “Hillary Clinton, top U.S. diplomat”, “President Ah-mad-inejad” or “President Obama”. All three will have permanent ramifications on America’s future. Ramifications that will take decades to correct and repair..
Using the same circular logic that was employed to mesmerize the liberal base during the election, Rodham said, “We do not attribute any particular meaning, with respect to the range of issues that we are looking to address with the Iranians, from this particular statement..” Translation: Her particular statement has no particular meaning..
When confused, “educated” liberals tend to vomit forth a volley of polysyllabic sophistry that perfumes the air with hilarious helium. The usual “targets” of this obfuscation are typically other liberals, so the facetious flatulence easily achieves its modest goals. Those not embalmed by the blue state Bolsheviks can dissect their buncombe with as little effort as it takes to steal blankets from the homeless.
The bottom line: She does not know. The Secretary of State does not know.. It is the job of the Secretary of State to KNOW. Whomever this “we” is, “we” do not know either, according to the “top U.S. diplomat..” The old saying goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. In this case a total lack of knowledge will prove to be considerably more dangerous..
The talkative tyros “voiced skepticism about Iran’s new claims that it had made major progress in its nuclear program and tested more advanced equipment for enriching uranium.” What is this “skepticism” based upon? It is true that the vast preponderance of Iran is a sixth century cesspool, but that cesspool sits upon pools of crude oil.. The profits from the sale of which could be used to buy the necessary technology that would help with the whole “major process” thing. How many Iranian “scientists” have been educated in America who have since returned to “ply their trade” at home?
“We don’t know what to believe about the Iranian program. We’ve heard many different assessments and claims over a number of years.” This “we” that she constantly refers to are the “fall guys and gals” who will be conveniently blamed when the “program” turns out to be the template for an Iranian atomic bomb. Since someone with “thirty five years of political experience” “doesn’t know what to believe” about the Iranian nuclear ambitions, I would suggest to her that she should just clear out of the way and allow the Israelis to do the “negotiating” for her..
How is Rodham going to “negotiate” with anyone? We are stuck with a Secretary of State who couldn’t “negotiate” with her husband in order to stop him from poking his progressive pickle into every pimply intern in Washington. She couldn’t convince him to honor his “obligations” to her and she is going to somehow “scare” Iran into concessions?
Rodham believes that “Iran must abide by their international obligations” over its nuclear program.. “International obligations” are of no concern to the Sharia savages of Iran. Just as the “treaties” of the past that that were signed by the Soviets and that the lachrymose lefties held so dear, an “international obligation” is about as important to the Iranians as Christmas is..
These “obligations” are figments of her fetid imagination. “If they abided by a set of obligations and expectations that affect them and by which we believe they are bound..” Here we have the liberals expecting “the world” to conform to their ethos. Rodham “doesn’t know” that a “country” that has shaped its government to be an arm of its “religion”, a “religion” that would prefer to overtake the rest of “the world”, doesn’t care what the Milquetoast morons of the Obama administration “thinks”. What Rodham “believes” is irrelevant to a country that constantly reminds the world that it would like to “eliminate” Israel for starters..
“We are going to continue to insist on that.” “We”.. Is there some “coalition”, similar to the one from Operation Desert Storm that has been assembled by the liberals or is this just another bout with wishful collectivist thinking? In case Rodham and the rest of the Obama hacks and shills haven’t picked up on this yet, Iran doesn’t care what she “doesn’t know” or what “we insist upon”.
The self imposed self importance of Rodham has to have the bearded brigands in tears. “It will be up to Iran whether it wants to engage with us”. “Engage”? If anyone else were in office, I would view the “engage with us” comment as the double entendre of talks/ordnance. (For the liberals; Ordnance: things that go boom..)
Mr. “I-need-a-new-job” said that Iran was “ready for talks” only if those discussions were based upon “justice and respect”. Hearing this Persian poltroon talking about “justice and respect” is almost as ironic as hearing John Edwards talking about “honesty and fidelity”. “Justice and respect” have altogether different meanings under the weird “laws” of Iran. Remember that Iran is asking for “justice and respect”..
Here are just a few of the examples of their “justice and respect” for the “citizens” (prisoners) of their own country. Under the “Diyya”, the “value” of a woman’s life is half that of a man. Everything from testimony in court to inheritance, an Iranian woman’s contribution or status is “half that of a man.” This is the “country” in which women “convicted” of adultery are routinely “stoned” to death. Anyone who converts to a different religion (“apostasy”) has also committed “a crime” that is punishable by death. Wouldn’t it be nice for Rodham as our “top U.S. diplomat” and as a woman to ask for “justice and respect” for half of the population of Iran? (Again I ask, where are the feminists on this one?)
The rush to “negotiate” comes from the liberal inclination towards capitulation as opposed to confrontation. The weak always want to negotiate first, the strong would rather “engage” in a much different way. In order for “negotiation” to be effective in any way, shape or form, there has to be an “or else” that is either directly implied or indirectly insinuated. The left has taken the “or else” out of the equation, therefore they send up only sophomoric sorties and hilarious hot air strikes.
State Department spokesman (one of those “we” that Rodham referred to..) Robert Wood said, “the United States was still waiting for a response from Iran”. Here is how the whole scenario breaks down, literally.. The liberal caliphate is “waiting”. The Secretary of State doesn’t know what she is talking about. Someone with courage should “talk” without removing the possibility of “acting”.. While the Obama minions are “still waiting” to “talk”, the Iranians are “planning” and “acting”..