Obama's AIPAC Speech, Rahm's Endorsement

[laststeamtrain]

Source: NY Observer

Obama's AIPAC Speech, Rahm's Endorsement

by Katharine Jose | June 4, 2008


Right after Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC this morning he was endorsed by Rahm Emanuel, a leading member of the House.

(The Illinois congressman has largely stayed out of the election because he is a friend of Obama's and also has close ties to the Clintons.)

Emanuel, who belongs to an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Chicago, then accompanied Obama to a meeting with AIPAC's executive board, Mark Halperin reports.

Read more: http://www.observer.com/2008/emanuel-endorses-obama-after-aipac-speech

[Hydra]

1. Thanks for the transcript

Now I know it was worse than anything I'd heard so far.

:puke:

[laststeamtrain]

2. Here's a link to a transcript of Hillary Clinton's address at AIPAC.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/06/04/clinton_remarks_at_aipac_meeting/1734/

[Hydra]

3. I'd rather not know

Her appearance at AIPAC 2+ years ago when she was the expected nominee was bad enough that all I had to do was show people that, and they were done with her.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but the mass BS he was peddling(even though AIPAC expects that) tells me not to expect ANYTHING different if he wins.

[Kittycat]

4. Then go vote for McCain.

We're supporting the Dem Nominee here.

[Hydra]

5. Thanks for playing

I may not LIKE Obama, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for him, as I had to with Kerry 4 years ago.

Still, it's attitudes like your and and those of Hilary's camp over the years that makes me wonder why I support such a petty party that insists that it is better off without such lefties like myself who demand the truth from our leaders.

You are doing the party a disservice for asking me not to vote for your candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. The Democratic Party supports Israel

Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee. It's not too difficult to figure out.

[Hydra]

7. I thought you were on my ignore list

Must have slipped off. Say hello to the rest of the people there- I bet you'll have lots to talk about.

Btw, I didn't know it was official Democratic party position to lie when it suits our interests.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. I am simply relaying some facts to you:

The Democratic Party is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel
and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors. Our
special relationship with Israel is based on the unshakable foundation of shared values and a mutual
commitment to democracy, and we will ensure that under all circumstances, Israel retains the qualitative
edge for its national security and its right to self-defense. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should
remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Under a Democratic Administration, the United States will demonstrate the kind of resolve to end
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed. We will work to transform the Palestinian
Authority by promoting new and responsible leadership, committed to fighting terror and promoting
democracy. We support the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and
security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state should resolve
the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. Furthermore, all
understand that it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and
complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. And we understand that all final status negotiations must
be mutually agreed.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

I am sorry if those facts make you uncomfortable.

[Hydra]

11. Would you care to show how these comments are accurate

And how they relate to that excerpt?

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don’t end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

<snip>

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

I have no problem with supporting Israel in peace and self defense. I have every problem with supporting them in a crusade to paint the Middle East red.

Care to show me where it's our policy as the Democratic Party to lie our way into new conquests?

[Indenturedebtor]

20. Um here you go

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7851/middle_east.html

Or just use this google link

%3BLH%3A100%3BLP%3A1%3BBGC%3A%23000000%3BT%3A%23999999%3BLC%3A%23cccccc%3BVLC%3A%23667766%3BGALT%3A%23666666%3BGFNT%3A%23666666%3BGIMP%3A%23666666%3B&adkw=AELymgX_xRzY6g_V0aIeZ18JDJE1v0-K8iLcoZ8Fz5C4_juMt-3hk7YknuPaN1a3wyWxQl0E38aSchYJtLsxZE7Wu56KtAwo5lMv0GsC035mWIz3Sqv9ZZw&q=syria+controls+lebannon&cx=013269018370076798483%3Agg7jrrhpsy4

And Ahmadinejad has said all of those things. In case it could be attributed to mistranslation the first few times he said it about ten time. So um, who is fabricating and lying to support an ultimate goal here? Hmmmm?

AIPAC quietly lobbied for Bush's war, but it was Bush's war. AIPAC is not lobbying for war with Iran, but it does want a non-nuclear Iran for some very good reasons.

[Hydra]

27. *Sigh*

Why do I apply head to brick wall so often? I must be stupid or something.

We ignore Syria's aid after 9/11

(Seymour Hersh)Syria has, as I’ve written in the New Yorker years ago, was one of the biggest helpers we had after al-Qaeda struck us, because Syria is—the old man Asad, the father of the current president, hated Jihadism. He did not like the Muslim Brotherhood. They were his opponents. And he kept the best books going on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is very closely connected to al-Qaeda. In fact, we learned more about al-Qaeda from Syria after 9/11 than from any other country. Asad, the president, gave us thousands access—agreed to give us access to thousands of files. And I wrote a story, I think in ‘02 or ’03 for the New Yorker, in which I quoted a senior intelligence official of Syria saying, "We’re willing to even talk about our support for Hezbollah with you. We want to see you win the war on terror."

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/14/seymour_hersh_u_s_helped_plan

We brush it off again:

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/december-2006/experts-syria-iran-willing-to-aid-us/

We even sent some people to be tortured there for us...and this is our implacable foe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

And the whole thing with Ahmadinejad is just pathetic. We call for the removal of legitimate governments all the time- is it not ok to do when it's someone else?

and finally, this was BEYOND pathetic, and got good coverage here:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Intelligence_officials_say_Israel_received_flawed_0924.html

So I say unto you, where is the fire?

And quit talking about AIPAC support of the Invasion of Iraq- it makes them look guilty. I'm well aware that the plans were on the drawing board long before SCOTUS handed the White House to Bush like some sort of hood ornament.

[Indenturedebtor]

48. As I said I'm not at all in favor of attacking either Syria or Iran

And frankly I wouldn't be at all surprised if that "nuclear weapons facility" in Syria was a milk factory that was passed off as a nuke factory by our government to inflame the region. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a nuke factory.

If you'll notice in that first article you posted Israel came to the US to ask if it was ok to attack Lebanon in order to stop the rocket attacks.

Israel shouldn't have used cluster bombs and it damn well shouldn't have bombed so many civilian sites. It's been doing a "tit for tat" thing that is not ok - "You terrorize us we'll terrorize you." But as a nation it's probably damn near at it's wits end, and there aren't really any arms depots or bases that it could attack to bring the fight to Hezbollah.

You still didn't respond to the fact that Syria does in fact largely control Hezbollah and uses it to attack Israel. Should we not put pressure on them to make that stop? Is it ok somehow for them to wage a proxy war against Israel? Is it ok for Iran and Syria to undermine the elected government of Lebannon? Is Israel the only one that does anything wrong in the ME in your eyes?

"And the whole thing with Ahmadinejad is just pathetic. We call for the removal of legitimate governments all the time- is it not ok to do when it's someone else?

and finally, this was BEYOND pathetic, and got good coverage here:"

Oh pathetic huh? Do we call for the destruction of entire countries and pushing entire populations "into the sea"?

Why again shouldn't we use diplomatic pressure to keep Iran from getting nukes? On the one hand if they get them they might not use them... on the other hand they might. I would rather not take the chance, especially considering the rhetoric. They've been feeding arms and money to Hezbollah and Hamas for years. What if some corrupt general gave some of these crazy bastards a tactical nuke? Unlikely but possible, and worth working against.


"And quit talking about AIPAC support of the Invasion of Iraq- it makes them look guilty. I'm well aware that the plans were on the drawing board long before SCOTUS handed the White House to Bush like some sort of hood ornament."

Agreed, but then why did you say that Israel has us fight it's wars for it? Or that AIPAC is always pushing us to war?

[Hydra]

52. Apparently you have an axe to grind

Which is helping to allow all of this BS to continue. I'm a neutral observer watching a nation with over 400 nukes claim to be the victim as they line countries up one after another as threats that need to be invaded and subdued.

And frankly I wouldn't be at all surprised if that "nuclear weapons facility" in Syria was a milk factory that was passed off as a nuke factory by our government to inflame the region. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a nuke factory.

I posted Lala_Rawraw's work showing that the "nuke factory" was a missile depot with chemical warheads.

Now, I don't support any sort of ABC weapon, but the Israeli MIC knows that nothing short of an illegal nuclear facility justifies a cross border airstrike, so that's what they said. If Canada or Mexico had done something similar to us, I doubt you'd be so tolerant.

As to Israel asking us if it's ok to attack Lebannon...We are NOT the UN. It's not up to us to justify invading and massacring a civilian population, especially since we saw it as a perfect opportunity to test our plans for an Iran airstrike on a smaller scale.

Cluster bombs, white phosphorus and attacks on UN peacekeepers...BTW, did they ever find those "kidnapped" soldiers they were supposedly attempting to "rescue" by painting the countryside red?

And then they had the GALL to whine when Hezbollah became empowered by the wholly illegal invasion...much as we do about the insurgency in Iraq. How DARE they object to being invaded?!

As to Syria, I thought my links made it clear that Syria wants to be on our team. The fact that we told them to shut up and wait for us to invade them is hardly a recommendation on their "destabilizing influence."

Oh pathetic huh? Do we call for the destruction of entire countries and pushing entire populations "into the sea"?

Do I need to remind you that we are actually DOING that in Iraq right now? May I remind you also that we designated Iran as one of the members of the dread "Axis of Evil"- even though Cheney was selling nuclear equipment to them in violation of the law pre-9/11. May I also remind you that we have drawn up plans to use nuclear bunker busters on them for on suspicion of a crime?

In comparison, mistranslating the words of the person who doesn't even run the country is BEYOND pathetic. It's on par with the Gitmo trials- if they're guilty, let their actions speak for them.

Why again shouldn't we use diplomatic pressure to keep Iran from getting nukes?

NIE. No weapons program since 2003. All of our efforts "diplomatically" have been to prove that they do indeed have a nuke program so that we can invade them. You fail at life.

Agreed, but then why did you say that Israel has us fight it's wars for it? Or that AIPAC is always pushing us to war?

You projected that statement onto me for whatever you were hoping to gain. I said that Obama was lying about the situation on the ground- in many cases not sounding much different than GWB. I further state that it is not to Israel's direct benefit that we are doing what we are- I heard they were not supportive of our move to occupy Iraq, for instance. There are times, though, when they benefit from our actions, and we benefit from the excuses they generate- Iran comes to mind. Israel gets another enemy eliminated, and we get Iran's oilfields. The only people who think this is a bad idea are the Iranians, Russians and Chinese.

Given these facts, you may want to consider your motives in this fight.

---------------------

On Edit:

I found this little gem just now- I think it nicely sums up my POV

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3341120

[Indenturedebtor]

53. If I have an axe to grind then why am I ready to admit where Israel has gone wrong/too far?

Whereas your post attempts to portray everyone but Israel and the US as completely passive victims in every situation you bring up.

"As to Israel asking us if it's ok to attack Lebannon...We are NOT the UN. It's not up to us to justify invading and massacring a civilian population, especially since we saw it as a perfect opportunity to test our plans for an Iran airstrike on a smaller scale.

Cluster bombs, white phosphorus and attacks on UN peacekeepers...BTW, did they ever find those "kidnapped" soldiers they were supposedly attempting to "rescue" by painting the countryside red?"

This was to address the idea that Israel is leading the US around by the nose. And no they didn't find the soldiers, but Hezbollah admitted that they performed this ACT OF WAR of invading Israel and kidnapping it's citizens/soldiers. In case you misssed it... ACT OF WAR. On top of rocket attacks which have been going on for years. How dare Israel respond militarily to repeated acts of war? What bastards.

"As to Syria, I thought my links made it clear that Syria wants to be on our team. The fact that we told them to shut up and wait for us to invade them is hardly a recommendation on their "destabilizing influence.""

Oh, well then why do they admit to funding and supplying Hezbollah and to controlling Lebanon? Because they say they want to be on our team suddenly that makes their entire history and current actions dissapear? They just don't want to end up like Iraq.

And Syria and Israel have basically been at war through Hezbollah for decades. The comparison to Canada and Mexico is funny. If Mexico were funding terrorist groups who were kidnapping our citizens and launching rockets into our suberbs, and then created a chemical weapons rocket site on our border, would you be against taking it out? Really? Assuming that things had devolved that far?

"Do I need to remind you that we are actually DOING that in Iraq right now? May I remind you also that we designated Iran as one of the members of the dread "Axis of Evil"- even though Cheney was selling nuclear equipment to them in violation of the law pre-9/11. May I also remind you that we have drawn up plans to use nuclear bunker busters on them for on suspicion of a crime?"

So what? I'm not in support of Cheney, and like I said I'm vehemently against attacking Iran. But you don't think we should work to keep them from getting Nukes? You don't think that there's any danger there?

"Agreed, but then why did you say that Israel has us fight it's wars for it? Or that AIPAC is always pushing us to war?

You projected that statement onto me for whatever you were hoping to gain."

Oh did I... look upthread :eyes:

"I have no problem with supporting Israel in peace and self defense. I have every problem with supporting them in a crusade to paint the Middle East red.

Care to show me where it's our policy as the Democratic Party to lie our way into new conquests?"

How is that supposed to read?

"There are times, though, when they benefit from our actions, and we benefit from the excuses they generate- Iran comes to mind. Israel gets another enemy eliminated, and we get Iran's oilfields. The only people who think this is a bad idea are the Iranians, Russians and Chinese."

I agree. And I think that Olmert is Israel's Bush, and is looking for a war to keep him in office. They're about to boot his ass out already.

Obama agreeing that we should work to keep nukes away from Iran is not a tacit approval or active endorsement of attacking Iran. I feel much the same as he does about it.

Yes I am pro-Israel, but that doesnt mean that I don't think that it does f-ed up things. Perhaps you should consider taking the same stance on other players in the region? And before you blow up at me about that, where is your criticism for them? And btw Ahmadinejad has said many many times what he would like to do to Israel. Both Ahmadinejad and Olmert need to fuck off immediately, but that doesn't make either one of them less dangerous.

[Hydra]

54. How you're framing this is not accomplishing what you think it does

If indeed you are attempting to do what you say.

But I will try one more time to clarify my position in the odd case that you might get something out of this.

1. Whereas your post attempts to portray everyone but Israel and the US as completely passive victims in every situation you bring up.

I am simply taking the stance that the bigger force is the most responsible in all cases- especially when propaganda favors them. This does not excuse the actions of the small force, but the actual responsibility lies with the people able to shut the conflict down and refuse to do so.

Exhibit 1:

The representative from the United States, Sec. of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, flew to the Middle East and Rome to meet with Arab and European leaders about the issue, initially arguing that Israel should not be forced to cease fire until after it had had a chance to destroy or diminish the ability of Hezbollah to attack Israel. The United States appears to be standing alone on the issue, as Arab and European leaders call for an immediate cease-fire in the region. This has further inflamed anti-American sentiment in the region, and is largely seen as being one-sided with Israel and indifferent to the humanitarian crisis occurring with hundreds of civilians being killed, whether Arab or Israeli. The United States refuted the cease-fire, with Condi Rice stating: “the region has had too many broken cease-fires, too many spasms of violence” and that any plan for peace must involve the disarmament of Hezbollah.

http://www.fourthbranchofamerica.com/complexity_ihl_war.shtml

I think that speaks for itself.

2 This was to address the idea that Israel is leading the US around by the nose. And no they didn't find the soldiers, but Hezbollah admitted that they performed this ACT OF WAR of invading Israel and kidnapping it's citizens/soldiers. In case you misssed it... ACT OF WAR. On top of rocket attacks which have been going on for years. How dare Israel respond militarily to repeated acts of war? What bastards.

Why do you keep bringing this BS up about them leading us by the nose? Do you think I'm some sort of anti-zionist? I firmly believe that Israel does a good job of serving our interests in the Mid-East, and thus we give them money to kill people with. It's easier than doing it ourselves, after all.

So Hezbollah raided across the border(and I've read reports to the contrary- that the Israeli soldiers were on the other side of the border, but we'll accept your premise for now)...why didn't Israel send 2 teams of commandos out, run the idiots down and rescue their comrades?

Maybe because they had no intention of saving the soldiers?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6431637.stm

Now why would they be looking for an excuse to test this plan? Sounds unsound from a military perspective to me. Let's ask the experts:

Cheney’s idea was this, that we sort of—it’s like a three-for. We get three for one with this. One, here we’re having this war about the value of strategic bombing, and the Israeli Air Force, whose pilots are superb, can go in and—if they could go in and blast Hezbollah out of their foxholes or whatever they are, their underground facilities, and roll over them, as everybody in the White House and I’m sure everybody in the Israeli Air Force thought they could do, that would be a big plus for the ambitions that I think the President and Cheney have for Iran. I don’t think this president, our president, is going to leave office with Iran being, as he sees it, a nuclear threat.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/14/seymour_hersh_u_s_helped_plan

So we tell Israel that we'll run interference for the in the UN, they test our air invasion plan for us, and Hezbollah is eliminated. Everybody wins, right? Where's the noble part of this I'm supposed to be getting? The inevitable part?

Frankly, if I were at the head of the Israeli Military, I could exterminate Hezbollah forces within 2 months with minimal civ casualties. If I can do it, so can they. Why aren't they, then? Looks like a big chess game, to me.

3.Oh, well then why do they admit to funding and supplying Hezbollah and to controlling Lebanon? Because they say they want to be on our team suddenly that makes their entire history and current actions dissapear? They just don't want to end up like Iraq.

This makes you look EXTREMELY stupid. Read that again after you actually read the links I sent you. Syria helped us after 9/11. Syria tortured someone for us. Firstly, something isn't right with this picture. Ignoring that, had we offered to allow Syria to join us in the "Coalition of the Willing," it wouldn't have been that hard for us to tell them to quit playing games in Lebanon as a condition of membership.

History and current actions disappear...? How are we supposed to move forward if we are not willing to say "The Past is over- History starts now."

Are you, for instance, in favor of persecuting everyone involved in the Mid-East conflicts including the US and the UK who has committed war crimes? While I might favor that for even-handed justice, it will never happen. The people who are dead are not coming back, regardless.

They just don't want to end up like Iraq...? We hadn't even been to Iraq when we started threating to invade them. Try again.

4.

"Agreed, but then why did you say that Israel has us fight it's wars for it? Or that AIPAC is always pushing us to war?

You projected that statement onto me for whatever you were hoping to gain."

Oh did I... look upthread :eyes:

"I have no problem with supporting Israel in peace and self defense. I have every problem with supporting them in a crusade to paint the Middle East red.

Care to show me where it's our policy as the Democratic Party to lie our way into new conquests?"

How is that supposed to read?

Read that again. "I have no problem with supporting Israel in peace and self defense. I have every problem with supporting them in a crusade to paint the Middle East red.

Care to show me where it's our policy as the Democratic Party to lie our way into new conquests?"

I'm not seeing how I said AIPAC is making us fight wars for them. I assert that we use them to accomplish our own goals. As I said before, if they benefit, that's nice, but overall we fight for what we want, end of story.

5. Obama agreeing that we should work to keep nukes away from Iran is not a tacit approval or active endorsement of attacking Iran. I feel much the same as he does about it.

BS. Iran has already agreed to IAEA monitoring, and the IAEA is fairly sure ntohing is going on. Bush And Olmert are the only people who disagree, and Olmert actually called for the disbandment of the IAEA because he didn't like what they had to say:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517568&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

As to Obama, refer back to post 11(ironically, the one you quoted me from), since I'd rather not read the speech again:

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Lets go back in history a bit:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush: The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

"Deja Moo- the feeling you've heard this Bull before."

As I said before, Obama could have said it any number of ways. He chose to say it Bush's way.

6. Yes I am pro-Israel, but that doesnt mean that I don't think that it does f-ed up things. Perhaps you should consider taking the same stance on other players in the region? And before you blow up at me about that, where is your criticism for them? And btw Ahmadinejad has said many many times what he would like to do to Israel. Both Ahmadinejad and Olmert need to fuck off immediately, but that doesn't make either one of them less dangerous.

So by thinking we need to quit throwing gasoline on the situation and actually ADDRESS THE ROOT PROBLEMS, my stance as a neutral is perhaps not good enough?

Maybe I need to take this out of the realm of theory for you. I went to school abroad for 3 years. I was friends with an Israeli named Ziv- cool kid, Slash from Guns and Rose was his idol, very smart. We also had girl named Mona from Palestine in my class. Very nice girl, looked good without a head-scarf.

While I was there, I was aware that Ziv and Mona would be trying to kill each other if they were back in the homeland. Both were devoutly religious, smart people that couldn't get along.

Mona scared me with her indoctrination. She talked about how proud she was when she had witnessed a boy bowing to an Islamic woman because she was wearing her proscribed attire. There was so much wrong with that statement that I had to wonder how great Islam could be if such empty gestures were revered.

I have no love of Islam, and little love of the people who practice it.

Where I am coming from, is the idea that it's not about them. It's about us. Our actions, our values and how we behave in the world, and by extension, the values and actions of our closest ally and how we view them.

By that measure, we have failed utterly. We ARE the European Barbarians 2.0.

Try to step back from being Pro-Israel, and try to see how things can and should be handled by a powerful and supposedly civilized nation. Now look at the reality.

Something is NOT right here, and Obama offered to keep it that way.

[populistdriven]

25. well put, I just added you to my buddy list n/t

[Hydra]

29. Ty! n/t

[The Stranger]

55. You are not referring to facts at all. Only repeating and re-repeating a tautology.

The poster complains about her party's policy in supporting a Right-Wing anti-Progressive government, and you simply state that her party's policy is to support a Right-Wing anti-Progressive government.

Quite simple, actually.

[leftynyc]

19. Are you accusing Sen Obama of lying to

AIPAC? Or do you just wish he was?

[Hydra]

28. That is what he said, was it not?

If it is, then yes indeed, he did lie.

[leftynyc]

30. So you, for a fact, know

he was lying to AIPAC today - do I have that right because I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Hydra]

31. Yup

You can put me down for that. Our presidential hopeful lied about the facts on the ground to further his cause in winning the White House. That AIPAC expected him to do so is irrelevant. He made the decision about what to say and how to say it.

[leftynyc]

32. That's not what I asked you

I'm asking you if you've heard, out of Sen Obama's mouth himself, something different that what he said to AIPAC today. That you know for a fact that he didn't mean what he said because you've heard him say different (that you felt he lied about the situation on the ground is an opinion).

[Hydra]

33. ???

That he lied about what's happening in the Mid-East is not an opinion. Facts do not support his statements much the way they did not support the Bush Administration when they lied us into Iraq.

Whether he meant what he said remains to be seen, but I sure hope not. I don't think we need 2 more fronts in our "War on Terror."

Regardless, I am not seeing your point. Misrepresenting the facts vs. misrepresenting of himself?

[leftynyc]

34. Exactly

I'm sorry I'm not being clear. Reasonable people can disagree on what's happening on the ground. Some will stress the appalling conditions in the Gaza and some will stress the fact that Israel has rockets being shot into it's territory every single day - that's just a matter of perspective.

What I'm asking you is if you have reason to believe that Sen Obama was lying when he stressed his strong support of Israel in his speech to AIPAC today. Was he lying just to get the Jewish vote?

[Hydra]

35. That's hard to say

And in reality, it may not matter where his heart lies in the matter. What he pledged to AIPAC is simply a status quo + a few bones for them. He really doesn't have to do much of anything extra to follow through with that.

The shockwaves from his pandering are already showing up, though, since he is the presumed next president.

As politically convenient as this was, IMO it was a mistake of the first order.

[leftynyc]

39. If it's the way he really feels

It was not a mistake. That people don't agree with his position is their problem - they'll have to decide where their vote goes. If it was simply pandering, I agree it was a mistake.

[Hydra]

40. Ok, I think I follow you now

I think you were asking "Did he just mouth it because he needed their support?"

I don't know him well enough to be sure, but my guess is "Yes."

I think his speechwriters cobbled together this whole thing with the intent of telling them "I understand how important you are for my victory, and I am happy to pay the price."

I would like to think he is smarter, more rational and more peace-minded than this, which is why I'm hoping he simply mouthed this. If that isn't the case, you may as well give me the nomination, because I would be better equipped.

[oberliner]

41. Your guess is wrong

There are numerous examples of Obama making similar statements throughout the campaign.

He spoke at a synagogue in Florida and responded to a lengthy question-and-answer session.

Clearly, those responses were not "cobbled together" by speech writers and simply "mouthed" by Obama.

They are his own thoughts and his own positions.

[Hydra]

45. *Sigh*

Then we have ourselves another warmonger. Joy.

[oberliner]

51. I think his style and approach will be very different, thankfully

He will actually engage with the relevant parties in a sustained, diplomatic, and intelligent fashion, unlike his predecessor.

[wuushew]

8. That statement is a non-sequitur

AIPAC is not the same thing as Israel. Think of it in terms of set theory. No one would claim that the Republican party accurately represents the American public in aggregate or that the Force is only true from the standpoint of the Sith.


If America supports AIPAC it does so for the reasons which set it apart, mainly belligerence and bellicose foreign policy(which is a distinct and disappointing realization).

[Hydra]

9. Thanks for putting it in perspective

AIPAC does a masterful job of appearing to be Israel.

And it is a disappointing realization- So much for the high-flying eagle as our symbol.

[Indenturedebtor]

12. What sort of Israel policy do you propose?

There are a lot of Americans who support much of the AIPAC agenda for a lot of different reasons. There are a lot of Americans who don't.

Aipac wields a lot of political clout, but to support a two state solution and peace in the region doesn't mean that the Joos are using their mind control device on you. :eyes:

Why don't you just come out and say that you want to see the Israelis driven to the sea? Why beat around the bush with these conspiracy theories? Seriously though.

[Hydra]

13. Tasteless on your part

Israel does not need to be killing brown people to continue to exist. THAT is the myth.

I don't support AIPAC because they push for war with their neighbors. I refuse to touch the issue of what's going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians because I'm not there experiencing it- much like how I DO speak about poverty because I live it.

Conspiracy theories...? Are you trying to play some sort of trump card?

[oberliner]

15. Killing brown people?

Not sure what you are suggesting with that remark.

How do you define "brown people" and don't the majority of Israelis qualify as such?

Obama wants to see Israel living in security and at peace with its neighbors.

There are folks from Hamas and other affiliated organizations who are shooting rockets at Israeli cities in an attempt to ensure that no compromises for peace are reached.

Should Israel not respond to those attacks because the people committing them are "brown people"?

With all due respect, I really do not understand what you are implying.

[Hydra]

17. See post #11 and read the speach, if you haven't

Obama is blatantly lying about what is happening in the Middle East...why?

This is not about peace, safety or self-defense.

[oberliner]

21. Can you identify what you consider to be blatant lies?

The two exceprts listed in post #11 do not appear to be fit that categorization.

Syria is widely known to be involved in Lebanon and Iran is generally perceived to be providing assistance to the groups indicated.

[wuushew]

24. I myself can find fault with the language regarding the strike on Syria

it does not appear that the strike was justified or prudent.

Here is Hersh's excellent article on "Operation Orchard" which by my reading seems to have been caused by some combination of intelligence group think or as a practice run for the overflight of Syrian airspace on the way to Tehran.


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh/?currentPage=5

[Indenturedebtor]

18. I didn't say that they need to be killing brown people to exist

I'm also not a big fan of AIPAC. It's a rightwing organization that pushes for all sorts of rightwing policies that are not in the best interests of Jews or Israel. And even though it was in support of the war, I'm sick and tired of people laying the Iraq war at AIPAC and Israel's feet. Most of this country was in support of attacking Iraq at the time. Why zero in on AIPAC?

And even though Olmert (a crazy Neocon douchebag who is about to be thrown out of government) supports a war with Iran, AIPAC does not. They are pushing to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and I see no problem with that.

And to your statements above... um Syria does control Lebanon. Even the Lebanese say so. And they do largely fund Hezbollah and use it to wage a proxy war.

I'm not trying to play a "trump card". Read your own comments. Hey look no further than your comments about Syria and Hezbollah.

[ckramer]

62. Just don't give them tens of billion every year

in whatever policy you prefer.

[ckramer]

61. There is no moral calling for that

Israel is not a state of America!

[roody]

42. Cynthia McKinney has progessive views on Israel.

The Democratic Party squeezed her out.

[oberliner]

43. Cynthia McKinney was interviewed in February for Democracy Now

When asked why she left the Democratic Party to join the Green Party, she gave a lengthy response that made no mention whatsoever of her views on Israel.

[scratchy]

14. Democracy is a joke in the US

Everyone needs to kiss the ass of AIPAC to get elected, where is the change? Same old shit just new stink

[oberliner]

16. Or maybe Obama actually means what he says?

Perhaps he actually is simply stating his personal views on the conflict.

[Indenturedebtor]

22. But no reasonable person could possibly want anything but the destruction of Israel

:sarcasm:

[Indenturedebtor]

50. I don't understand why this is so hard for some to believe

They equate being on the political left with hating Israel, and don't understand that many lefties don't agree with them. They pick and choose news stories to paint the conflict as one sided and I think either secretly, or not so secretly, want Israel to be destroyed. They take the extreme hardline view and don't understand why so many others don't agree with them.

It's not "selling out" for Obama to not agree with you. It's as though people have projected every single one of their opinions onto Obama, and go crazy when he deviates from their imagined view of him.

[ckramer]

26. You are right. Obama all of the sudden became a born-again Jew

WTF?

This is more than sick.

Fuck it, no more donation to Obama.

[oberliner]

36. I think the concept of being "born again" is a Christian one, not Jewish

I do not think that Jewish people believe in the notion of being "born again". I am pretty certain that is part of Christian theology.

In any case, Obama's speech is not really different from any of the other similar speeches he has given on this subject.

I am not sure what he is saying that is "more than sick".

His comments are essentially the same as the Democratic party's position on the conflict.

[LeftishBrit]

47. I believe that's correct

And although it is a general tenet of Christianity that one is 'born again' through baptism, the concept of 'born again Christians' in the usual sense is mainly restricted to evangelical Protestant groups. (It is therefore rare in the UK, where such groups are much less dominant among Christians than they seem to be in the USA.)

It is certainly not a concept generally used by Jews, or for that matter Muslims or members of other non-Christian religions.

[The Stranger]

57. Muslims, Christians and Jews all have Fundamentalists.

Whether or not they are "born again" matters little.

[The Stranger]

56. Again, the "Democratic party's position" seems to be the issue at hand.

Simply repeating and re-repeating what is the "Democratic party's position" on the subject does not state anything of substance.

[electropop]

23. Those are two endorsements I'm not comfortable with.

ick

[ryanmuegge]

37. Obama even wore his flag pin for this speech. How cute.

I think most of us (at least on the left) can agree that AIPAC does have an extreme and hawkish agenda.

[ryanmuegge]

38. Obama even wore his flag pin for this speech. How cute.

I think most of us (at least on the left) can agree that AIPAC does have an extreme and hawkish agenda. This isn't meant to knock Obama, but the trepdiation that most of us feel when oru candidate associates with these kind of characters is justifiable.

[tidy_bowl]

44. The reality is....

....that Obama, like any other politician will pander to any group to get their vote. Why is that so hard to understand or see? Why is it assumed automatically, like some kind of robot that he is not just like any other politician? If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in. Cheap. Really.

[legin]

46. I feel ill

What is the first thing Obama does after (sort of) getting the Democratic nomination ?

Gives a speech to AIPAC, and 'this speech' too. i.e. prostates himself before the alter of bleedin' israel.

Does he give a speech to thank the people who gave him the money to run, who provided their time voluntary to help his campaign ?

No he doesn't. Where is his first port of call ?

You provided your money and your time, but you don't have any power whatsoever. Time for you to change this.

[Indenturedebtor]

49. The AIPAC speec was scheduled long before the day

And how does working towards peace in the region constitute prostrating oneself?

Perhaps he could have given a speech to AIPAC and condemned Israel for everything ignoble it's ever done. Then he could have gone to Gaza and done the same thing to the Palestinians, and told the whole region to go fuck itself. That would be a great idea.

What would you prefer he'd done?

He gave a speech to his supporters when he got the nom... did you miss it? I'm sure you can find it on YouTube if you'd like to see it.

[ckramer]

60. The whole world's wars were pretty much caused by the U.S. supporting of Israel

So as long as leaders of US continue sucking up Israel, the mess would never end.

[LeftishBrit]

63. The WHOLE WORLD'S wars were pretty much caused by the US supporting Israel?

Is this a typo, or do you really mean it?

ALL wars everywhere??????????????????????????????

[legin]

58. basically Obama doesn't need us anymore

we were useful to Obama, the 'insurgent campaign', against the Democratic party mainstream candidate.

Now he has the full backing of the Democratic party campaigning machinery, we are not as necessay.

It may be a reflection of what he really thinks about us by the speed with which he buried a whole load of knives in our backs.

[ckramer]

59. That's right - Obama --> you go ahead become Hillary II

God, it's not even November yet.

Don't take it for granted.