Finally – Someone Calls Out Obama Administration Hypocrisy on Israel and Iran!


President Obama’s hypocritical attacks on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are starting to stretch his credibility with the media. Finally. Most of us on the right saw right through his attacks from the very beginning, as Netanyahy is the primary impediment between Obama and his hope for a comprehensive deal with Iran (no matter if the deal is good or bad – he just wants a deal, consequences be damned). President Obama and his team were working overtime the last few months in their efforts to oust Netanyahu from power. Sadly for Obama, all of that work was for naught, as Netanyahu his party Likud and their allies won a resounding victory. But Netanyahu’s win only embittered Obama even more, and their relationship now seems more strained than ever.

One of the new talking points from team Obama is that Netanyahu’s rhetoric during the last days of the campaign was “offensive.” Netanyahu has attempted to reach out and mend fences by assuring everyone that he still wants a two-state answer to the Palestinian question, and by apologizing to Israeli Arabs if his rhetoric offended them. President Obama was nonplussed. In fact, the official White House stance is that it doesn’t matter what Netanyahu says now — they are taking him at his word for what he said during the campaign!

Do you get that? They’re simply choosing to ignore what the Prime Minister is saying, in their ever growing effort to undermine Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, the leader of Iran says “Death to America” in a speech last week and encourages his supporters who also chant “Death to America”… and the White House says ‘it’s no biggie’.

The AP’s Matt Lee noticed the incongruity of the reaction and called out the White House for their hypocrisy. Watch as State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki squirms as she tries to explain how the White House can be so cravenly hypocritical. It’s really just gross.

 

 

Matt Lee w/ the Associated Press: Okay. And then this has been raised before by other people, but I’ll ask it again now in this same context: When the Supreme Leader of Iran is continuing – in the middle of these negotiations is continuing to make statements like “death to America,” how is that not problematic for you? How is that not something – why are you just willing to let that – let it slide, basically, and you are holding the prime minister of Israel to comments that he made and has since changed?

Jen Psaki.: Well, Matt, I think we’d hardly put the Supreme Leader and the leadership of Israel in the same category. Israel is a strategic partner, a security partner —

Matt Lee: Well, the Iranians can be trusted and the Israelis can’t?

Jen Psaki: Let me finish.

Matt Lee: Is that what you mean?

Jen Psaki: No. I’m actually trying to convey that our relationship with Israel is abiding; it’s strong; it’s a security relationship; it’s one that we’re committed to. Do we have disagreements on some issues, like how we should proceed with preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Yes. Have we – can we – do we believe that it isn’t possible to just forget what the prime minister says when it’s conflicting with past precedent and past policy for some time? Yes. But obviously, we’re continuing our discussions. The Secretary has been in touch with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We remain committed to our relationship. Remember, we’re not evaluating our relationship with Israel. We’re evaluating how to proceed as it relates to pursuing a two-state solution.

israel_iran_nuclearMatt Lee: All right. And all of that is well and good, but the Supreme Leader of Iran represents a regime that took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held hundreds of American hostages for a long time, is what you say is a leading state sponsor of terrorism, has —

Jen Psaki: And remains, and will be even if there’s a deal.

Matt Lee: Right. And yet you’re willing to take – you’re willing to let his words slide, but not that of a country with which you say you have this great security relationship.

Jen Psaki: No, I would disagree with that. I would say, one, as a reminder, even if there is a deal with Iran, it doesn’t mean we let slide or forget, whether it’s the comments, the – or more importantly the actions, state sponsorship of terrorism, their human rights record, the fact that they’re holding American citizens – they remain – they continue to hold American citizens, including a Washington Post reporter in their jails. I mean, these are all issues that we remain very concerned about. Those concerns are not going to be soothed by a deal.

But we also feel that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is not only in our interests, it’s in the interests of the international community, and that’s why we’re pursuing it. It’s not about trust.

Previous Wisconsin Voter ID Law Upheld by US Supreme Court
Next Liberal Reporter Proves High Priced College Education Makes People Ignorant

Comment