I must say that after reading Ross’ article detailing his objections to Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran’s leaders signed by him and 46 other Republican Senators leaves me perplexed.
Ross derides the Cotton letter in harsh terms throughout his piece. He begins by stating the letter “reminds us why the GOP can’t seem to get away from its reputation as having an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of political victory.”
He then describes the letter as the “political equivalent of a football fumble” before proclaiming that it “plays into the caricature of Republicans as a party incapable of governing”.
For good measure Ross also calls the letter an act of “self-destructive futility” and “a mistake in every important aspect” before concluding that Cotton is “playing directly into the hands of America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic.”
Now one could safely conclude that Ross really doesn’t like Cotton’s letter. Yet in the middle of the article he momentarily changes horses in mid-stream stating the “harm of Tom Cotton’s letter can be – and, given the willingness of the left to say absolutely anything with a straight face, is being overstated.”
Ross then proceeds to spend the remaining eight paragraphs of his article overstating the harm of Cotton’s letter.
I’m not sure what “political victory” from Cotton’s letter has supposedly snatched defeat to which Ross is referring. The only political victory Republicans could claim would be if Obama were unsuccessful in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. Such an agreement would be the foreign policy equivalent of Obamacare. Indeed as Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes put it last year, “This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.” Barack Obama wants a deal with Iran more than life itself and will spend the rest of his presidency pursuing up until its final minutes if need be.
Ross argues that Republicans ought to have passed a bill instead of writing a letter. He makes the case that by writing the letter it allows President Obama the opportunity to “lob hyperbolic but stinging pronouncements.”
When doesn’t Obama lob hyperbolic but stinging pronouncements?
As I pointed out earlier this week, when Obama accused Republicans of “wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran”, it reminded me of when he accused Republicans in 2011 of making Muammar Qaddafi a “cause celebre” and “somebody no one should want to defend” when all the GOP wanted to do was to discuss our military excursion into Libya. Well, let’s remember that the Obama Administration is in negotiations with these very hardliners.
Does Ross honestly think that Obama would not have engaged in hyperbole had Republicans passed a bill on Iran instead of writing a letter with the liberal media following his lead?
With this in mind I’m not quite sure why Ross is pickin’ on Tom Cotton.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.