Naturally. Because to him, the Iran nuclear sellout isn't about foreign policy, or natural security, or any other even tangentially policy-related reason; it's about him. And therefore, if you oppose his "deal," you're opposing him and attempting to deny him his foreign policy "legacy" and Neville Chamberlain moment. And such seditious effrontery will not be tolerated, even though the "enemies" he smears already rigged the "ratification" process in his favor:
“What I said is absolutely true factually. The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds force, hard-liners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community,” Obama said in an interview that will air on “Fareed Zakaria GPS on Sunday.
No, Barry, the truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, or any other "hardliners" think, because the only "think" that matters in Iran is the Supreme Leader's, and Ayatollah Khamanie accepted your "deal" because it gives him everything he wanted and more, all the while maintaining his "DEATH TO AMERICA!" chant uninterrupted. All the more relevant, actually, since now he has or soon will have the ability to make it into a reality.
“The reason that Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the folks in his caucus who opposed this, jumped out and opposed this before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of an ideological commitment not to get a deal done.
More of a common sense recognition that this "deal" will guarantee the mullahs the nuclear arsenal with which to plunge the Middle East, and maybe the entire world, into nuclear war. That doesn't require any "ideological commitment" - unlike your "deal," Barry.
In that sense they do have much more in common with the hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo.”
Perhaps in the sense that both are looking out for their respective country's national interests. Something O considers to be legitimate for the mullahs and illegitimate for us. Maybe that's because he equates his own interests with America's.
If Congress actually still mattered, and if Senate Republicans hadn't forfeited their Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 ratification power, The One might not be mouthing off so indiscretely. But he knows the Corker-Cardin/Menendez fix is in and has nothing to lose from being candid about the contempt he's always harbored for his opponents.
Still, his vicious partisanism and bellicosity is raising some eyebrows even among his leftwingnut Jewish supporters:
What we increasingly can’t stomach — and feel obliged to speak out about right now — is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately — some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States — and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
We do not accept the idea that Senator Schumer or anyone else is a fair target for racist incitement, anymore than we accept the idea that the basic norms of political discourse in this country do not apply to Jews. Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry — no matter who does it. On this question, we should all stand in defense of Senator Schumer.[emphasis added]
Hey, good folks at Tablet Magazine, we were telling you and your fellow-travelers and everybody else that Barack Obama was an anti-Semite as much as eight years ago. Ditto his stupendous, cosmic narcissism. But you, and too many others, didn't want to listen and heed our warnings. And this is the result. "See, we told you so" doesn't begin to describe it
But it will make an appropriate national epitaph. Even if we can't live to sardonically enjoy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment