The New York Times, which has been a severe critic of Israel for as long as I can remember, is certainly holding true to form these days.
As you know Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is coming to the United States and speaking before a joint session of congress on Tuesday, to remind us of something that President Obama apparently is incapable or unwilling to process – that you don’t allow nuclear capability to the world’s greatest exporter of terrorism, which has lied about its nuclear program from day one and will therefore have no problem lying about the way it will use any nuclear capability a “deal” would allow it.
Mr. Netanyahu, of course, has a very special interest in this situation, since Iran has specifically told the world it intends to wipe Israel off the map.
That may not be enough to prevent Barack Obama and his hopelessly useless stooge John Kerry from cutting a “deal” anyway, but I can assure you it got Mr. Netanyahu’s attention.
In any event, as the Netanyahu visit, and speech to congress (and to AIPAC) draws near, the New York Times has published two articles which make its sentiments perfectly clear.
One was a Page 1 piece on Jeremy Bird, President Obama’s Field Director for his 2012 campaign, who has gone to Israel to work at unseating Netanyahu in the coming Israeli elections.
That’s a fascinating undertaking, given that the “reason” tossed out by Mr. Obama for opposing his speech and not meeting with him personally is that he does not want to get involved in another country’s election process.
But read the Times article and you will find out that it’s ok for his own field director to roost in Israel and work at getting rid of Netanyahu. Because, you see, Barack Obama did not specifically send Jeremy Bird there, he went on his own. It was just a coincidence, folks, nothing to see here, move along, move along.
And, not content with that pile of mung, The Times has also published an article which provides a White House “rebuttal” to the Netanyahu speech – before he makes it – and assures us that facilitating Iran’s nuclear capability makes things safer, not less safe.
Just like it did in North Korea, guys?
Look, I get it. The Times is owned by self-hating Jews who find Israel an embarrassment. But – here’s a news flash for them – some of us are foolish enough to believe that, for people whose existence has ongoingly been threatened for millennia – including right now, by the people Obama and Kerry are dealing with – there should be at least one viable homeland with defensible borders. And since that one Jewish homeland also is the one and only outpost of western civilization in the entire region, and has been a staunch ally of the USA since its creation, we should worry at least somewhat about Iran’s overt commitment to vaporizing it – enough to stop them every way we can from going nuclear.
Anyway, that’s my opinion: certainly not the Times’ opinion, but mine nonetheless. What’s yours?
