Steady yourselves my friends for, we were hit with another
1,100-plus words of verbal diarrhea flowing through the sewage that passes for
American journalistic punditry these days … all of it done in pontification over
the swap that was concluded months ago between the United
States and Iran .
This time David French put-in 900 words of useless talk
under the title: “Those Pallets of Cash Sent to Iran Were 'leverage' After
All,” and had the article published on August 19, 2016 in National Review
Online. And then, on August 20, 2016, the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune
put-in their 200-plus words of treason under the title: “The Iran ransom:
Obama's web”.
David French made a great deal about the White House
spokesman using the word “leverage,” to explain what happened on the ground the
day that the swap between the American prisoners and the Iranian money was
done. He made several subtle attempts to make it sound like the words
“leverage” and “ransom” were synonymous, but never came out and said so
honestly. He did not even try to define either word, or show where an overlap
may exist between them.
Instead of doing that, David French pulled an 'Alice in
Wonderland' moment by turning reality upside down as can be seen in this
passage: “Even now, the State department's admission that it used the cash as
'leverage' to guarantee the prisoner exchange, Vox's Zach Beauchamp is
confidently declaring that that revelation 'doesn't amount to evidence of a
ransom' ... I think Beauchamp needs to meditate on the meaning of the word
'evidence.'” No. Beauchamp need not meditate on anything; it is David French
that ought to meditate on the meaning of the two words “leverage” and “ransom”
because they do not mean the same thing.
French did something else that shows how desperate he and
those like him have become to denigrate their President and by extension their
country. He used the sayings of his enemies at home and abroad (the New York
Times and the Ayatollahs) to contradict the sayings of the White House. As to
the Times, he quotes the publication having quoted the State Department as
saying there was leverage and simultaneity in the exchange but not ransom
payment. As to the Ayatollahs, there is a long story to be told, so here it is:
This is when the Ayatollahs intervened to explain to the
Iranian public that the exchange had nothing to do with the nuclear deal, and
everything to do with a swap between American prisoners and Iranian money. Look
now how David French spun those events:
“Administration officials encouraged the public to believe
that the Ayatollahs were lying to look tough in the eyes of a gullible
citizenry. Here's the New York Times: Mr. Kirby conceded that while the deals
were negotiated separately, the timing of the final transactions were linked …
There's a word for those who bought the administration's initial line:
“suckers.” There's a different phrase for the journalists who sold the story:
'partisan hacks'”.
What David French has avoided mentioning is that there is a
word for those who denigrate their country and its leaders to please the leaders
of a foreign entity situated thousands of miles away: “traitors.” Speaking of
treason, here is the Pittsburgh Tribune; the epitome of the worst form of
treason you'll ever encounter anywhere, anytime.
The following is what the editors of the Tribune are saying:
“The president and his administration denied that the United States ' payment of $400 million to Iran was a
ransom for the release of hostages on the very same day. The president lied.
And because of his tangled web of deception, he has placed a price tag on the
head of every American abroad”. Was this the manifestation of a feeble mind or
a malicious one?
The fact is that the world is awash with copycats who love
to see a real or fictitious example they can follow. An American editorial that
tells them the President of the United
States is lying while the Ayatollahs are
telling the truth, is one they will wholeheartedly heed, honor and follow.