Crank up Pink Floyd’s “Pigs (Three different Ones)”— Hey you White House, ha ha, charade you are!–and they must be having snowball fights in hell. Mark the date down February 6th, The Washington Post’s editorial board said it didn’t trust they way Barack Obama was negotiating with Iran. Yes that Washington Post, the one that is so liberal it believes Jennifer Rubin is a conservative.

The refuge of the Beltway arrogant leftist intelligentsia actually made some of the same arguments against the Presidential sellout to Iran as made on these pages. Including (in their words):

• First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating
  Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to
  tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.

  The first and broadest of these problems was outlined by
  Mr. Kissinger in recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services
  Committee. The talks, he pointed out, began as a multilateral effort
  headed by the European Union and backed by six U.N. Security Council
  resolutions intended “to deny Iran the capability to develop a military
  nuclear option.” Though formally the multilateral talks continue, “these
  negotiations have now become an essentially bilateral negotiation”
  between the United States and Iran “over the scope of that [nuclear]
  capability, not its existence,” Mr. Kissinger said.

• Second,
  in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has
  declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend
  its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a
  place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S.
  allies…For their part, the Iranians,.. “are currently
  involved in activities to destabilize the governments of [U.S.-allied]
  nations as near as Bahrain and as far away as Morocco.” A
  Tehran-sponsored militia recently overthrew the U.S.-backed government
  of Yemen. Rather than contest the Iranian bid for regional hegemony, as
  has every previous U.S. administration since the 1970s, Mr. Obama
  appears ready to concede Iran a place in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and beyond
  — a policy that is viewed with alarm by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan
  and Turkey, among other allies.

• Finally,
  the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement
  any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions
  that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either
  chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications
  for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed
  unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term…. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid
  congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would
  oppose the deal he is prepared to make. If so, the right response to the
  questions now being raised is to seek better terms from Iran — or
  convince the doubters that an accord blessing and preserving Iran’s
  nuclear potential is better than the alternatives.

Trending: Democrats Introduce Bill Requiring Background Check For Ammunition

I wonder if the progressive pundits will read this and begin to understand why Bibi Netanyahu accepted Speaker Boehner’s invitation to speak before congress.

Read the full WAPO editorial here and click on the player below to enjoy Pink Floyd’s “Pigs (Three different Ones)”