Munich and Geneva

            What possible justification do we have for legitimizing the Iranian regime?  Iran is the world's single biggest sponsor of international terrorism.  The list of its atrocities is too long to fit on this page.  Yet, we lift sanctions, free up $7 billion, and give the Iranians the right to continue enriching uranium.  The agreement signed in Geneva fails to cover centrifuge manufacturing and testing, weapons research and fabrication, and the expansion of Iran's ballistic missile program.  Iranians are dancing in the streets.  Why not?  They won.

            Chuck Hagel, masquerading as our Secretary of Defense, says "...the risk is very minimal for us in this,"  Try telling that to the Israelis who will be the first to be bombed out of existence once Iran has nuclear weapons.  In a conversation among friends the other day, the question was posed, "Will this agreement force Israel to act preemptively against Iran?"  The group answered unanimously, "Yes."  The next question was, "Will Obama come to Israel's aid?"  Once again the answer was a unanimous "No."
            Critics consider the Geneva agreement nothing less than abject surrender.  Worse, it is being compared to Chamberlain's disgraceful surrender of Austria in Munich.  "Peace in our time," crowed Chamberlain.   "It's always better to negotiate," echoes Obama.  Munich was followed by World War II.  What will follow Geneva?
            Not to worry.  The administration says sanctions can be re-imposed in six months.  When?  After Israel is reduced to ashes?  The Virginian-Pilot's editorial page on November 27 had the most appropriate cartoon.  It showed a clueless dolt trying to figure out how to unscramble an egg and put it back into the broken shell.  The egg was broken in Geneva.