WHO'S SORRY NOW? WHO'S LYING NOW?

By Schmoel Yitzhak

In 1923 the composer-lyricist team of Burt Kalmar and Harry Ruby combined on a classic tune, "Who's Sorry Now?"

Too bad they're not around nine decades later. The song would have been the perfect accompaniment for the G20 summit meeting between Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy in Cannes.

Were Kalmar-Ruby observing the Sarkozy-Obama dialogue-rip on Benjamin Netanyahu, they'd likely retain the music but re-write the words and call it "Who's Lying Now?"

And were a sub-title required, they'd add: "Barack Or Nicolas -- Or Both."

For either the French Republic's president or Uncle Sam's self-styled emperor calling Israel's Prime Minister a "liar" is roughly equivalent to a couple of pots calling a couple of kettles black.

C'mon, who's kidding whom?

"I can't stand to see him anymore," said Sarkozy, either too naive or too stupid to realize that the media swarm would catch his comments. "He (Bibi) is a liar."

Obama, who spent twenty years regularly visiting a Chcago church where Jew-hating headed its weekly agenda, was no less thoughtless when he disparaged Israel's leader with a typically fatuous, "But I have to deal with him every day."

In case you've forgotten, Sarkozy comes from a country whose World War II leaders -- Marshall Petain, Pierre Laval, et. al. -- implemented Jew-killing policies that were as depraved as those of the conquering Nazis. Should we be surprised that any French leader -- remember DeGaulle? -- would dump on Israel?

Who's the liar when it comes to the exploding Middle East? Well, let's start with Iran as our case in point.

During Ariel Sharon's stewardship of Israel, he specifically warned the American and French leaders that the one -- the primary -- nation to fear was Iran. He knew; the others didn't want to know. Typically, they ignored the warnings.

And, speaking of falsehoods, The Jerusalem Post's Carol;ine Glick asks a cogent question: when has Bibi ever lied to either Sarkozy or Netanyahu?

"Netanyahu has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along," Glick points out. "In contrast world leaders have been burying their heads in sand."

If Bibi wanted to get as nasty as his American and French critics, he might shoot back: "Well, what significant moves have you made to stop Iran from becoming a threatening nuclear power?"

The answer, of course, is simply -- uselessly -- talk, talk, talk, while accomplishing nothing. Even now that the United Nations atomic agency has made it abundantly clear that Iran is working secretly on developing a nuclear weapon, the best Obama's minions can do is deliver more hot air.

Exhibit A is his Secretary of State. Responding to the IAEA report, the best Hillary Clinton could come up with was, "We expect Iran to answer the serious questions raised by this report."

Just to show you how thoroughly dim-witted that comment was, let me point out that Iran already had answered the questions. It denies -- lies about -- its intentions on a regular basis. It rejected the IASE report before it was released, when it was announced and continued to do so before Clinton even opened her mouth. Excuse me, but is Her Majesty auditioning for Alice In Wonderland?

You want to know where the lies are rooted? Try Pennsylvania Avenue. Check out the White House and its endlessly timid posture toward Iran.

Don't for a moment forget that only four years ago Washington tried to calm the civilized world -- also known as appeasing Iran -- with an important document. America's National Intelligence Estimate was that Iran had abandoned nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence "experts" told the world the lie of all lies that it had definitive proof of Iran's good intentions.

Obama ran and continued running with this fabrication which was precisely what the ayatollahs had hoped the White House would do.

"Obama," adds Caroline Glick, "wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program."

For all we know, pursue the White House will continue its nonsensical policy of appeasing Tehran. In the meantime, it's talk, talk, talk while Hillary assures us that "The U.S. will continue to consult closely with our allies on the next steps we can take to increase pressure on Iran."

Forget about it. Obama, Inc. is afraid to do anything practical, which is simply to bomb the Iranian plants until they're once and for all out of business.

But the president neither has the time nor inclination to make the tough move. Instead, he's worried about getting re-elected and maintaining the Jewish vote. (He should be so lucky.)

By next October, the "liar" issue may have faded away. Then, again, it may still be relevant. After all, there's plenty of time for more fabrications.

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich won't forget it; that's for sure.

"We can pick who we want to describe as a liar," says the former speaker of the House, "the head of the P.L.O., the head of Hamas, the head of Iran. To be unhappy with Benjamin Netanyahu, who's trying to survive in a dangerous neighborhood, strikes me as flagrantly inappropriate.

"And to have our president agree with Sarkozy was really disgusting."

Yes, it could boomerang on Obama, big-time. And if it does, you know which song the Republicans will be singing next Fall, don't you?

"Who's Sorry Now?