"Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran."-New York Times.

President Obama had a tough message for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, the powerful pro-Israel group that is furiously campaigning against the Iran nuclear accord, when he met with two of its leaders at the White House this week. The president accused Aipac of spending millions of dollars in advertising against the deal and spreading false claims about it, people in the meeting recalled.

So Mr. Obama told the Aipac leaders that he intended to hit back hard.

The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deal’s opponents as “lobbyists” doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable.

Wrong. Not only was it mistakable, it was mistaken--by everybody that I read about--as a criticism of Republicans and the Democrats who supported the war in Iraq. Obama named "Republicans." Nobody that I read took that as a criticism of Aipac.

...

Mr. Obama’s allies... say they are worried that, in working to counter Aipac’s tactics and discredit its claims about the nuclear accord with Iran, the president has gone overboard in criticizing the group and like-minded opponents of the deal.

“It’s somewhat dangerous, because there’s a kind of a dog whistle here that some people are going to hear as ‘it’s time to go after people,’ and not just rhetorically,” said David Makovsky, a former Middle East adviser for the Obama administration and now an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.

 Are you fucking kidding me?! "'It's time to go after people,' and not just rhetorically"? 

THE OVENS! OBAMA WANTS TO SEND JEWS TO THE OVENS! 

No, "Obama ally," "David Makovsky" it's not "somewhat dangerous" or any fucking which way dangerous. If "some people" are hearing a "dog whistle "some people" need to get their fucking hearing checked. You and the people hearing things are a disgrace, Makovsky. 

Mr. Obama’s advisers strongly disputed the suggestion that he used coded language to single out Aipac when he said in his American University speech that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. PAUSE: 

In fact, it's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It's those hardliners chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

UNPAUSE: There it is, Dog Whistles, right from the American U speech. He directs his criticism not just at Republicans but at the "Republican Caucus" in Congress. The vast majority of Jews in this country are registered Democrats. From 2013-present there have been 12 Jewish Senators, of whom eleven are Democrats, one is an "Independent" who is running for president in the Democratic primaries. That is 12-zip for Jewish Democrats in the Senate. In the House, there have been 22 congressman, 21 are Democrats, the only Republican was Eric Cantor who was defeated. How do you get, Dog Whistles, that the president's criticism was coded at you and was close to signaling violence against Jews, when it was direct uncoded criticism of the Republican Caucus. 

“This has nothing to do with anybody’s identity; this is a policy difference about the Iranian nuclear program,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “We don’t see this as us versus them...”

I believe that. I also believe that Aipac sees it as us versus them, the Obamas. They want to wave the bloody flag of anti-semitism to scare off the Obamas from hitting back at what they believe are Aipac distortions and "false claims," i.e. lies.

It is Aipac who is doing their cause, a righteous cause that the undersigned supports, a cause that has plenty of ammunition on the demerits of JCPOA, a disservice. They, Aipac, are the cause of any "rupture" in relations. Now that we have the Dog Whistles on the record, Obama should not be cowed and back off, he should redouble his criticism and name names, AIPAC first, second, and last. It should be all anti-Aipac all the time. They won't need dog whistles to hear that tune. 

It never occurred to me that Jewish, Aipac-lobbied, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer was as cynical as the reports today made him out to be. I lost respect for Schumer and I have lost respect for Aipac. I hope that Aipac's outrageous criticism of Obama as a dog whistling anti-semite does not distract from serious debate on JCPOA. But I don't have realistic hope. Schumer, once considered a bell-weather for his statesmanship stands partially discredited. Aipac, who I respected, stands discredited as paranoid hearers of dog whistles and should be marginalized in this debate. They have lost their place at the "adults" table and can go have a food fight with the birthers and Confederate flag supporters at the "kids" table. A "rupture" over this issue is going to isolate Jews not Barack Obama or Democrats.

Last week, as Mr. Obama made his way back from Africa on Air Force One, White House officials learned that Aipac would be flying 700 members from across the country to Washington to pressure their members of Congress to reject the deal. Mr. Obama’s team asked to brief the group at the White House, and was told instead to send a representative to the downtown Washington hotel where the activists were gathering before their Capitol Hill visits, according to people familiar with the private discussions.

[Wendy] Sherman; Adam J. Szubin, the Treasury official who handles financial sanctions; and Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff, all made presentations to the group, but were barred from taking questions to further explain it. White House officials said they were told from the start there would be no questions, while Aipac supporters said that they would have allowed questions but that there was no time.

Whatever the case, Mr. Obama took offense and later complained at the White House to Aipac leaders that they had refused to allow Ms. Sherman and other members of his team to confront the “inaccuracies” being spread about the agreement, leaving him to defend the deal to wavering lawmakers who had been fed misinformation about it.

“You couldn’t miss the message that he was sending,” one person seated at the table said, “of, ‘That’s not O.K. with me, and it will be answered.’ ”

You got that message, "one person at the table." It will be answered. This time so directly that even through your dog whistles you will hear it loud and clear.