You had to know this was coming.

The New York Times has a lead idiotorial (that\’s an editorial with an idiotic premise) excoriating Benjamin Netanyahu and his speech, before a wildly enthusiastic joint session of congress yesterday.

Here is the first half or so of the idiotorial – in rust – with my comments in blue:

PrimeMinister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could not have hoped for amore rapturous welcome in Congress. With Republicans and mostDemocrats as his props, he entered the House of Representatives tothunderous applause on Tuesday, waving his hand like a conqueringhero and being mobbed by fawning lawmakers as he made his way to thelectern. That\’sright. That\’s what happened. It means that, unlike Barack Obama,the people around him, and 50-60 left wing, mostly anti-Israelboycotters – all Democrats (whose seats were joyously taken by others), they have extremely high regard forMr. Netanyahu and his message. To a President willing to listen andlearn, this would be what Barack Obama would call a “teaching moment”. Too bad he, himself, is unteachable.

EvenWashington doesn\’t often see this level of exploitative politicaltheater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended tochallenge President Obama\’s foreign policy.  Challenging President Obama\’s foreign policy makes it worse?  Worse?  The fact that Israel\’s Prime Minister, who leads a country specifically targeted for annihilation by the people Mr. Obama\’s “deal” would allow to keep its nuclear capabilities is against its being allowed to keep nuclear capabilities is a problemto you? What did you expect Netanyahu\’s position to be?  That it\’sa great idea, and he\’ll send a few Israeli physicists over to help with theproject?

Mr.Netanyahu\’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new,making it clear that this performance was all about proving histoughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election hefaces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no newreasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by theUnited States and five other major powers to constrain Iran\’snuclear program.  The Times\’ definitionof “nothing new”: Netanyahu said the same thing he has said allalong:  that allowing Iran nuclear capabilities is a gargantuanmistake – not only for Israel\’s well-being but the Arab statesaround Israel (which share his concern, as shown here). In other words, theproblem, to Barack Obama and the New York Times, is that Netanyahudid not change his position, and agree with a “deal” that would put Israel andits Arab neighbors in mortal danger. That is stunninglyridiculous.

Hisdemand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearlydoesn\’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonablealternative approach that could halt Iran\’s nuclear efforts. Uh,no. That is another stunningly ridiculous claim – and a dishonest one too.  He wants successfulnegotiations that protect his country, and laid out specifics on what the elements of such a deal would be. 

Moreover,he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that internationalsanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressivebehavior, including hostility toward Israel and support forHezbollah, which has called for Israel\’s destruction. Gee, what an insight. The Prime Minister of Israel insists that Iranforego aggressive behavior – which, in this case, is its call for the destruction of Israel.  Who would have thought Israel could possibly take such a position.  What\’s wrong with those people anyway.

By the way, doesn\’t imposing new conditions and insisting that international sanctions not be lifted until Iran stops overtly threatening Israel, qualify as an alternative approach – you know, the one you said did not exist in the previous paragraph? 

Oh, and nice try on your clumsy attempt at disinformation – i.e. putting the threat to Israel 100% on hezbollah, not Iran (which you accuse of being nothing more than “hostile”)…as if Iran\’s leaders were not the ones sayingthey are going to wipe Israel off the map. Another example of going beyond stunningly ridiculous to flat-out dishonest.

Mr.Netanyahu has two main objections. One is that an agreement would notforce Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and would leave itwith the ability to enrich uranium and, in time, to produce enoughnuclear fuel for a bomb. Two, that a deal to severely restrict Iran\’sability to produce nuclear fuel for a decade or more is not longenough. He also dismisses the potential effectiveness ofinternational inspections to deter Iran from cheating. Allcorrect. All 100% legitimate objections. But not to theIsrael-haters in DC…or their likeminded pals among the New YorkTimes editorial staff.

Do you need anything else to understand my use of the term “idiotorial”?

If so, here\’s a little more.  Further on we have this textbook case of New York Times naivete:

Despitehis commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly saidhe would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreementis not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr.Netanyahu obviously doesn\’t trust him, which may be the mostdangerous truth of this entire impasse.

It\’s a problem that Netanyahu doesn\’t trust Obama? No, it\’s a problem that the New York Times does trust Obama – who has lied to our faces on one issue after another, continually, for 6 years. 

There\’s also a reference to a push-poll of just 700 respondents, who are “educated” on the issues before asking their opinion on the deal Obama is cooking up with Iran.  The poll would be a joke to the New York Times if it drew a conclusion the paper\’s “brain trust” disagreed with…but it is the holy grail in this idiotorial because it coincides with their views.

Remember when the New York Times was a great newspaper?  You must be very old.  I\’m having trouble remembering when it was even a good one.