T Nation

Obama's True Colors on Israel



Remember during the election? "How dare you question Obama on Israel." "The U.S. loves Israel and that will not change!" "But, let me go over here and say something else to these Palestinians. And if someone reports that I'm saying two different things, well, we'll just jump up and down and say it's unfair, or a misrepresentation, or a lie."

I'd say the cat is out of the bag on Israel, Barack. I wonder if he'll still get 90% of the Jewish vote next time around?

And see here regarding his appointment to the NIC:


I mean, you can't make this stuff up.


Twenty-four months until the adults take over congress and start shutting this clown down.



There's nothing happening that wasn't knowable and known about Obama before the election. Our voting population is such that all these things were worth over 50% of the vote.

And in 2004, our voting population was such that having, as a matter of simple and undisputed fact, committed an act defined as treason and not even being the slightest bit repentent of it was worth 49% of the vote.

Why would the voting population in question be substantially different in in its preferences in 2010?


Because the economy is going to contine to tank. The ever-poorer electorate will blame Congress for this turkey of a "stimulus". Obama will deflect blame and return for another term, enabled by the excuse making media.


...And because I want to believe it?!


I think the different perspective of those people who aren't a hard core democrat and thought we need a buzzword instead of a policy. When they see a potential loss of the home mortgage interest deduction and other such nonsense , people who didn't think this through well will wake up.

Think back to 94, the Clinton tax increases and assault weapons ban did these goofs in. If there is a party dumber and goofier than the republicans it's the democrats. They BS people into voting for them, ie, lie, then try to do what they actually want to do and wonder why people get all riled up.


So, you are pissed because the US is continuing its policy of throwing scrapes of money to the Palestinians, while giving the big bucks and guns to Israel? How is that any different from previous policy?

I can agree that the situation is ridiculous. Arming Israel and applauding its rampage on Gaza, then feigning humanism and paying for some (as in, tiny) fraction of the caused damage.

What's strange, however, is that you pick up a non-story to illustrate Obama's flip-flopping, when he just announced that US troops will remain in Iraq indefinitely.


I don't give a damn about the Palestinians. the rest of the Arab world tried to take on Israel 40 years ago and got their ass kicked. If they would have left well enough alone and had a live and let live attitude, they might not have this issue.


Because the voter demographics are substantially different during mid-term elections.


Good point.

Though at least in those districts where Congressmen who were absolutely egregious cases -- let's say for example Rep William Jefferson (D-La) with his bribe money in the freezer -- who were re-elected in 2006, this reason would not apply as to why their voters would not do the same in 2010, I think.


Bill, I think the burb types who see possible tax increases and general BS might look at things differently. There are app 40% hardcore one way and 20% on the fence. Bush ahad so much bad press and the banking thing in october killed McCain.

A candidate with no agenda and some buzz words can have success. Actual this is what's going stuff on will cause some people to think a little differently. Espcially people whoare gettign whacked for more taxes and see less cash at home.

Libs are great at lying to get elected and forgetting they lied. they then try to do stupid crap and people get pretty irate. Look at Carter. Ford was tied to Nixon. People got pretty fed up with him.

Look at Clinton , tax increases, gun bans and his first order in office was gays in the military stuff. People get all irate and they get all confused. they don't understand that people might take people at their word.


What are you referring to?


Speaking of flip-flopping, when will you be posting the video of you eating your underwear like you promised?


The UCMJ defines an active member of the armed services meeting with the enemy during wartime without official authorization as treason.

Kerry, without authorization, met with the North Vietnamese in Paris to discuss how the US should, in the Communists' and Kerry's mutually agreed view, end its defense of South Vietnam and war against North Vietnam, and how Kerry could best carry this message back to the US to so persuade the American people. He did this as still an active duty officer. (The subject matter and purpose are not necessary factors: I provide them just for background.)

By definition under the UCMJ to which he was subject: treason.

Also by other standards, but to make my statement indubitably correct I specified that I was referring to "an act defined as treason."


I think Kerry's a scumbag, no question, and he's the only reason I feel even slightly OK about voting for Bush in 2004. That being said, I don't believe we ever declared war on North Vietnam.


My statement, a paraphrase from memory, was correct in that it certainly is applicable in wartime, but in fact the exact text does not specify wartime, but rather:

"without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.?

There does not seem to be any requirement anywhere that treason can be committed only when Congress has declared war.

But anyway my intended point was not a legal one, but rather that even with the man having undoubtedly committed this act of collaborating with the enemy (and in what we all consider wartime to boot), 49% of voters pulled the lever even for that.


Where to start with how dumb this is? Obama is as much in the tank for AIPAC and the rest of the Likud lobby as any other conventional American politician. He cut Rashid Khalidi off when it was convenient, pledged his fealty to Israel at AIPAC's convention, as is the requirement for AMERICAN politicians these days, and his Chief of Staff is fucking Rahm Emmanuel! He wholeheartedly endorsed the attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was pretty indefensible on both moral and pragmatic grounds. Honestly, what more do you want?

The specifics:

"Critically important program to undermine Al Qaeda's opium cash cow"? I don't which specific program is being referred to, but in general, poppy eradication in Afghanistan sounds like a terrible idea. Good way to lose what popular support we have left.

As for Hamas, that's a dilemma, no question, but if you want to see the really scary people (i.e. Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, and worse) come to power in Gaza, let it become an even more miserable place where the people have no hope whatsoever. Isolating and periodically attacking Hamas will only make it stronger. You been paying attention at all the last few months? Ever heard the phrase "rally round the flag"?

Want an evenhanded look at Freeman from someone who isn't a complete hack (like Powerline)?


Even if he doesn't what is that .5 percent that those oligarchs comprise versus the unwashed masses who will vote for him.


Bro, Obama could be walking hand-in-hand with Emmanuel, pressing the big red nuke button down on Gaza, and most on PWI would still be claiming that "Obama hates whites!!!11!!! (or Jews!!!111!!!)"

But the war on drugs MUST CONTINUE!!1!! National Review Online says it's so!

"Rally 'round the flag"??? Come on! You think towelheads (sic) could really do that ?!?


Ok, so I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind or anything here, but I'm just saying... trying to send money to Gaza through NGOs has been done for years. W. did it too.