Bill Siegel is the latest Jew to give advice on how to run a
nation. He and people like him being the clan that never had a nation it did
not steal from someone, later to be kicked out ... and never settled in a place
that did not consider its members, at some point during their sojourn, to be
unwanted squatters. So these are the people who never closed a legitimate deal
in their history, now telling the United Stats of America how to deal with
everyone in the world, and how not to deal with Iran .
Siegel wrote: “Obama's Reykjavik
moment,” an article that was published on July 6, 2015 in the Washington Times.
He begins it like this: “Polls show most Americans understand the Iranian
negotiations are on a disaster course.” Two or three decades ago, a statement
like that would have meant something, but not anymore. The fact is that the
taking of polls and the dissemination of results have become a bad joke because
they often are wrong in the predictions they make. And that's due to the
incompetence and the deliberate falsification of the data that people of the
Siegel mentality have injected into what used to be a respected profession.
Undeterred by the shaky ground on which he stands, Siegle
concludes – based on the observations he has made through the lens of his
mind's eye – that Obama must make a choice. It is: “Whether to be President
Ronald Reagan at Reykjavik or British Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain in Munich .
Walk away or appease and submit. Dignity or disgrace.” These are big words and
big concepts uttered by a people that never knew the big moments of nationhood
… or any such moments at all.
He tells the story of what happened at Reykjavik
in 1986 between America 's
Ronald Reagan and the Soviet Union 's Mikhail
Gorbachev. He goes on to say that “Mr. Gorbachev had made demands concerning
the Strategic Defense Initiative, [causing] Mr. Reagan to famously walk out of
the summit with no agreement.” And that's because Reagan “had a series of
promises he made to his voters...” Siegel explains.
This said, he wants the world to believe there is a parallel
(or a reverse parallel) between what happened at the time in Reykjavik, and
what is happening now in the nuclear talks between the P5+1 and Iran. To
explain, he begins with a huge lie, and right away shoves it into his mouth
along with his foot ... make that both his feet.
Here is the lie: “Iran has been threatening nuclear
weapons and refusing to give them up unless all its conditions are met.” And
here is the contradiction that shoves the thing back into his mouth: “most
Westerners do not believe Iran 's
claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.” No, Iran could not
have threatened nuclear weapons and claimed its program is for peaceful
purposes only. That's because the Iranians are not braying asses. In fact, the
asses are in America
operating under the designation Jewish lobby.
Not appreciating the impact of that blunder on his
credibility, or perhaps unaware of it, Siegel prepares a patch of quicksand and
walks into it. He says this: “Just as the threat of SDI gave Mr. Reagan
leverage, the Iranians have been able to put the US on a track of concessions. If
Ayatollah Khamenei ends the talks, he would comically seize the Reagan high
ground.”
Instead of that happening – which could well be the case
according to a number of analysts – Siegel advises that America , and not Iran , should be the one to end the
talks. But wait a minute; he just said this would be the comical seizing of the
Reagan high ground. Is he now saying that Reagan was a comical figure? Is he
saying America
must again resort to comical tricks? Alas, there is no indication he even
understands what he just did … which is why he fantasizes about the list of
benefits that will accrue to the party that will end the talks.
Here is that list: (1) Reykjavik Redux would serve a variety
of purposes: A committed termination of the talks would do more for Mr. Obama's
legacy... (2) Terminating the talks would reverse the negative impression about
Obama's Iranian policy cast to date. (3) Exiting is also a positive action that
can be packaged for political purposes. (4) Walking away would pave the way to
continue sanctions.
That is comical, alright, but where the comedy stops and the
tragedy begins is in what follows. Look at this: “The maneuver, however, must
be executed with serious intention. Remember that word “intention”? They kept
preaching that the Jews are saints because they have good “intention,” whereas
the Palestinians (and now the Iranians) are evil because they have bad
intention.
Siegel does not say America must have bad intention; he
says it must have “serious” intention to mean “devious” intention. What a
tragic clown this man must be! And what he wants to do now is turn America into a
superpower of clowns. This is why he calls on the Republicans of America “to
make the comparison to Mr. Reagan and Reykjavik ,
to further demonstrate that Mr. Obama is no Ronald Reagan.”
Not realizing that he called Ronald Reagan a comical figure
moments ago, he bestows a great compliment on Obama in saying that the two are
different. Siegel then addresses Obama directly: Mr. President, you've given
yourself (and the free world) one last chance. Choose dignity over disgrace!
There is no doubt Obama will do just that. He'll do it by
throwing the advice of Bill Siegel into the trashcan.