Follow by Email

Thursday, August 6, 2015

New York Times Editorial, "Obama Takes On Opponents of the Iran Deal": How About a Debate Between Obama and Dershowitz?

In a another appallingly partisan editorial entitled "Obama Takes On Opponents of the Iran Deal," The New York Times cites Obama's contention on Wednesday that "many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." The Times goes on to say:

"After 14 years of war, thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost and many thousands more people wounded, it is appalling that so many opponents of the Iran deal either would cavalierly support military action against Iran or are willing to risk it by rejecting the deal. This is an irrational posture, since, as Mr. Obama pointed out, he and future American presidents would be able to use force if Iran tried to build a bomb in coming years.

In putting the current situation into its proper context, Mr. Obama drew one crucial lesson from Iraq — the need to get beyond 'a mind-set characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mind-set that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mind-set that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.' Some members of Congress may not have learned that lesson after so many years of war, but surely the American public has.

After the speech, in a meeting with a small group of journalists, Mr. Obama said the possibility of war if the deal fails was a matter of logic. Though Iran may not attack the United States directly, it could threaten American troops in Iraq with Shiite militias there, threaten Israel with rocket attacks by Hezbollah or send a suicide bomber in a small craft against American naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, he said."

Well, I opposed the Second Gulf War precisely for the reason that America's concern should have been Iran and not Iraq. I argued that this war would destroy the delicate equilibrium between Iraq and Iran, i.e. Sunnis versus Shiites, in the Middle East and empower a savage Iran, hell bent upon Middle East hegemony. Or stated otherwise, it is a cruel world, which demands that you do not bow to implacable foes, but nevertheless you need to pick your fights carefully.

Specifically with regard to the absurd contentions of an anonymous Times editorial board member who has sold her/his soul to the Obama administration, hundreds of American soldiers died in Iraq after the Second Gulf War owing to the use by Iranian-backed militias of IEDs supplied by Iran. In addition, Hezbollah, Iran's surrogate in Lebanon, was responsible for the 1983 Marines Barracks bombing in Beirut, which resulted in the death of 241 U.S. service personnel.

Obama and future American presidents will be able to use force if Iran tries to build a bomb in coming years? Rubbish. Obama's nuclear deal with Supreme Leader Khamenei grants Iran the right to build a nuclear arsenal within a maximum of 15 years. Meanwhile, is there any chance that Obama, the first invertebrate to ever occupy the Oval Office, will use force against Iran during the remaining one and half years of his presidency if Iran cheats - which it will? Answer: You have to be kidding, and the mullahs know this, too.

If the deal fails, Iran might threaten American troops in Iraq with Shiite militias there? Hey, I thought Obama evacuated almost all American troops from Iraq. But more to the point, if Iran threatens American troops anywhere on the globe, it is time to unequivocally warn Iran to cease and desist from issuing such threats or face the consequences. Obama, however, has transformed the United States into a paper tiger.

Iran could "threaten Israel with rocket attacks by Hezbollah"? Unbeknownst to The New York Times, Iran has already supplied Hezbollah with some 130,000 rockets and missiles, all pointed at Israel. Israel is currently facing an existential threat from Iran, albeit by conventional means.

I would only add that Alan Dershowitz, emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School, who opposes Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, expresses many of my thoughts and concerns in a must-read Jerusalem Post opinion piece entitled "Obama gets personal about the Iran deal":

"President Obama, in his desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways. He has accused critics of his deal of being the same republican war mongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer 'overheated' and often dishonest arguments. He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress.

These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern, and sometimes strong opposition to the deal that is currently before Congress.

I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

In short, The New York Times should be ashamed of itself, but it knows no shame, having long ago become the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration.


1 comment:

  1. NYT has amnesia, forgetting so much from their own coverage of the 'debate' over the 2nd Iraq War. Will they ever forgive Hillary for her vote?

    The USA 'anti-war at all costs' faction has a nasty continuous infection from Vietnam, and W's wars.

    I digress. Good for Dershowitz. I would prefer #44 debate with Caroline Glick. She has more spine than anyone.

    When I checked cable news earlier, only AlJazeeraAmerica was covering "Former Argentine President Carlos Menem and 12 other people are going on trial Thursday for allegedly conspiring to derail the investigation into the deadly 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center." [in Argentina]

    What passes for cable news here is mostly focused on the debates, and Trump.

    the Obamas are packing for their vacation on Martha's Vineyard...


    My sense is that Obama really does not WANT to override a veto, because then he will have forced the Dems into the partisan box of his construction, a partisan box where no one who cares about Israel is welcome.

    and, Farrakhan wins, because I am not sure he is referring to white police in his most recent venom, venom usually reserved for the Jews:

    "In Miami at Mt. Zion Baptist Church, Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan said he was looking for “10,000 fearless men” to “rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!” ..."

    The date is Oct 10, during Sukkot.

    The other reason #44 does not want to veto is that Schumer is up for re-election in 2016. If Schumer is forced to support a veto, then New York becomes electoral battleground 1st time since 1980.