Skip to main content

BiBi The “Chickens**t”

Surely it is no secret among members of the Obama administration that Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu would rather not see Iran acquire nuclear weapons with which it might make Israel go poof.

President Barack Obama was bound to oppose Mr. Netanyahu’s entirely predictable speech before the US Congress. And Mr. Obama, an advocate of extreme campaigning, as usual pulled out all the stops on his rhetorical organ.

It may be best to get some housekeeping details out of the way.


Nothing said by Mr. Netanyahu will be fresh. He will tell the Congress what he has been shouting from the rooftops for decades: that the sly mullahs in Iran are determined to produce a nuclear weapon; that Iran, as a repository of nuclear weapons, will present a threat to the existence of Israel, as well as other states in The Middle East not friendly to Iran; that Iran, by shipping munitions to al-Qaida and its affiliates, is directly responsible for the deaths of US soldiers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; that Islamic hardliners in Iran  will not be bound by paper arrangements; that the dismantling of sanctions on Iran will simply embolden the enemies of the West; that Iran is an exporter and enable of Hamas, a terrorist organization, and so on and so on. The Obama administration has weathered such observations for years. Nothing new here.

More than a year ago, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported, “The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. ‘The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,’ this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.”

Asked by Mr. Goldberg to expand on his comment, the Obama official said, “The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars. The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts."

Asked at a press conference whether Mr. Obama agreed with the assessment, Josh Earnest, unreeled the usual non-apologetic script. No, the president did not agree with the assessment of the high government official: “There is a very close relationship between the United States and Israel. But that close relationship does not mean that we paper over our differences.”


It is true that the “United States and Israel” have in the past had a close relationship, but the relationship between current President Barack Obama and current Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu is frosty, the differences between them often being papered over by slick presidential communications directors such as Mr. Ernest, who did not say whether Mr. Obama would fire the top official in the Obama administration for calling Bibi a chickens**t.

While nothing said by Mr. Netanyahu to Congress will endanger pending presidential or Congressional elections -- thank God they are over – it seems apparent that Mr. Obama is not disinterested in Israeli elections. “A top appointee in President Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign,” The Daily Caller has reported, “is now working to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming March election.”
Labels:

Comments

peter brush said…
I understand that David Axelrod has disclosed that actually, now that you mention it, Barack Obama merely claimed to be opposed to "gay marriage" to get elected. Polls must have indicated that there were too many voters clinging, bitterly or otherwise, to non-ideological reality to risk intellectual honesty. But, we didn't need Axelrod to determine that our Presidente is a man of the Left doing what it takes vis a vis ends justifying means.
The real Barack Obama is not in disagreement with Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright, but he knows that for the time being the American electorate can't quite stomach revolution based in self-hatred. The real Barack Obama is pro-Palestinian, but knows the electorate is pro-Israel. The real Barack Obama agrees with Noam Chomsky that the United States and Israel have threatened and abused Iran. The point is not that the Left is mistaken; big time, as Dick Cheney might say. It's that we have a President who is operating on Leftist premises he intentionally conceals. That is the source of the confusion with the "procedure" involved in Netanyahu's speech. And, it is the cause of the complete and utter collapse of American hegemony with the attendant dissolution political order, as in Libya. When he was running in 2012 Obama leaned quietly in towards the oppressed World Community of his imagination, and whispered that after the election he may be more "flexible."
----------------
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, what’s the crucial fact about Iran, which we should begin with, is that for the past 60 years, not a day has passed in which the U.S. has not been torturing Iranians. That’s 60 years, right now. Began with a military coup, which overthrew the parliamentary regime in 1953, installed the Shah, a brutal dictator. Amnesty International described him as one of the worst, most extreme torturers in the world, year after year. When he was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. almost immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein in an assault against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, used extensive use of chemical weapons.
10:19 AM
peter brush said…
“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,” he said. “For 2,000 years my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.” He added: “Today, we are no longer silent. Today we have a voice. And tomorrow, as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state, I plan to use that voice.”
-------------
Rudy Giuliani is right to admire Netanyahu. He was right about Obama, too, although our Presidente may not be completely void of patriotic passion.
--------------
Socialist patriotism refers to a form of civic patriotism promoted by Marxist–Leninist movements.[1] Socialist patriotism promotes people living within Marxist-Leninist countries to adopt a "boundless love for the socialist homeland, a commitment to the revolutionary transformation of society [and] the cause of communism".[2] Socialist patriotism is not connected with nationalism, as Marxists and Marxist-Leninists denounce nationalism as a bourgeois ideology developed under capitalism that sets workers against each other.[3
1:44 PM
peter brush said…
Back in the days of the Cold War, when the world was simple, the good guys were easily distinguised from the bad, and John Kerry and Baraq Obama had no problem choosing sides, the Left developed a fetish for "arms control." Given the history of such international agreements it might be thought that the Left, not Bibi Netanyahu, is in need of alternatives. It might also be thought that given his disastrously failed policies in Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Libya Mr. Obama might indulge in a bit of modesty. However our historic black President and his Party are willfully/ideologically ignorant of history and utterly inconsiderate of the human suffering their ignorance is causing.
--------
The Case Against Arms Control
11.01.84 - 12:00 AM | by Seymour Weiss
Share on print Print PDF
In one sense the case against arms control is not difficult to make. One might simply ask just what evidence exists that recent nuclear-arms-limitations agreements with the USSR have actually contributed to U.S. security. Yet in spite of the fact that no such evidence can be found, emotional attachment to the hoped-for benefits, together with the presumption that arms control is politically attractive, has created what Albert Wohlstetter has sardonically described as the mad momentum of arms control. It is this emotional attachment that makes the task of rational assessment more difficult. There is an undeniable and understandable yearning among our people, reflected in Congress and certainly echoed by our allies, for a cessation of the tensions that have accompanied the years of confrontation with the USSR.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-case-against-arms-control/
-----------------------
On the core issue of preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons, Mr. Obama said, “the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.”
------------
Chris Murphy ✔ @ChrisMurphyCT
Follow
Netanyahu's criticism of talks were strong, but I didn't hear a plausible alternative.

1:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."
17 comments
Read more

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.
Post a Comment
Read more

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e...
Post a Comment
Read more