• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

United Nations Security Council Approves Iranian Nuclear Deal

Iran Nuclear Deal Congress

The United Nations Security Council voted this morning to approve the deal that had been reached last week between Iran and the so-called “P5+1” powers regarding Iran’s nuclear research program, but the real fight is yet to come in the United States Congress:

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations Security Council on Monday unanimously approved a resolution that creates the basis for international economic sanctions against Iran to be lifted, a move that incited a furious reaction in Israel and potentially sets up an angry showdown in Congress.

The 15-0 vote for approval of the resolution —104 pages long including annexes and lists — was written in Vienna by diplomats who negotiated a landmark pact last week that limits Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for ending the sanctions.

Iran has pledged to let in international monitors to inspect its facilities for the next 10 years and other measures that were devised to guarantee that its nuclear energy activities are purely peaceful.

The Security Council resolution, which is legally binding, lays out the steps required only for the lifting of United Nations sanctions.

It has no legal consequence on the sanctions imposed separately by the United States and the European Union.

The European Union also approved the Iran nuclear deal on Monday, putting in motion the lifting of its own sanctions, which include prohibitions on the purchase of Iranian oil. Europe will continue to prohibit the export of ballistic missile technology and sanctions related to human rights.

Diplomats have warned that if the United States Congress refuses to lift American penalties against Iran, the Iranians may renege on their commitments as well, which could result in a collapse of the entire deal.

The resolution takes effect in 90 days, a time frame negotiated in Vienna to allow Congress, where members have expressed strong distrust of the agreement, to review it. President Obama, who has staked much of his foreign policy ambitions on the Iran pact, has vowed to veto a congressional rejection of the nuclear accord.

The resolution will not completely lift all Council restrictions on Iran. It maintains an arms embargo, and sets up a panel to review the import of sensitive technology on a case-by-case basis.

It also sets up a way to renew sanctions if Iran does not abide by its commitments. In the event of an unresolved dispute over Iran’s enrichment activities, the United Nations sanctions snap back automatically after 30 days. To avoid the sanctions renewal requires a vote of the Council — giving skeptics, namely the United States, an opportunity to veto it.

Mr. Obama’s critics in Congress, including at least two senior Democrats, objected to the Council vote’s taking place before Congress has had a chance to debate it.

The United States ambassador, Samantha Power, speaking immediately after the vote, told the Council that sanctions relief would start only when Iran “verifiably” meets its obligations under the deal.

“We have a responsibility to test diplomacy,” she said.

As The Wall Street Journal notes, the U.N. Resolution will not go into effect for ninety days in part to give the United States Congress a change to review the deal itself and vote to either approve or disapprove under the provisions negotiated between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, Ranking Minority Committee Member Ben Cardin, and the White House. Under that agreement, Congress has until essentially mid-September to either approve or disapprove the deal and, if it disapproves the deal then President Obama will veto their resolution and opponents of the deal would have to find the votes to override the President’s veto. As I explained last week, at the moment it appears that it will be difficult if not impossible for Republicans to override the President’s veto, meaning that the deal will most likely go forward.

As it stands, of course, the deal is already going forward as far as much of the rest of the world is concerned. In addition to the United Nations, the European Union has also approved the deal and Russia and China are both on board as well. Yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron called the deal better than the status quo and better than any alternative. Indeed, at this point it seems as though the only opposition to the deal being expressed publicly is coming from Republicans in the United States and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, If by some chance these parties are successful in their efforts to have Congress block the deal from the U.S. perspective, it seems fairly clear that they will end up making the situation worse rather than better. In the event of such a disapproval by Congress, the Iranians may well decide to repudiate the deal themselves and move forward with a nuclear weapons research program that has been on hold while this deal was being negotiated. In that case, the situation in the Middle East will become even more dangerous than it already is. Alternatively, a defeat for the Administration in Congress could lead the other nations that were involved in the negotiations to decided to go ahead with a deal on their own regardless of what the United States does. In that case, the entire international sanctions regime would collapse and we would have much less leverage over the Islamic Republic than we do today.

As for the deal itself, it seems to me from what I have been able to review on the matter that it’s a fairly good one and that, assuming its terms are adhered, it will essentially eliminate the legitimate concerns of the nations in the Middle East and Europe, and the United States, regarding the potential dangers of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. Conservative critics of the deal have focused on its imperfections and, certainly, there are things we had to give away in order to get the agreement. However, as Jeffrey Lewis says in Foreign Policy, the deal that was reached in Vienna is actually a very good one given the realities of the international situation. Rejecting it, as Republican critics would do, isn’t going to make the world safer and is in fact likely to make the world more dangerous. So, the ball’s in their court.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. C. Clavin says:

    This deal is starting to remind me of Climate Change…the only ones in the entire world that don’t agree with it are Americans who belong to the Republican Party. Well…and Netanyahoo…and Republicans are really just his Minions (little yellow things blathering on insanely).
    Anyway:
    Most telling…we aren’t hearing any cogent arguments against the deal…only emotional outbursts from people who don’t seem to have any actual knowledge of the deal.
    Most funny…Walker and the rest of the clown car are still threatening to bomb Iran on their first day in office (as if they stand a chance of being in that office). JEB! is a moderate…he will wait until day 2.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4

  2. C. Clavin says:

    Congress has until essentially mid-September to either approve or disapprove the deal

    Congress is on vacation for most of this time period…so there is little chance they will do anything.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  3. stonetools says:

    Yeah, Doug, but Bibi Netanyahu and Bill Kristol doesn’t like the deal, so obviously you hate Israel and don’t believe in American exceptionalism. Be like Scott Walker:

    Speaking to reporters here Saturday after an appearance at the Family Leadership Summit, Walker said the next president will need to be prepared to take aggressive action against Iran, “very possibly” including military strikes, on the day he or she is inaugurated, and said he would not be comfortable with a commander in chief who is unwilling to act aggressively on day one of a new presidency. In his announcement speech at the beginning of the week, Walker had promised to ‘terminate’ the Iran deal on day one of his presidency,

    ‘Murica!!

    Here’s what moderate Republican JEB! said:

    “They are purposefully misrepresenting his view,” says one Bush adviser. And Bush, in a statement to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Sunday night, called the agreement a “terrible deal” and said if elected president he “would begin immediately to responsibly get us out of this deal.”

    So Walker wants to go to war with Iran ASAP, and Bush wants to slow walk things.
    Elections matter , folks. Let’s make sure we don’t elect a Republican President through our vote or non-vote.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2

  4. gVOR08 says:

    @stonetools:

    would begin immediately to responsibly get us out of this deal.

    WTF is that supposed to mean?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  5. LaMont says:

    @stonetools:

    So Walker wants to go to war with Iran ASAP, and Bush wants to slow walk things

    .

    Within the context of this article, what Bush wants to do would actually be worst as sanctions around the world would fail resulting in the United States having no leverage to follow up with inspections. The end product? Iran would continue to reap the benefits of the failed sanctions AND use the resources for nuclear activity with no oversight. Meaning, a nuclear Iran would happen much sooner than simply engaging in war. Bush really should not say this if he takes this job seriously!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  6. LaMont says:

    @stonetools:

    and said if elected president he “would begin immediately to responsibly get us out of this deal.”

    Oh wait – I guess if you use the word “responsibly” in that boneheaded smack in the face of diplomacy it’ll make everything alright!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  7. steve says:

    I think what is important to remember here is that the GOP gave away their motivation a long time ago with their emphasis on the Obama legacy. This was not a bilateral deal. Russia, China, Germany and France clearly don’t care about the Obama legacy, and they voted for this deal. For the GOP, this is about minimizing the Obama legacy. (That plus the Israel first group.)

    Steve

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1

  8. mantis says:

    Promising to go to war immediately after taking office. Good plan, Republican candidates.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1

  9. michael reynolds says:

    @mantis:

    Somewhere in Hillary’s dark lair people are already sketching out the TV ads.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

  10. Davebo says:

    @steve: You forgot about the UK.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  11. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @michael reynolds: Let me write the first one:

    “Republican hawks are plotting with Iranian mullahs to destroy this historic agreement…” (dark evil music) duhduh duhhhhh….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  12. Slugger says:

    The Republican Party can not allow itself to become the repository of lost causes. The Affordable Care Act, gay marriage, diplomatic relations with Cuba, and this compact are fait accompli. We need a vigorous and reasonable political party taking responsible positions in opposition to the Democrats. The American people like a winner; whining about past settled issues and rolling out a seventeenth “investigation” into Benghazi is not going to resonate with the people. Throw in the current crop of candidates sounds like an impending crash to me. Why won’t Reince Priebus do his job?
    BTW, Iran is a signatory of the Nonproliferation Pact, and their leading Ayatollah reiterated his fatwa against n-weapons yesterday. The whole world knows this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  13. HankP says:

    If Iran was planning to develop a nuclear bomb, it’s a much better deal for the US than for Iran. If Iran wasn’t planning on developing a nuclear bomb, it’s a much better deal for Iran than the US. But we demanded guarantees against nuclear weapons work, so we should be OK with the deal.

    I’m a bit surprised at candidates proposing an act of war as their first action after being sworn in. I doubt that’s really a popular position that will garner the votes of anyone but the extreme right wing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  14. Kylopod says:

    @LaMont:

    I guess if you use the word “responsibly” in that boneheaded smack in the face of diplomacy it’ll make everything alright!

    My father, an economist, has always liked to tell the following joke. (Beware that this joke, like most economist jokes, doesn’t make sense to anyone but economists.)

    A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, “Let’s smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Let’s build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Let’s assume that we have a can-opener…”

    I don’t know about economists, but to me, “assume we have a can-opener” is the perfect description of Republican policy-making these days.

    Take, for example, what they intend to do for their “Obamacare replacement.” They’ll tell you they’ll propose a more “patient-centered” plan that cuts costs and gives customers more choice all the while preserving all the good stuff about Obamacare, but without the tax increases, plan cancelations, death panels, etc. Similarly, they’ll tell you they’ll find a way to “responsibly” get out of the Iran deal. And how will they do it? By being responsible, you numb-nuts!

    They don’t have to tell you how they’ll achieve any of these results. All they have to do is a assume a can opener.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1

  15. Tyrell says:

    The president offered to listen to any ideas people had. Here are some changes and additions that I would make. There needs to be bases located at the nuclear sites, with US nuclear scientists, military, and engineers stationed there 24/7 until the nuclear conundrum is resolved. Inspections not just “anywhere, anytime”, but all the time !
    The Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979-80 needs to be resolved with a full accounting, responsibility, and consequences for those involved in any way in the American hostages :their holding, torture, and physical abuse. All files and documents relating to those crimes will be handed over to the US government. Trials for those responsible should be arranged and set up.
    An independent committee needs to be set up to take a look at the agreement. The committee should be made up of former leaders from various administrations: secretaries of state, defense secretaries, joint chiefs of staff, and other cabinet members.
    The large print is bad enough. I hate to think what the small print says !

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 24

  16. Jimbo says:
  17. CB says:

    @Tyrell:

    So basically, American military bases on Iranian soil as a precondition to a deal?

    Again, Id kill to know which one of the regulars is behind you, Tyrell old buddy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  18. anjin-san says:

    @Tyrell:

    I hate to think

    I’ve edited your comment down to the essentials…

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1

  19. michael reynolds says:

    @Tyrell:

    No one has to be there 24/7, that’s complete nonsense. As the nuclear physicists and others involved in the making, the concealing and the finding of radioactive material have told us, hiding plutonium is not like hiding your bong. Radiation lingers.

    Furthermore, if we did put permanent bases there (and there is 0% chance of that) they would be hostages to the Iranians should we ever decide to take action against Iran.

    In other words: stupid idea and you should resolve in the future to ignore whatever cretin first came up with it. You are listening to liars, frauds and idiots. It is possibly the dumbest damn idea I’ve ever heard as relates to Iran.

    The IAEA inspectors are on-board, our allies are on-board, the UN is on-board, there are only two groups opposed: Likud and the GOP.

    This is nothing but politics. It is by every rational standard a very good deal. The people who denigrated Mr. Kerry should be ashamed of themselves. The people who tried to subvert Mr. Obama on this should find a rock and crawl under it.

    And, if you want to bring the hostage crisis into it, the Iranians are going to want to bring our overthrow of their government and the imposition of the Shah up as well. We won’t come out on top in that little debate.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3

  20. Steve V says:

    James: now on my phone you site rolls to some weird web site called king.com. PLEASE CUT THE SH!T AND STOP THESE RIDICULOUS ADS THAT INTERFERE WITH THE SITE. Thank you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  21. Kylopod says:

    @Steve V: It’s Obama’s fault.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  22. Gustopher says:

    @Tyrell:

    The Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979-80 needs to be resolved with a full accounting, responsibility, and consequences for those involved in any way in the American hostages

    Given that we have them the Shah, I think we got off pretty lightly. Let’s not press our luck there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

  23. Steve V says:

    @Gustopher: Tyrell really won’t let go of the Iranian hostage crisis of 35 years ago. I’m not saying I don’t sympathize with resentments towards that episode in history, but I’m kind of wondering where that’s coming from. I mean, if every country we interfered with was allowed to hold these grudges, we’d be paying reparations into the foreseeable future.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  24. David M says:

    @Jimbo:

    As the arguments against are few and far between, I’ll take what I can get and point out the problems…

    Part of what made the deal so bad is…it did all the things that the Obama administration said it wouldn’t do (you know, those infamous “red lines”)

    Taking various statements out of context is a useless way to evaluate whether the deal with Iran is worthwhile. The proper way is to judge it on the merits. The rest of editorial doesn’t honestly address the issue, or answer the question of what a better deal would look like, or how it would be achieved, so it’s a complete failure as an actual argument against the deal.

    and paid Iran to do them

    Removing sanctions is not “paying Iran anything”.

    Also, it completely ignored any Iranian role anywhere in Worldwide terrorism, including against the US soldiers.

    As it should. This was an agreement about their nuclear program only.

    It’s like everyone forgot that this responsibility that others proclaim actually puts us in greater danger.

    I’m not even sure what this means, but the deal doesn’t mean every Iran problem is solved. The people supporting the deal know this, even if people opposing the deal don’t want to acknowledge the supporters are being realistic.

    What’s the alternative, you ask? Um, squeeze them with sanctions that were bringing them to their knees already?

    The sanctions had to be multilateral to be effective, and it’s incredibly naive and unrealistic to think that our allies would continue the sanctions once it became clear we weren’t negotiating in good faith.

    Their economy had collapsed!

    To the contrary, sanctions only are effective for a limited time. The longer they went on, the less painful they would become as Iran increasingly was able to bypass them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  25. stonetools says:

    @David M:

    The right wing argument on sanctions is that the countries which the right wing usually either identifies as our enemies ( Russia and China) or as unreliable allies ( Europe ) would put aside their economic interests and continue to observe sanctions for as long as the US or Israel felt necessary. When asked WHY they would do that , right wingers either fall silent or change the subject.
    The arguments against this deal increasingly look like the arguments against SSM or Obamacare-bad faith arguments that boil down to “We hate Obama and don’t want to give him any credit.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  26. David M says:

    @stonetools:

    As ridiculous as “keep the sanctions going indefinitely” plan is, the idea that the US can back out of the agreement is turning the crazy dial up to eleven. If Iran is keeping their side of the deal, and a GOP President were to refuse to honor the agreement after taking office, how could that possibly benefit us? Not only would we not gain any leverage for a better agreement with Iran, we would have broken an agreement with the other allies that helped use secure the deal. The UK, France, China, Russia and Germany all helped us negotiate this agreement, and they are all on board with it. How could it possibly be a good idea to destroy it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  27. Tony W says:

    @David M:

    How could it possibly be a good idea to destroy it?

    Because Freedom!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  28. Dumb Brit says:

    @Tyrell: according to your line of thought, should the agreement also require Ronald Reagan to be exhumed, and sent to Iran? After all he was Commander in Chief when USS VINCENNES shot down Iran Air Flight 655. Do we need “full accounting, responsibility, and consequences for those involved in any way” in the shooting down of this commercial airliner?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  29. Mikey says:

    @michael reynolds:

    there are only two groups opposed: Likud and the GOP

    You’d think so, but Israeli opposition to the deal cuts across party divisions.

    Opposition to Iran deal makes for some strange bedfellows

    Here’s a pop quiz about the six-nation nuclear pact with Iran, signed last week: Which Israeli official called it a “horrible deal, one that will go down as the tragedy of the ages”?

    If you guessed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, you’re wrong. The correct answer is opposition leader Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s chief political rival.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  30. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Mikey: Hard core conservative Iranians are a 3rd group against the deal

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  31. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    There needs to be bases located at the nuclear sites, with US nuclear scientists, military, and engineers stationed there 24/7 until the nuclear conundrum is resolved.

    What conundrum? And why in the world would a sovereign nation agree to this? Iraq wouldn’t. Why would Iran? And why would we when our mere presence is inflammatory in the Middle East?

    The Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979-80 needs to be resolved with a full accounting, responsibility, and consequences for those involved in any way in the American hostages :their holding, torture, and physical abuse.

    This deal is about nukes, not your silly emotions about events that happened 35 years ago.

    An independent committee needs to be set up to take a look at the agreement.

    Call Ken Starr and have him get to work until he finds a blow job somewhere.

    The large print is bad enough.

    Really? Is that why you failed to bring up even one single item from the large print?
    Where are you copying and pasting this nonsense from?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  32. C. Clavin says:

    @Tyrell:

    a full accounting, responsibility, and consequences for those involved in any way in the American hostages :their holding, torture, and physical abuse.

    We don’t even hold our own people accountable for torture and physical abuse. Why aren’t you calling for a full accounting, responsibility and consequences from Cheney and his cabal? Kinda hypocritical, aren’t you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  33. WJS says:

    I would think that impeachment proceedings against the President would have started by now. Has anyone asked the Republicans in Congress if they have the paperwork ready to go? Are they on vacation? Don’t they have some clerks who can get this thing rolling?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  34. DrDaveT says:

    I accidentally heard a few minutes of Fox News last night (didn’t change the channel fast enough when Strange Inheritance finished), and was blown away by how completely divorced from reality their coverage of this was. In particular, the deal was consistently (and frequently) referred to as “the Obama administration’s deal with Iran” — as if the other five national parties had absolutely nothing to do with it and were willing to rubber-stamp whatever terms the Kenyan Imam told them to sign. Including Putin’s Russia. And China. And France, which Republicans believe is a Muslim country anyway.

    Pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  35. lounsbury says:

    @Jimbo: Yes, the frothy Bolshy Right solution…. Will work unilaterally about as well as the idiotic Cuban sanctions.

    Magical thinking, by a set of frothy ideologues who think their Action Movies are documentaries.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  36. C. Clavin says:

    @Dumb Brit:

    require Ronald Reagan to be exhumed, and sent to Iran

    Jesus-gawd…don’t do that…he loved trading arms with the Iranians…he’d just give them a friggin’ nuke in exchange for the 4 prisoners they have now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  37. J-Dub says:

    The Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979-80 needs to be resolved with a full accounting, responsibility, and consequences for those involved in any way in the American hostages :their holding, torture, and physical abuse.

    This deal is about nukes, not your silly emotions about events that happened 35 years ago

    Let’s face it, this about the right wing thinking that Iran has never been properly punished for the hostage-taking and we won’t be “even” until we drop a few bombs on Tehran.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  38. James P says:

    This is utterly irrelevant because the next president is going to tear up this deal on DAY ONE. I think pretty much everybody has committed to that.

    Since this is not a treaty (as the Senate has not ratified it) it is an agreement between an Ayatollah and a community organizer. The next president is not bound by it.

    Hopefully if Trump is the next POTUS he will bomb the crap out of them.

    We could potentially fire as many as 1,000 ballistic and cruise missiles at Iran every day without risking a single American life.

    That would absolutely break them. If we bombed their oil facilities, their government buildings, their airports, their government buildings, and ESPECIALLY their religious sites with 1,000 sorties per day they would break.

    Send in Seal Team Six to whack Khamenei. Send them in again to whack his successor. Drone Rouhani. Drone Soulemani. Have Seal Team Six bag Zarif.

    Level the “holy” city of Qom.

    Eventually they will decide it’s not worth the cost of having a nuclear weapon.

    That would be the Trump approach.

    If they don’t have any oil fields, any airports, any roads, any bridges, how can they function as a country?

    That’s how you prevent them from getting a nuke.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  39. gVOR08 says:

    @James P:
    Gotta be Reynolds. Even the original James P can’t be dumb enough to believe Trump is sincere about a single word he’s said.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  40. James P says:

    @J-Dub:

    Let’s face it, this about the right wing thinking that Iran has never been properly punished for the hostage-taking and we won’t be “even” until we drop a few bombs on Tehran.

    AGREED!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  41. David M says:

    @gVOR08:

    But is there really any way to know for sure?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. J-Dub says:

    @James P: You should have your mom bring down another Mountain Dew Code Red and pepperoni Hot Pocket. You shouldn’t have to troll on an empty stomach.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  43. James P says:

    @J-Dub: I prefer Diet Raspberry Snapple and Subway Sweet Onion Chicken Teriyaki, but thanks for thinking of me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. C. Clavin says:

    @James P:
    Gotta be Reynolds spoofing us

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. DrDaveT says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Gotta be Reynolds spoofing us

    I hope so. I’d hate to think that even Republican ‘morality’ is quite that psychopathic. “We could spend more than $1 billion per day to murder millions in cold blood, committing the entire world irrevocably to the eradication of the United States — that would teach ’em a lesson.” Brrr.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  46. Grewgills says:

    C. Clavin, it’s someone spoofing us. I think MR is spoofing a spoofer. Now if we could get someone to spoof MR spoofing James P we’ll sink down into some sort of Inception level weirdness.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0