"We were told by the government of Israel, the government of Saudi Arabia, and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that it was absolutely essential that the United States strike Syria militarily to send a signal to Iran that the U.S. was willing to use force to confront Iran's nuclear program.
Congress and the American people have decisively rejected this argument."Even by Huffington Post standards, this is pretty freaking dishonest. There has been one man who has been pushing for a US attack on Syria for the past few weeks and that man is Barack Obama, the President of the United States. Okay, excuse me, two. Secretary of State John Kerry has also been endorsing an attack.
Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab League have been supporting the rebels and encouraging America to get involved for some time. Israel has not, and AIPAC hasn't said anything until just last week after President Obama already made it clear that this is what he wanted. Classic anti-Israel mentality: even when AIPAC is agreeing with your beloved President Obama, everything is still their fault. Even if you have to lie to do it. Now it is true that AIPAC did say that their reasoning behind is attacking Syria is so that it will help America against Iran, but Israel and Saudi Arabia said no such thing.
Furthermore, Congress and the American people did not reject that argument, they just don't think that we should go to war with Syria. If you look at the op-ed pages and letters to the editor, they are basically saying that it isn't our fight, it will lead to blowback and the rebels are not exactly great people anyway so why should we help them? Nothing to do with his favorite punching bags and nothing to do with Iran either. Ultimately his whitewashing of the Democrats' responsibility for putting us in this situation is despicable, and trying to shift the blame to Israel is pathetic. But exactly what I have come to expect from Robert Naiman.
After moaning about how AIPAC wants more wars and cheering on Congress for stopping one (again, no criticism is directed at the President), Naiman makes some hilarious and ridiculous claims about Iran, his one true love (emphasis mine):
"If we can talk to Russia about securing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons stocks, we can talk to Iran about securing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons stocks. Iran not only has a new President, but an entirely new crew of pragmatic, experienced, top diplomatic officials. No country on earth hates chemical weapons more than Iran. Could there be a better time to talk to Iran than when 1) Iran has just elected a new president who campaigned on a platform of engagement with the West and 2) AIPAC has just suffered a spectacular legislative defeat on the authorization of force?"No country on earth hates chemical weapons more than Iran? Yeah, sure. I'm sure Naiman's evidence is that Iraq used chemicals against them, but they are hardly the only nation on Earth for that to happen to. And why would Iran destroy Syria's chemical weapons? They are allies. As for the rest of his arguments, everyone with a brain knows they won't work. It doesn't matter who Iran's President is because the Ayatollahs rule. President Obama knows that. And even if they didn't, Rouhani is not against nuclear proliferation and never has been. Also you gotta love that it was "AIPAC" that was "defeated" when we didn't attack Syria and not President Obama and the executive branch. We can't criticize Obama! This is the Huffington Post!
After proceeding to blame Israel and Saudi Arabia (a nice change) for everything wrong in the region, Naiman declares that America should get rid of all our alliances and be nice to everyone and hope that things work out. Not surprisingly, the readership were quick to demonstrate what kind of values his amen corner holds:
Naiman, who often comments in the threads below his articles, has had nothing to say about this blatant display of anti-Semitism. Just another day on the Huffington Post.