Obama - Excusing the Inexcusable…Or not?
I suspect that it is a good sign the Republicans have given up on attacking Clinton and are aiming their ire at the de facto. It is a pity, though, that they are not capable of better than this.
To be fair they were picking up on this:
The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions,
which was pretty inane {he should have said pretext} but the response was simply silly. The Republican Jewish Coalition, who seem to specialise in a noxious cocktail of partisan rightism and hard-core Zionism claim that ”Senator Obama manages to excuse the inexcusable actions of anti-American militant jihadists by putting the blame for their actions on America’s foreign policy” apparently. If you will actually read the quote then you’ll see he did nothing of the sort, but why allow the it truth to get between you and a ham-fisted attack on “the only democracy in the Middle East”?
{As it happens that’s a lie, the Palestinians elected Hamas democratically and Israel responded by cutting of their electricity and “Putting the Palestinians on a diet”, as the chap in charge of the starvation programme aimed, as ever, at a population with a large sub-18 population so charmingly put it}.
They go on to rage that:
Yet Senator Obama never says how he will reign in Hamas’ daily onslaught on Israel or Iran’s scurrilous condemnations of Israel.
as if somehow Obama could devise a policy that would cease attacks from a group the IDF {funded heavily by American dollars, of course} failed to fend off and as if it is within his duty and within power to edit the rhetoric of an Iranian figurehead.
They then conclude by asking:
It any wonder Hamas has endorsed him for president?
Which rather supports my long-standing view that smearing all opponents of Zionism and Israel leads to the true anti-Semitism being totally devalued. They can say that Obama’s words somehow makes him Hamas-appropriate and say it with a straight face. Granted Hamas are the one’s who said they had a preference but for them to say that there is any form of resembelence in policy is sheer lunacy. For those alleged by countless conspiracy theorists to be in control of world finance the Jewish Lobby certainly has a very poor grasp of economics. Inflation is rendering such terms as nearly worthless.
As it happens Obama is not even a critic. He supports Israel, he hasn’t said a bad word about it. He simply wants to end the carnage. But that does not save him from this outright lie:
It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel.
Obviously Obama’s words have been distorted although, as you say, the syntax of his empathy for anti-Americans is a bit dodgy. I think his problem is that he has made several hopelessly naive statements on foreign policy. Here’s just a few from his website:
“I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism”. How can you possibly claim terrorism is one of the major threats of the 21st century and effectively suggest Al Qaeda is nothing to do with it? Or, as he might be saying, that Al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorism can be destroyed within a term in office. Or, that we shouldn’t be trying to eliminate the organisation which killed 3000 of his countrymen. Osama hasn’t even been caught yet and it’s all very well, if extremely flawed, to say we should get out of Iraq and focus on Islamist terrorism. To say, let’s not even bother about that stinks of old-style American isolationism, without realising that that was a failed strategy in the 30s, in a globalised world where America has already been attacked, it is madness.
“I [never] supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don’t like.” There are some regimes you can talk to, where the enemy have realistically attainable demands. The idea that America should be talking to groups which demand its destruction, or the destruction of its allies is impossible. Let’s say the removal from the Middle East would require America to submit in the face of terrorism, jeapardise the safety of the Israeli, Iraqi, Kurdish and Afghani people just for starters and allow for their ultimate goal - a global caliphate. Whilst I’m sure the idea of Obama drinking tea in a cave with Osama trying to see where he comes from would appeal to some liberals, you could be forgiven for thinking it was idealistic.
And so on, not even dealing with his Iraq plan. This background makes it easier to take a relatively nothingy statement on Israel out of context.
I think you’ve misinterpreted the “Is it any wonder Hamas have endorsed him?” question. This can be interpreted in three ways. Firstly, as I think you’ve seen it, the right are saying Obama supports Hamas. Secondly, a more neutral and diplomatic response to the conflict would be bound to favour a group which has previously been America’s enemy, hence why they endorsed him. Thirdly, that Hamas are so scared of McCain, they’ll back the opposition even if they don’t like Hamas either, rather like the way the BNP endorsed Boris. I think the latter two interpretations make more sense.
Obviously Obama’s words have been distorted although, as you say, the syntax of his empathy for anti-Americans is a bit dodgy. I think his problem is that he has made several hopelessly naive statements on foreign policy. Here’s just a few from his website:
I think that any accusation of hopeless naivety coming from someone who believes a military that drives tanks into towns and shells civilians is trying not to kill the innocent is pretty rich, but I’ll set that aside.
How can you possibly claim terrorism is one of the major threats of the 21st century and effectively suggest Al Qaeda is nothing to do with it?
He doesn’t.
Or, as he might be saying, that Al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorism can be destroyed within a term in office.
That’s the one. He’s talking tough. It’s what the right have driven him to and I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable. Stuff must be said to get elected, that’s how it goes.
Or, that we shouldn’t be trying to eliminate the organisation which killed 3000 of his countrymen.
Uh…That’s exactly what he says he would do. ^.^
Osama hasn’t even been caught yet and it’s all very well, if extremely flawed, to say we should get out of Iraq and focus on Islamist terrorism. To say, let’s not even bother about that stinks of old-style American isolationism, without realising that that was a failed strategy in the 30s, in a globalised world where America has already been attacked, it is madness.
He hasn’t actually said anything along those lines…But as it happens Osama stated that the reason for his group’s existence was American foreign policy engaging itself in anti-Palestinian measures. That suggests that it is America’s engagement that inspired his efforts.
Oh yes, and does the 1930s reference count as further evidence for Godwin’s Law? I think so. Come now, that stuff is relevant when talking of Israel but alluding to the Nazis is hardly appropriate here.
There are some regimes you can talk to, where the enemy have realistically attainable demands. The idea that America should be talking to groups which demand its destruction, or the destruction of its allies is impossible.
How about if they offered a cease fire lasting for a generation?
Let’s say the removal from the Middle East would require America to submit in the face of terrorism, jeapardise the safety of the Israeli, Iraqi, Kurdish and Afghani people just for starters and allow for their ultimate goal - a global caliphate. Whilst I’m sure the idea of Obama drinking tea in a cave with Osama trying to see where he comes from would appeal to some liberals, you could be forgiven for thinking it was idealistic.
He never actually offered that. He’s just saying that, y’know, having a talk with Iran might make more sense than the firey rhetoric that steamed out of Washington up until that CIA report, and to a lesser extent after. It makes it a lot harder for all that “Great Satan” stuff to stick if you see your leaders sitting down and have a chat. There’s a substantial chance of Iran liberalising substantially what with it’s young population. The more America is seem as something other than a foul evil empire the more luck we’ll have with that one.
And so on, not even dealing with his Iraq plan. This background makes it easier to take a relatively nothingy statement on Israel out of context.
If that is what suits your partisan agenda then yes.
I think you’ve misinterpreted the “Is it any wonder Hamas have endorsed him?” question. This can be interpreted in three ways. Firstly, as I think you’ve seen it, the right are saying Obama supports Hamas. Secondly, a more neutral and diplomatic response to the conflict would be bound to favour a group which has previously been America’s enemy, hence why they endorsed him. Thirdly, that Hamas are so scared of McCain, they’ll back the opposition even if they don’t like Hamas either, rather like the way the BNP endorsed Boris. I think the latter two interpretations make more sense.
Hamas scared of McCain? LOL.
Nothing recruits for them better than the status quo. John is keen on keeping it going so I imagine they’d be happy to see him come to power.
I’d say that the second probably makes sense. But that release was an attempt to damage Obama which deliberately distorted his views to that end, resulting in anyone who relied upon it to know his opinion would be misinformed and pretending anything else is a curious piece of idiocy.