New York Times Editorial, "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks": Republicans Oppose Deal With Khamenei Because Obama Is Black

Did you happen to see pictures of Obama's joyous meeting with Cuban leader Raul Castro on Saturday in Panama City? I haven't seen Obama so happy with a foreign leader since his encounter with Venezualan strongman Hugo Chavez in April 2009. After conversing with Castro this past weekend, Obama declared:

"What we have both concluded is that we can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility."

A pity that Obama never broke into such a toothy grin while speaking with Netanyahu or declared following any of his meetings with the Israeli prime minister, "We can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility."

Today, in an editorial entitled "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks," The New York Times begins:

"It is a peculiar, but unmistakable, phenomenon: As Barack Obama’s presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier and more destructive.

. . . .

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program."

I understand: The Republicans, and possibly Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez, too, are opposing Obama's parlous nuclear deal with Khamenei (see Jackson Diehl's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama rolls the dice on Iran") because Obama is black. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's foreign policy agenda, which fosters love and understanding of tyrants across the globe. I don't think I will ever forget Obama asking Medvedev to inform Putin, "After my election, I have more flexibility."

Plainly, The New York Times knows no shame.

Michael Gerson, "A half-baked missive from the GOP": The US Must Negotiate With Iran in "Good Faith"? Yeah, Right!

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A half-baked missive from the GOP," Michael Gerson, who is on record as predicting that Obama's negotiations with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei could result in a "bad deal," is now upbraiding Senate Republicans for signing Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran. Gerson writes:

"A final objection to the Cotton letter concerns not institutional positioning but grand strategy. The alternative to a bad nuclear deal is not war; it is strong sanctions and covert actions to limit Iranian capacities until the regime falls (as it came close to doing in 2009) or demonstrates behavior change in a variety of areas. But this approach depends on the tightening of sanctions in cooperation with Europe, as well as Russia and China. And this effort can be held together only by the impression that the United States has negotiated with Iran in good faith. So negotiations are actually an important part of any attempt to isolate Iran. The key is where we draw our 'red lines.'"

"The alternative to a bad nuclear deal is not war"? Correct. However, Obama is seeking willy-nilly to reach such a deal, and the likelihood of strong sanctions ever being reinstated is close to nil. German companies are champing at the bit to sell goods and service to Iran. Russia is already holding joint naval exercises with Iran, and China is also pursuing a naval alliance with Tehran. In short, the horse is already out of the barn.

"[T]his effort can be held together only by the impression that the United States has negotiated with Iran in good faith"? Be real, Michael! Do you really believe that Putin, busy swallowing Crimea and the eastern part of the Ukraine, and Xi Jinping, who is in a territorial dispute with Japan over the South China Sea, give a damn about "good faith"?

"The key is where we draw our 'red lines'"? Spare me. There are no more red lines. Obama saw to it when he retreated from the red line he drew involving Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Is Obama negotiating a "bad deal"? No, he is negotiating a "disastrous deal," which will give the mullahs a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs in less than a decade. Scold Republicans for signing Cotton's letter? I don't think so.

New York Times Editorial, "Republican Idiocy on Iran": Tom Cotton's "Disgraceful and Irresponsible" Letter

Obama's efforts to sign a nuclear deal with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei are being derailed by Congress, and America's president is responding with extreme petulance. After all, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes let us know that such an agreement had become the raison d'être of the Obama administration in its second term:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

In an editorial entitled "Republican Idiocy on Iran," The New York Times voices Obama's dismay and brands Senator Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran, which was signed by 47 Republican senators, as "disgraceful and irresponsible." The Times goes on to label Cotton as "a junior senator with no foreign policy credentials." However, The Times fails to observe that Obama was also a "junior senator with no foreign policy credentials," who, upon becoming president, foisted upon the US his personal view of the world, which had been shaped by the likes of Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. (A pity we are still being denied access to the tape of Obama at a 2003 farewell party for Khalidi, which is locked away in a safe at The Los Angeles Times.)


The New York Times editorial proceeds to ceremoniously declare:

"Instead of trying to be leaders and statesmen, the Republicans in Congress seem to think their role is outside the American government, divorced from constitutional principles, tradition and the security interests of the American people."

The "security interests of the American people" are being served by providing fanatical mullahs, who stone to death women accused of adultery and hang homosexuals, with the unconditional right to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade and to manufacture ICBMs today with no constraints whatsoever? Yeah, right.

The Times editorial continues:

"Besides being willing to sabotage any deal with Iran (before they know the final details), these Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them."

The "Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them"? Oh really? And what happened to America's global stature when Obama backed away from the "red line" he set involving the use of chemical weapons by Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad against civilians?

The editorial continues:

"But perhaps President Obama described this bizarre reality best. 'It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,' he said. 'It’s an unusual coalition.'"

This is the same argument made by David Ignatius earlier this week in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "GOP senators’ letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible." 
(Note the similarity between the title of Ignatius's opinion piece, which uses the words "dangerous and irresponsible," and the language of the Times editorial, which label's Cotton's letter "disgraceful and irresponsible." Yesterday, John Kerry also branded the letter as "irresponsible."Just another instance of great minds thinking alike and happening upon the same sound bites? I don't think so.)
Ignatius also warned that Cotton's letter would serve the interest of Iranian hard-liners:

"To this assertion of the impermanence of an agreement, Khamenei and other hard-liners might well respond with an Iranian version of 'Amen.' Indeed, they could use the Senate GOP letter as a rationale for abandoning aspects of the deal they find too constraining. That would force the United States to consider military action. The casus belli, bizarrely, might begin with an argument made by Senate Republicans."

As I wrote in response to Ignatius, there is only one person calling the shots in Iran and that's Khamenei. Everyone else in Iran is subservient to him. Iranian "moderates"? Who are they? Iranian President Hassan Rouhani? As reported in December 2014 in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Execution rate accelerates in Iran under Rouhani" by Hagai Lap:

"The rise in the number of trials and death sentences during the rule of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, runs counter to the expectations of improved human rights in Iran following the rule of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number of death trials have risen by 16% in comparison with last year of Ahmadinejad's presidency, which is the highest in 15 years."

And let's not forget Rouhani's pre-election interview in which he boasted how, in the past, he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

The Times concludes:

"The best and only practical way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring."

Spare me! One need only observe what transpired in North Korea. But why should Obama, whose worldview was shaped by Ayers, Khalidi and Wright, think otherwise? And why should the Times question the opinions of this sage, who is so desperate to pave the way to a nuclear nightmare?

Dana Milbank, "GOP senators appear set on their own breakaway nation": Smearing Tom Cotton

Responding to Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran, which was signed by 47 Republican senators and which warned that an agreement reached by Obama with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei could be undone by Obama's successor in the Oval Office, Dana Milbank claims in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "GOP senators appear set on their own breakaway nation" that Republicans are "operating their own independent republic on Capitol Hill." Milbank writes:

"And now we have Tom Cotton, Republicania’s young foreign minister, submitting 'An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran,' counseling Iran’s leaders that any agreement reached by the United States but not ratified by Republicania could be undone 'with the stroke of a pen' (assuming the next president comes from Republicania)."

Milbank proceeds to smear the motives underlying Cotton's letter:

"On Tuesday, the day after his letter to Hezbollah’s masters became public, Cotton provided a clue about his motives: He’d had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and the like."

Or in other words, if you object to allowing the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade, you obviously are in bed with the defense industry. The nasty aerospace and defense industry, employing some 3.5 million Americans, should obviously be shut down - there won't be any need to contend with a docile Iran in another 10 years - and federal grants and benefits should all be channeled to companies manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. Yeah, right.

Peculiar, however, how Milbank makes a point of ignoring the war waged by Obama's IRS against conservatives. Do you remember Obama telling us that IRS targeting had “not even a smidgen of corruption?” Well, as reported in a February 26, 2015 Washington Times article entitled "IRS watchdog reveals Lois Lerner missing emails now subject of criminal probe" by Stephen Dinan:

"The IRS’s inspector general confirmed Thursday it is conducting a criminal investigation into how Lois G. Lerner’s emails disappeared, saying it took only two weeks for investigators to find hundreds of tapes the agency’s chief had told Congress were irretrievably destroyed."

The Republicans are establishing a breakaway nation? Sorry, Dana, it takes two to tango.