The Nuclear Summit

[Lemur]

I know it may be pushing the envelope a bit, but an actual binding agreement of some kind would have been great.

So your "abject failure" argument boils down to the fact that there were agreements, but not in writing. And there were steps taken toward non-proliferation, but not big enough for your taste. That's a rather different take than "failure President does nothing but bow," yes?

Actions against known weapons proliferators with nuclear capabilities such as North Korea would have been an accomplishment, as well. And, as crazy as it sounds, I actually hoped the Nuclear Summit would result in sanctions against Iran, or at least meaningful progress towards that end.

What's the biggest barrier between us and meaningful action against Iran and NK? Would that be China and Russia? Or did you have something else in mind? And if we are having improved relations with, say, Russia, and they are increasingly siding with us when we speak out against Iran, does that qualify as ... well how does that factor into your Republican playbook? A non-narrative fact which must be discarded? Or would you care to describe how we're going to deal with Iran without Russia's help (or at least acquiescence)? That I'd really like to hear.

Really though, you can pick any metric you like besides "meaningless rhetoric" and this summit fails to measure up.

So fact-free, I can consume as much as I like without gaining weight! Your arguments are like the olestra of debate!

Any metric I like? Okay, how about a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia, a plutonium disposal agreement with same, an increase in help from Russia with Iran, and an agreement to remove Ukraine's enriched uranium. There, facts win, rhetoric loses. That was shockingly easy.

Who is saying that proliferation isn't a concern? That’s the point! Very little was done at the conference to deal with it.

I'm sorry, I believe your OP implied that nothing was done ("what was actually accomplished?"). Now you've shifted to "very little"? And how shall we quantify "very little"? That's a slippery little phrase if ever I saw one. "Very little" can mean whatever you like; it's hard to think of a more subjective choice of verbiage. I can declare that "very little" was done in the industrial revolution. Arguing against that sort of vagueness would be like trying to box a cloud.