Note the highlighted text. This is what most people would consider "balanced" reporting. But is it though? Are both positions equally reasonable and worthy of consideration? That's what the term "balance" implies, doesn't it? This is only a matter of constitutional principles, and who takes those old things seriously anymore, right? Or, is the Zionist position--that the U.S. Constitution should be disregarded because it's an obstacle to Zionist warmongering--really equal to the position which maintains that the Constitutional principles that the U.S. was founded upon should be upheld?
No, of course, those are not equal positions. To represent these two positions as equally valid and worthy of consideration is no different than relativising child rape with traditional Christian parenting. That's precisely how rabbinic dialectics work. And there is a point to it all: the synthesis.
In this case the Zionists have moved closer to their goal of the destruction of Iran. And any irrational belief there is among the goyim that it's perfectly reasonable for the Zionists to destroy Iran while trashing the U.S. Constitution in the process is the synthesis that the dialectic process has yielded. Through the process of dialectics the US has gone from a nation based upon Constitutional principles to a nation which disregards and overturns it's Constitutional principles and accepts actions completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution for the sake of an enemy of the American people as perfectly reasonable.
Now, can you see how that process has also worked within the Church?
AIPAC backed removal of Iran war provision
AIPAC lobbying helped remove a provision from a bill that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval for war against Iran. A number of congressional sources confirmed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee backed dropping the provision from the Iraq war spending bill introduced Tuesday by Democrats. The bill ties funding to deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq.
AIPAC and a number of Democrats close to Israel said the provision would have hampered the president as he attempted to leverage Iran into backing down from its alleged nuclear weapon plans. Others said the provision simply reasserted the constitutional role of the U.S. Congress in declaring war that is believed to have been eroded by Bush during the Iraq war.