Iranian group runs full-page ad in NY Times blasting Netanyahu's coming address to congress
Three days ago the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) ran what it described
as a full-page ad in the New York Times, attacking John Boehner and congressional
Republicans for inviting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress.
In a press release NIAC, a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime, described the invitation as "Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu’s outrageous political stunt that could kill diplomacy with Iran and start a war."
Seriously claiming that a proposed act could "start a war" is the probably the most threatening scare tactic available. (The word "war" appears four times in the ad.) But who would start this alleged war? No faction in the U.S. is pushing for war with Iran, but by contrast, Iran's religious leaders insist that the proposed deal--the details of which are still unknown--is the only alternative to war. So it would appear that in their ad in the Times the Iranian group is threatening war unless they get their "deal."
Second, why is it an “outrageous political stunt” to hear from an opponent of the proposed nuclear agreement? Assuming Netanyahu will make the case against the proposed deal, why is Iran so afraid of the prospect that Congress might hear both sides of the argument? Of course the mullahs probably don't really understand that freedom of speech and open debate of policies are the way things are done in a democracy.
If Obama was about to sign an agreement that would prevent Iran from achieving their long-sought goal of building an atomic bomb, would the Iranians in the U.S. be supporting that, or opposing it?
The answer to that question reveals the hidden truth: the agreement the Obama administration is secretly negotiating is not intended to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Rather, it will tacitly accept Iran as a nuclear power. This is why Iran's leaders are so enthusiastic about the agreement–and about Barack Obama–and why Netanyahu opposes it, as do many Republicans.
Democrats, by contrast, believe any agreement negotiated by the emperor will do exactly what the emperor claims, and that regardless of the actual terms, by signing it the Iranians will be agreeing to abandon their effort to build the bomb.
Oh, certainly. Just like Neville Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler prevented the second world war.
The mullahs’ disingenuous ad is another reminder of how important it is for Americans to hear what Netanyahu has to say, and to understand the real purposes behind the administration’s insane and dangerous eagerness to "sign a deal" with Iran--no matter how bad for the West.
Finally, a thought experiment: If the Jewish Anti-Defamation League wanted to buy a full-page ad in the Times supporting Boehner's invitation for Netanyahu to address congress, does anyone believe the Times would have agreed to run it?
Full disclosure: I'm not Jewish, nor is any member of my family. I'm not being paid by anyone for my writing. I just hate hypocrisy and liars bent on destroying freedom--which seems to accurately describe the emperor and his henchmen.
Oh, for you leftists who are unalterably convinced this never happened, here's the ad the NY Times ran:
In a press release NIAC, a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime, described the invitation as "Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu’s outrageous political stunt that could kill diplomacy with Iran and start a war."
Seriously claiming that a proposed act could "start a war" is the probably the most threatening scare tactic available. (The word "war" appears four times in the ad.) But who would start this alleged war? No faction in the U.S. is pushing for war with Iran, but by contrast, Iran's religious leaders insist that the proposed deal--the details of which are still unknown--is the only alternative to war. So it would appear that in their ad in the Times the Iranian group is threatening war unless they get their "deal."
Second, why is it an “outrageous political stunt” to hear from an opponent of the proposed nuclear agreement? Assuming Netanyahu will make the case against the proposed deal, why is Iran so afraid of the prospect that Congress might hear both sides of the argument? Of course the mullahs probably don't really understand that freedom of speech and open debate of policies are the way things are done in a democracy.
If Obama was about to sign an agreement that would prevent Iran from achieving their long-sought goal of building an atomic bomb, would the Iranians in the U.S. be supporting that, or opposing it?
The answer to that question reveals the hidden truth: the agreement the Obama administration is secretly negotiating is not intended to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Rather, it will tacitly accept Iran as a nuclear power. This is why Iran's leaders are so enthusiastic about the agreement–and about Barack Obama–and why Netanyahu opposes it, as do many Republicans.
Democrats, by contrast, believe any agreement negotiated by the emperor will do exactly what the emperor claims, and that regardless of the actual terms, by signing it the Iranians will be agreeing to abandon their effort to build the bomb.
Oh, certainly. Just like Neville Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler prevented the second world war.
The mullahs’ disingenuous ad is another reminder of how important it is for Americans to hear what Netanyahu has to say, and to understand the real purposes behind the administration’s insane and dangerous eagerness to "sign a deal" with Iran--no matter how bad for the West.
Finally, a thought experiment: If the Jewish Anti-Defamation League wanted to buy a full-page ad in the Times supporting Boehner's invitation for Netanyahu to address congress, does anyone believe the Times would have agreed to run it?
Full disclosure: I'm not Jewish, nor is any member of my family. I'm not being paid by anyone for my writing. I just hate hypocrisy and liars bent on destroying freedom--which seems to accurately describe the emperor and his henchmen.
Oh, for you leftists who are unalterably convinced this never happened, here's the ad the NY Times ran:
posted by SF at
11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home