Why is our president apologizing to the Iranian government that openly declares its hostility toward us and other Western countries, and has waged terror war against us for 30 years? Why is he trying to make it easier for Iran to achieve the capacity to deploy a nuclear weapon, a weapon that may be deployed against us and our allies?
As Charles Robb and Charles Wald argued recently, an Iran with nuclear weapons capability, overconfident behind its own new nuclear deterrent, would act even more aggressively, threatening our allies and vital interests. “To prevent a nuclear Iran, the U.S. needs to demonstrate its resolve to do whatever is necessary, including military action.”
Does our president think that pandering and apologizing advances our national interests or improves our ability to diffuse the single most immediate threat to our national security?
Apparently so, because Obama is trying to help Iran avoid payment to the families of American service men killed by Iran’s proxy Hezbollah in its 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut. Obama sides with Iran against the families of those 241 dead marines.3
In 2007, a U.S.federal district court judge found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing and ordered Tehran to pay $2.65 billion in damages. A survivor’s group says that Obama is pressuring congressional Democrats to not support a bill that would allow massive judgments against Tehran. According to this group, the White House is urging congresspersons to not vote for amendments that would hold Tehran responsible for the 1983 attack and would transfer the $2.65 billion awarded in 2007 from Iranian funds held in the USA to the plaintiffs. Obama has urged the court to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent. In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims “can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.’’ Over the last decade, the families of Iranian-sponsored attacks have won billions of dollars in suits against the Tehran regime. But the federal government, particularly the State Department, has blocked access to Iranian assets or funds in the United States.
So Obama, the Justice Department and the State Department are saying that we should allow Iran and Hezbollah to get away with the mass murder of Americans because if we take action to hold them responsible and pay the consequences, American property holdings overseas might be in danger, and the so-called negotiations that merely buy Iran more time to advance its WMD program might be compromised.
For fear of retaliation, our president panders to and appeases our mortal enemy, an extremist Islamic state whose radical leadership is sworn to our destruction. With that kind of leadership in the USA, Iran will soon have its bomb. Then what sort of danger will American property holders be in?
End Notes
1. Summarized at http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/the-tide-of-war-is-not-receding/ ; and see also http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/24/the-venezuelan-missile-crisis/ ; and http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/01/pandering-to-the-persians/; and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206943198066220.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop .
2. See http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/04/opinion/oe-halevi4; and http://www.antiwar.com/ips/luban.php?articleid=14035; and http://www.mideasttruth.com/lat4.html; and see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html for a chronological list of terror attacks against US targets, most of which were perpetrated by Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy terror organization.
3. It is strange that except for a brief article in the Boston Globe, at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/11/14/beirut_attack_victims_families_face_new_hurdle/, this incredible drama has been ignored by mainstream media. A detailed exposition can be found at http://www.iran911case.com/, and several alternative media sources summarize the case and Obama’s intervention: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/obama-sides-with-islamic-iran-on-their-1983-bombing-that-killed-241-us-marines.html; and http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/09/iran-guilty-att.html; and http://www.mideasttruth.com/iran.html; and http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/02/obama-sides-with-iran-against-families-of-dead-marines/; and http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/01/31/obama-taking-irans-side-on-damages-from-83-bombing-that-killed-241-marines/, inter alia.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…
we wont be fooled again by you yids israhell sux!
David Duke has a problem with the word "terrorism." What were the firebombings (terror bombings) of German cities by the Allies if not terrorism in return for Nazi terror and atrocities? What were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Iran is a preeminent state sponsor of international terrorism. Duke says Iran does not commit terrorists attacks. Clearly this is wrong. Iran has been killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with sophisticated improvised explosive devices. Iran finances and arms murderous terror proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. How can he say Iran does not commit terrorist acts? Isn't David Duke a Holocaust denier? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1IMqukmPAw&fe…
Actually, I hate to be on the same side as that racist and bigot David Duke, but terrorism in the Islamic world is blasphemous because it is un-Islamic and therefore a capital offense. Instead, Muslims fight jihad and jihad is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and in stark contrast to terrorism involves both violent means, such as the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, and non-violent means, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest. However, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, jihad today always gets conflated with being terrorism, which is always only violent, and as a result covert non-violent jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest, occurs throughout the West today totally uncontested and unopposed. For more, see my post below.
If you hate to be on the same side as the racist / anti-Semitic David Duke, why then do you place yourself on the same side as the racist / anti-Semitic David Duke?
"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." Qur'an 8:60
Epic fail here. You know you are a loser when you use David Duke, a former Klanner turned race hustler (who, like Al Sharpton, makes his living off stirring up racial tensions) as a source.
I remember reading the only job Duke could get where he could use his skill in exploiting racial tensions (His only marketable skill at this point) was at a two-bit university in Ukraine that is known for its antisemitism-based pseudo-academic views.
Dude…if you believe any of that garbage spewed by a well known and famous career racist, bigot, and Holocaust denier, then you are obviously a simpleton and a mentally incompetent unhinged loon. Sorry, but there is no other way to put it. Indeed, in order to get your ignorance's exploited to hilt that way, you'd have to be a mentally deficient simpleton. By the way, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a fraudulent antisemitic text and proven to be a forgery composed by obsessed anti-Semitic Jew hating bigots like you and David Duke.
Over all this is a good piece, full of needed reminders and detail. A couple of corrections I think are in order; one minor, the other major.
David Meir-Levi wrote: "During the Carter administration Iran declared war on the USA. To be exact, it was on November 4, 1972….."
I believe it was November 4, 1979.
Meir-Levi: "Does our president think that pandering and apologizing advances our national interests or improves our ability to diffuse the single most immediate threat to our national security?"
I realize Obama is "the" president. Obama is NOT my president. Please do not say "my" or "our" president unless this dangerous man is indeed your president.
People everywhere are sick of his lies and deception. If Obama thinks we will take this lying down, he has another thing coming!
What a well researched article. I wish that everyone would read it with understanding that there is truly something fishy with this administration! God help us all!
Has anyone noticed how Leon Panetta spoke against a military strike against Iran saying that we probably couldn't get all their nuclear factories and at most we could just delay them and how later he made statements how America will not allow Iran to get the bomb? If we can't stop Iran from getting the bomb than why all of a sudden did he start making statements that we will? The answer is that he wants Israel to believe that the United States won't let Iran get the bomb. Why? because if Israel believes that the U.S. will not prevent this from happening Israel will try and prevent it and if that happens Iran will attack the U.S. and if that happens Obama's image as the president who got us out of foreign wars will become the president who's weakness brought war and closed off the straits of Hormuz
Leon Pannetta is a former Clintonista hack and an Obama's "step-and-fetch" white boy as inept Secretary of Defense (doesn't even know hoe many wars are going on).
I have a solution. Reduce Iran to rubble. Blow it up. Wipe Iran off the face of the earth. As a matter of fact, wipe every Islamic nation off the face of this earth. Then we will have established true world peace.
"iran has bellocise and dangerous designs aganist AMERICA." they have since they took our embassy illegally back in 1979. the current leaders are planngn to send ships into our waters. they are putting long-range missles in Venezuela. they backed a folied plot on OUR SOIL last october. they regualry hold "WORLD WITHOUT AMERICA" conferences./ and they have threatned to wipe us out. so why can osama-obama not see this?
And then there's the deranged asshat Sean Stone, converting to Shiite Islam and supporting this heinous regime.
SHAME ON HIM. Boycott Oliver Stone movies – and that's coming from a liberal who used to support Stone.
Supporting mass muderers really?? Dude bring some charges or drop the hyperbole aye!!
We all want this clown out of office but the headline screams "unhinged right winger". It does our side no good to get too out of hand with accusations, suppositions, and innuendo that is not actionable. Stick to the stuff that is demonstrable and make a rational fact based arguement.
Bush did the same thing just by not bombing iran, he enabled the murderers.
The Council on Foreign Relations is advocates " containment". They said in a statement: "A military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States." Stupid is as stupid does.
This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran's arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead. Our leaders' narrow concern with Iran's nuclear capability as the problem cannot make the regime's longstanding hostility to America and Israel go away. Americans and Jews should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, and work to change it before it is too late. Then the only solution is the anhilation of Iran – Carthage style.
President Obama seems to believe that if we talk to these people,they might see things our way. Sadly,that isn't going to work. These people are Islamic fanatics bent on destroying everything to get what they want. No amount of talk will ever convince them to change course.
President Obama seems to believe that if we talk to these people,they might see things our way. Sadly,that isn't going to work. These people are Islamic fanatics bent on destroying everything to get what they want. No amount of talk will ever convince them to change course.
Fundimental change=changing sides. Is there really any evidence to say otherwise?
A life time waiting for the people of Iran to rise up and when they do Obama turned his head away.
That alone should tell you all you need to know.
In Obama's book, Audacity of Hope on page 261 he says: In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of iimmigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese Internments from World War II, and that (I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an Ugly Direction.)
Well he certainly kept his promise didn't he!
(1) President Obama never saw a jihadist Mohammedan he didn't like.
(2) The self-appointed language police try to delete "man" from English. But "man" is old word, from an Indo-European word meaning "thinking being", cognate with "mind" and "mathematics." In English it serves to mean "homo sapiens," (as in "man is a rational animal"), as an ending (as in "woman"), as also as an adult male member of the human species. Those serving in Congress are "Congressmen."
"However, in Islam terrorism is blasphemous…."
You seem to be an apologist for Islam.
And you are blinded by PC multiculturalism, which irrefutably demonstrates that you are an exponentially far greater apologist for Islam than I.
Indeed, Muslims always readily denounce terrorism, since terrorism and jihad are two very distinct and mutually exclusive things altogether. However, I have never heard a Muslim denounce jihad though.
Muslims always readily denouce terrorism. Ever heard of Taqiyyah?
No offense here but you have a lot less going for you than the president does. Yet-your farther ahead of the curve than the president or his minions will say. The Press sure has clammed right up about the GLOBAL WARMING going on in the middle east. You expect them to admit they were wrong? Or lied? Flip a coin. Hope and pray it lands on its edge.