Thursday, August 06, 2015
From Ian:
3 Israelis hurt in vehicular terror attack in West Bank
3 Israelis hurt in vehicular terror attack in West Bank
Three Israeli soldiers were wounded when a terrorist plowed his car into them as they stood at a hitchhiking post in the northern West Bank on Thursday afternoon.Alan Dershowitz: Dershowitz: Obama gets personal about the Iran deal
The attack took place at the Sinjil junction on Route 60, near the settlement of Shiloh and the Palestinian village of Sinjil, at around 3:10 p.m.
Two of the wounded were taken to Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem’s Ein Kerem neighborhood, both in serious condition; the third — with light-moderate wounds — was taken to Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva.
The terrorist was shot by IDF soldiers at the scene and trapped in his car when it subsequently flipped over. He was also said to be in serious condition and being treated by IDF troops at the scene, once security forces had established that his car was not booby-trapped.
Magen David Adom said the two victims in a serious condition were suffering from head and chest injuries, were sedated and being kept on respiration.
President Obama, in his desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways. He has accused critics of his deal of being the same republican war mongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer “overheated” and often dishonest arguments. He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress.Mr. President, you are no Jack Kennedy
These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern, and sometimes strong opposition to the deal that is currently before Congress.
I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Part of the reason I was opposed was because I considered, and still consider, Iran a much greater threat to the security of the world and to the stability of the Middle East than Iraq ever was. In my newly published e-book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, I make arguments that I believe are honest, fair and compelling. I recognize some advantages in the deal, but strongly believe that the disadvantages considerably outweigh them and that the risks of failure are considerable. My assessment is shared by a considerable number of other academics, policy experts and other liberal Democrats who support President Obama’s domestic policies, who admire Secretary Kerry for his determination, and who do not see evil intentions in the deal.
The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers. Questions that need answering include the following:
In stark contrast with Kennedy's inspired address in 1963, the current president was belligerent and argumentative, attacking opponents of the Iran nuclear agreement both domestically and abroad. Instead of being presented with a new vision of the world order he hopes to achieve, his audience was treated to the same old tune. A tune designed to mock political rivals and terrify the American public with all sorts of apocalyptic scenarios that would unfold as a result of Congress thwarting the deal.Why Obama Is Wrong to Compare Himself to JFK
Indeed, at the heart of Obama's speech was the warning that the failure of the agreement would lead to war. The threat implicit in this warning was directed first and foremost at the Democrats in the Senate who are still on the fence about the deal and whose votes will ultimately decide the entire debate in September.
But then, after a long, detailed and exhausting overview of the reasons to support the deal, sounding more like an attorney's closing argument than a visionary president, the cat came out of the bag. Obama the politician called on the American public to exert pressure on their representatives in Congress, thereby stripping away any vestige of the official tone he was going for. By doing so he also pushed himself further and further away from Kennedy's memorable address.
Speaking at American University today in defense of his nuclear deal with Iran, President Obama twice invoked President John F. Kennedy. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, while we did not serve with Jack Kennedy, here are five reasons why President Obama is wrong to compare himself to Jack Kennedy:
4. During his speech, Obama said the world was “more dangerous” during the Cold War. True, the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was a palpable fear. But however aggressive and even evil the Soviets might have been, they did not believe in martyrdom — they did not believe that sacrificing their lives for their revolution would bring great rewards in the afterlife. The fundamentalists of Iran — and their Arab proxies, such as Hezbollah — most emphatically do. As historian Bernard Lewis has pointed out, for religious extremists, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent — it’s an inducement.
5. President Obama ended his remarks by citing President Kennedy’s “wisdom” and lauded Kennedy’s “warning” that we should see conflict as inevitable. But President Kennedy also said that there was “one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.” Iran’s rulers have caused thousands of Americans to be killed and maimed in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They continue to openly proclaim their long-term goal: “Death to America.” They believe that the U.S. has indeed submitted. If Congress approves this agreement, that perception will not be without justification.
So much for following in the footsteps of JFK.
Hillel Neuer 
ElderOfZiyon 
