On August 5, Obama spoke at American University, giving a speech encouraging support for his Iran nuclear deal. It is worthwhile to take a look at some of his comments - not for what he tells us about the deal, but for what it tells us about Obama.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.