Democrats Go Berserk Over Netanyahu's Effectiveness

Appeasers: Democrats called Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu condescending, childish, and told him to go home. President Obama only read the speech and found "nothing new." Translation: Bibi scored big.

Democrats were apoplectic after Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's Tuesday appearance before a joint session of Congress. Liberal Chicago-area Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky even charged, unaware of the irony, that the leader of the Jewish state wanted "to stampede the United States into war once again."

It is President Obama who has the U.S. involved in war in the Middle East once again, fighting the Islamic State that emerged in the American power vacuum left after his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

In the wake of Netanyahu's tour de force on Capitol Hill, Democrats are also mad that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell wants swift floor action on a bipartisan bill to give the Senate an up-down vote on the impending Iran nuclear deal Netanyahu so forcefully warned against.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez of New Jersey and nine other Senate Democrats sponsoring that bill sent a letter to McConnell dripping with disingenuousness.

Because senators "are contemplating the most serious national security issue of our time" — the world's biggest terrorism sponsor getting nuclear weapons — a speedy vote is just an attempt to "score partisan political points," and there's "no immediate or urgent need" to pass it.

But why propose big legislation, then complain when it gets sent to the floor?

And why is there no "urgent need" for fast action on "the most serious national security issue of our time"?

Democrats warn that voting on the bill could disrupt the Iran nuclear talks. Well, good. As Netanyahu said, "no deal is better than a bad deal."

The prime minister may be optimistic in believing that Tehran might accept a good deal. Those long-range missiles aren't to send cherry bombs thousands of miles away, or to land the first jihadist on the moon.

Military action may well be the only way to stop Iran. But in the meantime, we can ramp up sanctions and back regime change — a policy that will work.

Why can't President Obama get busy convincing moderate Muslim states to work against a regime that clearly seeks dominance over all other Muslim states in the region?

For that matter, Obama should back continued oil and gas fracking to keep energy prices down, thereby squeezing Iran's economy.

To keep the heat on, he should also support dissident groups in Iran, something he shamefully failed to do during the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran.

As for the Senate, even if it does get to vote on the bad deal this administration is set to make with Iran, it won't be an official treaty, and Obama may pay no heed.

But if Menendez and a handful of other Democratic senators oppose the deal, will Americans really believe they and Bibi are wrong, while Obama — who has spent six years wrecking the Mideast — is right?

Link:  http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030415-742040-democrats-disingenuous-in-stance-on-iran-nukes.htm

It is quite entertaining to see Obama and the Democrats squirm.