OK

U.S. Senator John Cornyn speaks to the media following the weekly Republican Senate policy meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, February 26, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
The president announces that the United States and Iran are moving toward a deal to avert Iran gaining nuclear weapons without even bombing anyone, and what's the Republican response? Obviously, they don't like it. (See: not bombing anyone; possible historic success for Barack Obama.)

The most common Republican response was a mixture of (in translation) "it won't work because it involves diplomacy" with "it better not work because I'm not giving Obama credit for this thing." But a few were extra special:

Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
@JohnCornyn
Right, Obama participated in making nuclear war a little less likely in order to distract from some problems implementing his plan to get health coverage for millions of Americans. That's diabolical! Here's a thought experiment for you: What would Cornyn be saying if Obama suddenly decided to bomb Iran? Answer: He'd likely be accusing the president of trying to distract from Obamacare.
The Iran deal and our allies:  You can't spell abandonment without OBAMA.
@AriFleischer
That's a very subtle, adult slam right there. And since neither Fleischer nor his old boss, George W. Bush, has a Q in his name, it's hard to respond in kind by saying something like "You can't spell 'too many people dead and too much money wasted in Iraq' without [PERSON'S NAME]." Darn. But of course one big reason the public is likely not to share in Republican outrage at Obama trying to use diplomacy is because, thanks to Bush, we're sick of wars and not eager to bomb any more Middle Eastern countries.

In short, Secretary of State John Kerry pretty much nailed it when he said "Gee, you mean the members of the other party are criticizing the president? I can't imagine that."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.