Liberals Follow the Pied Piper to a Nuclear Iran
Democrats march docilely behind their president toward a nuclear Iran. They are loyal beyond good sense and morality. The enormity of nuclear armed terrorists, or war between Iran and Israel, is too terrible to believe, so it becomes easy for Democrats to dance behind their Pied Piper President, pretending that his fare is beautiful music.
Yesterday, liberals agreed that it was crucial to maintain sanctions on Iran. Today, congressmen who don't want to lift sanctions are attacked in the New York Times as un-American. Liberals feel good that their guy is showing those redneck Republicans how you make friends in the Muslim world.
What changed? Iran's nuclear ambitions didn't change. Iran's threats to unleash a dirty bomb in New York didn't change. Iran's Mein Kampf goal of a global caliphate free of Jews didn't change. Only Obama changed. Though he didn't really change, either; he just revealed what conservatives knew all along. Obama couldn't care less about American national security or our most important military ally, Israel. Making deals that consolidate the mad mullahs' power is his idea of success.
America chose to ignore Hitler's anti-Semitism in the 1930's, thinking German Jews' trouble was nothing to us. That's how complicity in scapegoating works: it lulls the other targets into thinking only Jews will be killed. Hitler was allowed to militarize Germany. We all know how that ended. Seventy million people dead, including most of the Jews of Europe and over 400,000 American soldiers.
President Obama unveiled the results of his five years of secret negotiations, and liberal dogma on Iran reversed overnight. Democrats didn't even wait to learn what the deal contained; it was whatever Obama said it was. Its benefits were what the president told us they were. You can almost hear the little feet pitter pattering behind the Pied Piper.
Henry Kissinger and George Schultz describe the breakthrough the Democrats are celebrating:
Iran has been permitted ... to add to its existing stockpile of seven tons of 3.5%- to 5%-enriched uranium with the proviso that this stockpile must be reduced again to its original level by the end of six months. (This means that Iran retains the additional enriched material throughout most of the agreement, adding to its leverage in the follow-up negotiations.) Iran has agreed to "neutralize" its small stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium by converting it to an oxide by the end of the agreement, though Iran retains the technical capability to enrich an equivalent stockpile at a later date. Progress on a heavy-water reactor and plutonium-reprocessing facility at Arak has been paused, though it appears that ancillary work on the site will continue. ... it achieves, albeit temporarily, a small lengthening of the "breakout" time Iran would need to construct a nuclear weapon by several weeks, as described by administration spokesmen.
The White House did not post Obama's deal with Iran for Americans to read. Iran did. Iran is more transparent than our White House. (Hat tip: Powerline.)
Iran is right, as we wrote here. The agreement does confirm Iran's right to continue to enrich uranium, now and forever. That the Obama administration would try to deny what the agreement plainly states testifies to its confidence that American reporters are too stupid, or too corrupt, to read the agreement-a whopping four pages-and truthfully inform the American people what it says.
Pro-Israel Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer and Alan Dershowitz say it's dangerous, a potential catastrophe, but that's empty talk designed to quiet upset people who trust them. Read the details: Democrat senators plan sanction legislation, but will "delay its implementation for six months to allow time to gauge the deal."
The deal is only six months long.
Iran is believed to be closer than six months to achieving a bomb.
This is a moral cesspit. The liberal press is using anti-Semitism to support Obama on Iran. The Nation gleefully mocks Israel. The New York Times' Thomas Friedman claims that congressional opposition "comes ... from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations."
People still think the Times is a Jewish paper. (The owner is an Episcopalian divorced from a Presbyterian, with a Mexican girlfriend, whose true religion is liberalism). Their support for Iranian appeasement gives Obama cover: surely the Times wouldn't be complacent about the threat of a second Holocaust.
Surely they would. Hitler's Holocaust didn't stop the Times putting what was good for FDR politically before all moral considerations, including the survival of Europe's Jews. The Times has a fully documented but little-known history of supporting genocide for political gain.
Arthur Hays Sulzberger, owner of the New York Times, was tireless in sacrificing Jewish lives by the millions to support FDR. (Read Laurel Leff's shocker, Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper, or watch the Newseum's video.)
President Roosevelt didn't want to be seen as pro-Jewish, a political liability in those anti-Semitic times. He didn't want publicity about Hitler killing Jews. The New York Times helped FDR by making sure a public outcry over the Holocaust never happened in America, even when the gas chambers were officially revealed by the State Department during the war. They used the easy expedient of no front-page stories. Thanks to their influence in defining the news, most Americans never heard about the Holocaust until Eisenhower revealed the camps after the war.
The Times apologized for their wartime policy two months after 9/11. In the Times' 150th anniversary edition, Executive Editor Max Frankel admitted that the Times was dedicated to FDR, and FDR didn't want the Holocaust reported on.
No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times' leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year....They ran only five editorials out of more than 17,000 during the war that explicitly mentioned the Jewish plight in Europe. The Time's consistently editorialized in favor of President Roosevelt's decisions to bar European Jews trying to flee the death camps. ...It was his [Sulzberger's] policy, on most questions, to steer The Times toward the centrist values of America's governmental and intellectual elites.
Times publisher Sulzberger instituted a triple-policy to allow no daylight between the Times and FDR. The word "Jew" was purged from paper. Think about that one. The mass murder of Germany's Jews was made invisible in one stroke by editorial fiat. The Times' hiring policy was no Jewish editorial writers -- don't want those Jewish names in the bylines. And, unbelievably, the Times trivialized the gas chambers.
A Times editorial praised the closing of Palestine to Jewish immigration, done to appease Arab rioters funded by Hitler. Sulzberger was fully aware that ending escape to Palestine meant death to Germany's Jews. He wrote: "Countries with large Jewish populations (Germany) must be made to realize that they face only the alternative of living with their Jews, or killing them either spiritually or physically."
As a faithful liberal, Sulzberger believed in the universality of man, not in Jews defending themselves in a country of their own. The New York Times owner took personal action -- he founded a group to fight against a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The 2013 equivalent is J Street, the anti-Israel Jewish group funded by liberal Obama supporter George Soros.
The mainstream media's callous disregard for Jewish life has not ended. It is the liberal norm. For decades, the Democrat mainstream media has fed the public a diet of propaganda on achieving peace through concessions to terrorists. The liberal press censors news of Arab-Nazi anti-Semitism, genocidal intent, torture, and murder, just as they censored the Holocaust. The goal is political, always political: to support the policies of Democrat presidents.
To support Clinton's desire for the Oslo handshake photo op, Israel was pressured to make a deal with arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. Terrorist murders were deemed acceptable without limit. Israel eventually suffered 40 times more casualties per capita than 9/11. Finally, the charade of peace talks ended. The Israelis quickly stopped the terrorism with their security fence; the American press howled that it was apartheid.
Democrats think they can appease terrorism with no repercussions to our own safety.
The unforeseen result was that over time, terrorism was rewarded. It inevitably expanded from killing Jews to killing Americans and Europeans, and it now threatens the world with the imminent development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Obama would have us believe that the problem is America's cowboy aggression. The mainstream media tailors the news to support the party line. The Pied Piper's music calls, and Democrat voters dance on.
After the Holocaust, liberals were loud in proclaiming, "Never again." Yet here we are at yes, again, and they simply look the other way. Democrat political victory is all that counts.
Waltzing behind their beloved president, Democrats are entirely willing to consign Israel's Jews to their fate in facing an Iranian nuclear threat alone. They fail to appreciate that America is directly in Iran's crosshairs.