Obama’s donation, behind closed doors

Recent developments involving the Islamic Republic of Iran can fairly be characterized as grave. Iran has announced that it has begun construction on two more nuclear plants, and the authorities have imprisoned a Washington Post journalist on mysterious charges.

Iran’s actions are provocative. The gravity of the regime’s provocation is compounded by the complacent attitude of President Obama and his administration. According to the State Department, the new nuclear reactors are okay under the interim agreement that supposedly froze Iran’s nuclear program.

Obama is not only defender of the faith, he is something of a defender of the Iranian regime. One can see this in Obama’s remarks opposing the adoption of prospective sanctions against Iran in case the parties fail to reach a final phony baloney deal addressing Iran’s nuclear program. He threatens to veto the adoption of such prospective sanctions.

Obama let it all hang out in private at a Democratic Senate retreat in Baltimore on Thursday. Obama reportedly told his fellow Democrats that he “understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others” promoting sanctions, impugning the motives of those such as New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez who support such sanctions.

Menendez understood Obama’s point; he said he took “personal offense” to Obama’s remarks. One might reasonably infer that someone close to Menendez or of like mind in the meeting leaked the story to the New York Times.

On behalf of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Matt Brooks put out this statement:

What exactly was President Obama suggesting when he said opposition to his Iran policy is due to “donors”? No one would say opposition to his Russia policy is due to ‘donors,’ or his Cuba policy is due to “donors,” or his general foreign policy is due to “donors.” So why did President Obama single out those who seek tougher sanctions on Iran and say their viewpoints are based on “donors”?

The threat Iran poses to Israel and the western world is a national security issue. Attributing opposition to his Iran policy to the views of “donors” is an inappropriate statement and it underplays the serious threat that Iran represents.

Aaron Goldstein speaks for me in adding this comment: “It’s pretty damn clear that when Obama says donors, he means Jews. Why Obama has such contempt for Jews when he is supported by this community in such large numbers makes little sense. But then again hatred knows no rationality.”

It is no accident, as the Communists used to say, that Obama made this remark in private. It gives unsubtle expression to a part of the animus that underlies his views and that is usually kept under wraps, as in his press conference with Prime Minister Cameron.

UPDATE: I should have noted today’s Washington Post editorial calling out the peculiar logic of Obama’s opposition to prospective sanctions and the failure of the logic to address Iran’s actions, with attention specifically given to the case of the Post’s imprisoned reporter.

Responses