I doubt anyone – anyone who is compos mentis, that is – will accuse the Washington Post of being an anti-Obama publication.
But you\’d never know it to read today\’s lead editorial.
That is because the Post is talking bluntly and honestly about what an impossibly bad “deal” Barack Obama and John Kerry have concocted with Iran, how ridiculous it is to believe Iran will hold to it anyway, and what a danger it poses to the world, especially the Middle East.
Here are its first three paragraphs:
THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran\’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran\’s nuclear facilities – including the Fordow center buried under a mountain – will be closed. Not one of the country\’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran\’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran\’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.
That\’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we\’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
Mr. Obama argued forcefully – and sometimes combatively – Thursday that the United States and its partners had obtained “a good deal” and that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a “robust debate.” We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the “inevitable critics” who “sound off” prefer “the risk of another war in the Middle East.”
In other words, this is a pathetic “deal”, Obama and Kerry have caved in to the terrorists of Iran, and Obama\’s defense of the pathetic “deal” is to pre-emptively attack anyone who notices what a cave-in it is as a warmonger.
How\’s that for blunt honesty?
Now: will other media be as realistic about what Obama and Kerry are foisting on us?
Well, not the New York Times.
The Times\’ lead editorial calls the deal “promising”, and “a significant achievement”.
Promising for what, Times – a nuclear attack on Israel using weaponry developed with the centrifuges and enriched uranium it allows Iran to keep? Significant to whom? The lunatics running Iran, who are belly-laughing about this so-called “deal”?
I am not at all surprised that the Obama-kissing Times editorial board would write something like this. But I wonder if other usually Obama-obeisant venues will follow suit or talk as honestly as the Washington Post has.
We\’ll quickly see…..
