David French wrote an article under the title: “The Iran
Deal and Obama's Fatally Misguided View of the World,” and had it published on
August 21, 2015 in National Review Online.
It is obvious that French is passionate about rejecting the Iran deal.
Because of this, he feels that President Obama made a mistake negotiating it.
To make sense of the situation, however, he attributes the mistake to Obama's
misguided view of the world – more specifically, to the false understanding he
has with regard to the real intention of the Muslims.
David French lends credence to the saying that no one who is
powered by the Jewish mentality can function as a lawyer. That's because the
Jewish mentality will always try to have it both ways, whereas the legal mind
will try to avoid misrepresenting that which can be verified. And since having
it both ways is the trap that will always expose such misrepresentation, the
lawyer that thinks Jewish will end up looking like a would-be emperor basking
in the infamy of his nakedness.
That in mind, look how methodically French goes about
digging the trap that swallows him. After blasting the Iran nuclear
deal for its provisions, he calls it “an economic treaty designed to advance
President Obama's worldview.” He tells what that is: “the academic Left's view
of America 's troubles
[being] America 's
own fault.” But what does it do? Well, it leads to the belief that “our
Islamic-supremacist enemies exist because we have marginalized the 'authentic'
voices in the Middle East in favor of propping
up secular dictators.”
He goes deeper into Obama's thinking, and puts the following
words in his mouth: “By switching sides from such 'establishment' dictators to
the 'authentic' voice of the region's people, we can … usher in a new era.” The
trouble is that there are several inaccuracies in this passage, one pertaining
to something that the Arabs never forget. It has to do with the day of dishonor
when George W. Bush's Condoleezza Rice went to Cairo and regurgitated to a large audience
what Sharansky of Israel had stuffed in her boss's mouth who stuffed it in her
mouth … something to this effect: “you chose stability over democracy, and
you'll end up with neither democracy nor stability.” In fact, David French
chose to disregard the reality that neither Rice nor the W is of the Left.
He goes on to say this: “The president [Obama] refuses to
understand the supremacists. They don't want to join the family of nations;
they want to be the Family of nations.” He says this much without mentioning ISIS which some people have accused of harboring
supremacist tendencies. He thus gives the false impression that all Muslims are
supremacists, and they refuse to join the family of nations because they all
want to be the Family of Nations. What he does next is a deliberate attempt to
cement that impression by juxtaposing the following to it: “the theology of
Islamic supremacy goes back to the founding of Islam.” This is a trick often
used by lawyers to tell the jury there is a relationship between the two
juxtaposed statements without actually saying it.
Having made that point – however subtle he may have been –
he uses it to pretend that he shares Obama's feeling of contrition regarding
the mistakes America made in
the Middle East . But he quickly points out
that this should not be an excuse to blame America for the mess that the
region is in now. Look how skillfully he does that. Right after accusing the
Muslims of wanting to be the Family of Nations, he says this: “No one claims America 's policy has been perfect … But [the
Muslim] list of grievances predates the discovery of the New
World , much less American 'meddling' abroad.”
The last part sounds like the closing argument a lawyer
would make to a jury. It boils down to this: Yes, ladies and gentlemen, my
client may have committed a misdemeanor or two in his life, but he is not the
bad person that the plaintiff has described. In fact, all the bad things
mentioned during the trial happened in this town before my client even got here
… whereas the plaintiff had been here all the time, and may have been the owner
of the knife purported to be the crime weapon.
If this sounds harsh, look what David French actually says
about the Iranians: “they don't even disguise their hatred of the United States
as they chant 'Death to America' and vow to continue their policies of terror
and aggression … Obama wants to mainstream the Islamic Republic of Iran … in
the hopes that it will embrace us back … for a time it just might look like Iran
returns our embrace – right until we feel the knife in our back.”
The trouble with this kind of argument is that it glaringly
misrepresents some well known realities, one being that to knife America in the
back, one must have dual citizenship: one American, the other foreign. There
are very few Iranians who also have American citizenship. If and when they go
to Iran ,
these people are accused of spying, and are thrown in an Iranian jail.
This is in contrast with the Jews who brazenly denigrate America while glorifying Israel , and malign their own President while
praising Israel 's
leaders. When caught spying for Israel
and thrown in an America
jail, they are given Israeli citizenship. Only this kind of conduct qualifies
as being a knife in America 's
back, and only the Jews are capable of practicing it.
What all of this says is that David French, the lawyer, was
shown to be the emperor who basks in the infamy of his nakedness. Furthermore,
he may well be part owner of the knife in America 's back – the murder weapon
he tried so hard to attribute to the Iranians.