Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Elephant in the Room: In addressing Israel policy, Obama displays dualityHe told a pro-Israeli group the right things in a recent speech. But his acts tell another story.By Rick Santorum [excerpt]The day after securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama addressed the preeminent pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This mostly Jewish organization, which is largely liberal and Democratic, would seem to be the perfect pushover crowd to launch his fall campaign. By all accounts, he wowed the crowd with rhetorical flares, saying he "had grown up without a sense of roots" and consequently had always "understood the Zionist idea, that there is always a homeland at the center of our story." But behind the dozen standing ovations is the seldom-told story that Obama throughout the primaries has had a problem with Jewish voters.In Pennsylvania, Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Obama by 10 points but won the Jewish vote by 24. It was as bad, if not worse, in other states with sizable Jewish populations. In November, polls indicate he will run 20 to 30 points behind the typical Democratic presidential candidate among Jewish voters. Question: Why would some of the most reliably liberal voters balk at supporting the most liberal presidential candidate since George McGovern? Answer: Obama has an Israel problem that grows out of his votes, speeches, writings and associations, past and present. He tried to use his AIPAC speech to put all this behind him. It won't be that easy.The radical government in Iran is the most serious threat to the security of Israel, whether through its support of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Syria, its development of nuclear weapons, or its threat to wipe Israel off the map.In September, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution, by a vote of 76-22, that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama didn't make the vote, but he trashed the resolution and used Clinton's support of it to drive a wedge between her and the antiwar crowd. At the same time, Obama famously announced that he would meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without precondition" and declared that Iran was merely a "tiny threat."All this came during the primaries. At the AIPAC meeting, Obama said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization" and that "there is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran." But he said he still favored direct negotiations with Iran, without "self-defeating preconditions." Every time I have traveled to Israel, its military's message was clear: We either need high ground (occupied territories such as the Golan Heights) or high tech (sophisticated weapons).
This is no different than what he did on the whole NAFTA thing.He's telling each group what they want to hear.It's the old Clintonian triangulation BS.
I suppose that MY question is.... "when are people going to wake up and see this liar for what he truly is?"
Quote from: Thor on July 03, 2008, 09:11:01 AMI suppose that MY question is.... "when are people going to wake up and see this liar for what he truly is?"They see it. They are more terrified of being labeled a racist than they are courageous to expose him for the liar he is.
