In an unintentionally humorous article today, the New York Times talks about the possibility of a permanent rift between the largest pro-Israel group AIPAC and the Obama White House. Obama is angry because AIPAC is opposing the Obama agreement with Iran and has the temerity to actively campaign against that agreement on Capitol Hill.
Think about that. Obama signs a deal that allows Iran to get nuclear weapons. That is the same Iran which says that its mission is to "wipe Israel off the map." Amazingly, Obama actually says that the choice is between the agreement he reached and war. Obama never explains why we couldn't get a better agreement. Obama never explains why all the positions that he said were non-negotiable were given up in the final deal. Obama never explains why anyone ought to believe that the Iranians will even honor the deal when they are already violating all the UN resolutions about their nuclear program. Indeed, Obama's only response is that the agreement must be approved or there will be war. Why would anyone ever find the agreement acceptable. But more than that, why would any group whose purpose is to promote the safety of Israel find that agreement acceptable. It's an agreement that will lead to the destruction of Israel!
So when AIPAC rejects the deal and then goes out to tell Congress to reject it, Obama gets angry? Really? What did he expect a lobbying group to do once it has a strong position on a vital issue? Of course it is lobbying Congress.
We are at a point in our history where our president is busy throwing our allies under the bus in pursuit of a delusional strategy that has not and will not work. In the last month, Obama has abandoned the Kurds and traded the American use of the Incirlik airbase in Turkey for the USA allowing the Turks to conduct a major military campaign against the Kurds fighting for survival in northern Syria. Earlier, Obama abandoned our friends in Egypt and moved to support an Islamist takeover in that country by the Moslem Brotherhood. When the Egyptian people rose up and ousted the Islamists, Obama actually opposed the return of a more secular government in the largest Arab country in the world. Today, Obama is pushing an agreement that paves the road to Israel's destruction by Iranian nuclear weapons. Let's hope that these actions lead to vigorous opposition across the country.
The Times today, however, does not focus on the extraordinarily poor outcome that the agreement will bring. Nope, the issue the paper considers is how the whole dispute will affect future politics. If the life or death of our ally cannot get the liberal media to consider something from the standpoint of right vs. wrong as opposed to politics, then nothing ever will.
Hopefully, not only will AIPAC oppose the Iran deal, but all Americans who care about the future of our friend and ally Israel will oppose the deal. (And by the way, those Iranian nukes could hit us too.)
Think about that. Obama signs a deal that allows Iran to get nuclear weapons. That is the same Iran which says that its mission is to "wipe Israel off the map." Amazingly, Obama actually says that the choice is between the agreement he reached and war. Obama never explains why we couldn't get a better agreement. Obama never explains why all the positions that he said were non-negotiable were given up in the final deal. Obama never explains why anyone ought to believe that the Iranians will even honor the deal when they are already violating all the UN resolutions about their nuclear program. Indeed, Obama's only response is that the agreement must be approved or there will be war. Why would anyone ever find the agreement acceptable. But more than that, why would any group whose purpose is to promote the safety of Israel find that agreement acceptable. It's an agreement that will lead to the destruction of Israel!
So when AIPAC rejects the deal and then goes out to tell Congress to reject it, Obama gets angry? Really? What did he expect a lobbying group to do once it has a strong position on a vital issue? Of course it is lobbying Congress.
We are at a point in our history where our president is busy throwing our allies under the bus in pursuit of a delusional strategy that has not and will not work. In the last month, Obama has abandoned the Kurds and traded the American use of the Incirlik airbase in Turkey for the USA allowing the Turks to conduct a major military campaign against the Kurds fighting for survival in northern Syria. Earlier, Obama abandoned our friends in Egypt and moved to support an Islamist takeover in that country by the Moslem Brotherhood. When the Egyptian people rose up and ousted the Islamists, Obama actually opposed the return of a more secular government in the largest Arab country in the world. Today, Obama is pushing an agreement that paves the road to Israel's destruction by Iranian nuclear weapons. Let's hope that these actions lead to vigorous opposition across the country.
The Times today, however, does not focus on the extraordinarily poor outcome that the agreement will bring. Nope, the issue the paper considers is how the whole dispute will affect future politics. If the life or death of our ally cannot get the liberal media to consider something from the standpoint of right vs. wrong as opposed to politics, then nothing ever will.
Hopefully, not only will AIPAC oppose the Iran deal, but all Americans who care about the future of our friend and ally Israel will oppose the deal. (And by the way, those Iranian nukes could hit us too.)
No comments:
Post a Comment