…So maybe it was out of bounds, counterproductive, lacked etiquette. But letter opponents ought to find better allies. -30-
-
-
Replying to @DavidMDrucker
.
@DavidMDrucker if "ed boards aren't happy" is insufficient, is "makes a nuclear Iran more likely" a good enough counter-argument?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sethdmichaels
@sethdmichaels Yes, that's actually a good counter. Question is whether that counter is true. But beats etiquette complaints.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DavidMDrucker
@DavidMDrucker honest question: what would you do in Iran's shoes, told that there's no point to negotiating since it'll get nullified?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sethdmichaels
@sethdmichaels Well, a few things. Iran might ask: What would it take to get this ratified? Unless they're not interested in really dealing1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DavidMDrucker
.
@DavidMDrucker i mean, Cotton himself said his goal was to end negotiations, not get a "better" deal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/tom-cotton-iran_n_6831328.html …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@sethdmichaels Not what he told me in our interview. But I do think it's fair to say Republicans would rather have no deal...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.