The Iranian nuclear deal has not been prevented from moving ahead. This, despite the fact that more than a majority of Americans believe it is a bad deal and the Iranians will cheat.
President Obama used every political maneuver possible to insure it’s success. Take this interview with the editor-in-chief of The Forward, President Obama tells us that he is a follower of his own fictitious philo-morality:
These are hard issues, and worthy of serious debate. But you don’t win the debate by suggesting that the other person has bad motives. That’s I think not just consistent with fair play; I think it’s consistent with the best of the Jewish tradition.
Consider this from David Harsanyi.
President Obama has an ugly habit of goy-splaning Jewish values to Jews in an effort to push his political agenda. Now, if Judaism wasn’t so intimately, and destructively, chained to political liberalism in the United States, the president’s absurd reading of ‘Jewish values’ would almost certainly offend those who take faith, culture and security seriously.
Jeffrey Goldberg once made the case the Obama was the first Jewish-American president. This is mostly predicated on the idea that no other president had traveled in far-left Jewish circles of academia and politics quite as much. Sometimes it seems that Obama (who’s mentioned Goldberg’s formulation) is convinced he’s the modern Rashi.
1 – You don’t win the debate. Nearly every poll shows a majority oppose the deal.
2- There has been no “serious”—or at least, consequential—debates surrounding the Iran deal. There’s been a lot theatre. Now that Bob Casey has signed on, nearly every Senator supposedly weighing the deal have backed Obama. (No one liked being called a traitor, after all.) It’s always been inevitable that congress would be unable to overcome a veto. Republicans haven’t done anything tangible to stop the deal. In fact, though Obama wasn’t going to permit any genuine checks and balances to get in the way of his empowering Iran, the GOP leadership helped him by putting the imprimatur of law and order on the deal.
3 –Obama’s claim that questioning the motivations of the opposition is outside the boundaries of fair play and “Jewish tradition” is a pretty odd when one considers the tone of his entire presidency—but, more specifically, when we scrutinize how often he has schmeared the intentions of the Iran-deal opponents. Obama advocates has reliably painted opponents as a gaggle of traitorous #warmongers. The president himself claimed that opposition was unduly influenced by money and lobbyists and, at the same time, making common cause with the radical Islamists. Is that a reflection of fair play within the Jewish tradition?
4 –Most important, what Jewish tradition is Obama talking about? He never says. Is it the now-broken, centuries-old unwelcome tradition of sitting around powerlessly and praying that nothing horrible will happen? That is essentially the argument for this Iran deal.