Written by Jack Kelly Thursday, 05 March 2015 on To The Point News:

Normally what politicians say matters much less than what they do.  But sometimes at a critical moment in history, a great speech by a great leader can bolster resolve to do what must be done.

“Our policy… “is to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime,” said Winston Churchill on May 13,1940, three days after he’d replaced Neville Chamberlain as prime minister.

“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,” he said June 4.  After the war, in 1946 Sir Winston warned that “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across (Europe).”

Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday (3/3) was Churchillian.  He is the Churchill of our time.

The Israeli prime minister “had something of surpassing importance to say, and he said it with force, with strength, with conviction and with grace,” said Commentary editor John Podhoretz.

“Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam,” Bibi Netanyahu said. “One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world.

“The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs,” he said. “To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.”

The treaty the Obama administration is negotiating with the mullahs “paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” he said.

“With a mix of passion and steadfastness combined with a detailed prosecutor-like approach, Netanyahu exposed the deal,” said Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner. His arguments “deserve a serious response from the Obama administration – one it has yet to provide,” said the Washington Post.

Instead, ever since House Speaker John Boehner invited Mr. Netanyahu to come speak, the president and his aides have been hurling personal insults at Israel’s prime minister.

After failing to dissuade Bibi from accepting the invitation, the White House encouraged Democrats to boycott his speech.

“President Obama’s dislike for Netanyahu is intense,” said Haviv Rettig Gur in the Times of Israel. That’s because “those who do not confront evil resent those who do,” said radio talk show host Dennis Prager.

Mr. Obama is meddling in our election, said 62 percent in a Jerusalem Post poll. Most resent it.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the president actively supports regime change, said columnist Charles Krauthammer.

The “unprecedented” hostility expressed toward the head of state of an ally backfired, because it made the Netanyahu speech “the most important political event of 2015 by far,” Mr. Podhoretz said.

Democrats were split by White House efforts to get them to boycott it. About 50 did, but more didn’t. Many who didn’t praised Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks.

He was sharply critical of the Iran deal, but Mr. Netanyahu had only words of praise for Mr. Obama personally.  “Embarrassingly, the American president could not find it in his conniving heart to rise above his innate political pettiness,” said Andrew Malcolm of Investors Business Daily.

Mr. Obama thinks his scorn is sufficient to turn public opinion against the Israeli prime minister. He’s been misled by a mostly sycophantic news media, or by his enormous self regard.

Mr. Netanyahu’s “favorable” rating has risen sharply despite – or maybe because of – all the snark directed at him, according to a Gallup poll in February.

The development of nuclear weapons by Iran would pose a “critical” threat, said 77 percent in a Gallup poll last month. They’d support military action to stop Iran if diplomacy and sanctions fail, said substantial majorities in polls in 2012 and 2013.

Barack Obama is (alas) the U.S. president. But the leader of the Free World is Benjamin Netanyahu.

Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.


  1. Simply one question:

    Should we accept or reject Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons?

  2. We should not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons while they support terrorists or threaten to kill Israel or us.

  3. Are there limits on what we can do to deny the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons? If so, then how to achieve denying them from that acquisition?

    If there are no limits, then why isn’t it the policy of our government to assert this as a starting point for negotiations?

    Could it be that the political will does not exist in Washington, D.C.?

  4. You remember the phrase “Might makes right!” Theoretically, when you are the biggest power, there are no limits. If there are no limits, then it is just political will that prevents action or maybe consequences of your actions could temper your actions. Russia and China could team up and object. That might be a consequence, but you could make Iran glass and nobody could challenge us. Hell, we spend more money on defense than the next ten nations combined.

Discussion Area - Leave a Comment

Copyright © 2007 Mover Mike. Design by Anthony Baggett.

Fatal error: Call to undefined function is_sidebar1_page() in /homepages/7/d182093141/htdocs/movermike/wp-content/themes/networker-10/footer.php on line 13