Just saw Obama speak at the AIPAC conference. An amazing speech. Deeply disappointing to me in some ways, but tremendously impressive as a projection of character, and in its late eloquence. He wanted to seem strong, that was his goal, to project toughness. He did a lot of that. Said he would do "everything" to stop Iran from getting nuke. Repeated that twice. "Everything." He also repeatedly condemned the Iraq war policy to less than enthusiastic applause. Said it had strengthened Iran and hurt Israel.
Interesting that the idea that our policy in the Middle East, including the Iraq war, is made and meant to support Israel is taken for granted, by Obama and other politicians.
His references to Palestinian freedom and self-determination were very circumscribed. Said they need a state, they must have a state, for Israel to be secure, and he would throw himself into that from the start of his administration. And at this there were wild whoops from the back of the crowd of 7000–the back is where the kids are, the new generation. The ones in the front only stood up when he called on stiffer boycott of Iran…
He spoke of Palestinian children's future, too, in vague terms. All a little too vague for me. And by the way, Hillary is coming out now, and the applause for her is more sustained and excited than it was for Obama. They love her, they don't really– haven't really warmed up to Barack yet…
But the best part of the speech was at the very end, the sudden invocation of Schwerner and Goodman, who were willing to die, Obama said, alongside a black man, Chaney, in Mississippi. "Willing to die." A beautiful statement. This man is an astonishing speaker. It came as a complete surprise, in the speech, and it was his last thought, that we must renew the bond between the black community and the Jewish community, to do great things. Mighty walls fell down, he said of the united opposition to segregation."Even the mightiest of walls fall…"
And the hint to me, and to the few progressives here, is that mighty walls in Israel/Palestine can also fall down. But the great thing was it brought the elders on the stage, sorry about that word, the older folks on the stage, leaping to their feet. Made me actually believe that he might pull it off. Here's hoping…
Oh one other thing: we're on the map. The pro-Palestinian progressives, who would lay all America's problems in the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel, in Obama's words (or in my words the people who say that we have to resolve this issue fairly for America to be healed), the ones who want to distance our country from Israel–Obama alluded to us, in order to smack us down-. It's a "false premise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow" the path to strength, he said. Even as he attacked a "foreign policy [that] is dangerously flawed." Well I don't think you can have it both ways. And I don't think Obama thinks so either.
OK. Time to push my head into a vat of butter. Hillary's speech.
One other thing. Obama got something interesting wrong. Nancy Pelosi had just dangled dogtags on the stage, of Goldwasser, Shalit, and Regev, the three captured Israeli soldiers. Tearjerker. Well, Obama also spoke of the soldiers, and said that they were the captives of Hizbullah. Not true. Two are held by Hizbullah, Shalit is Hamas's captive. No it's not addlepated, ala McCain, confusing Shia and Sunni. But it's a little careless. And actually, it makes me feel better: that Obama hasn't studied the talking poiints that closely. Revealing. He had no trouble remembering the names and races of the three great martyrs in Mississippi…
Obama is much too clever a politician not
to be aware of exactly whom he must court and
exactly whom he must not alienate between
now and November; there is thus no possibility of his resistance to the power
of bellicose Zionist rhetoric.
Obama is just another American political stooge bought and paid for by the Israeli Lobby. And there aren't going to be any walls falling down until America quits shovelling money to the Apartheid Regime. In the meantime, Israel will talk peace but practice war just as they have done for the last 40 years.
Phil, you are deluding yourself if you really think President Obama changes anything with regard to Israel or American policy in the MidEast.
I disagree – I think Phil shows commendable sobriety here, compared with some of the frothy concoctions he was serving up a few weeks ago.
"But the best part of the speech was at the very end, the sudden invocation of Schwerner and Goodman, who were willing to die, Obama said, alongside a black man, Chaney, in Mississippi. "Willing to die." A beautiful statement"
even more beautifyl, the number of jews NOT willing to die alongside black men (and white men) in iraq while the black men and white men were dying for the jews of israel.
can any jew at this aipac war party name one black man who has died in iraq for their sins: past, current, and future.
"Well I don't think you can have it both ways. And I don't think Obama thinks so either. "
I think Obama got it right, and you got it wrong, Phil.
Obama is not lying to AIPAC. He's not changing his message. Its been consistent for years, and is the right answer.
The appeal of the invocation to Shwerner and Goodwin is to the idealism in the Jewish community, the sense of pride resulting from committing to do good.
The VAST majority of Jews supported the civil rights movement, led by articulate and kind activists.
The borderline anti-semitic comments of Malcolm and black nationalists (even some of the Panthers), strained the native sympathy for black emancipation.
That sympathy is similarly native and expressed for Palestinians that do NOT adopt terror as chosen means, and do not express anti-semitic comment, including the invocation of assertive anti-Zionism ("Zionism is racism").
I agree with Chuck. I am pessimistic about on Obama presidency changing anything in the ME.
One point I wanted to make– I don't care for Pat Buchanan's ideas on domestic policy, but I am reading his book about WWI and WWII right now, entitled, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. What he shows and I am persuaded by it is that countries get in a lot of trouble when they get confused about the nature of their own vital interests. Here are some examples: at the beginning of WWI, Britain tied itself so completely to Belgium's welfare, that, when the Germans invaded, the British had no ability to act independently. Similarly, during the interwar period, Britain had a very strong alliance with Japan, which protected Britain's colonies in East Asia, but at the beginning of the 1930's it was willing to abandon this mutually beneficial alliance for an very ill-defined agreement with a very undependable USA, on the basis that all English-speaking countries would look out for one another.
In all such cases, Britain replaced real-politik (defining and pursuing one's vital interests) with mythology, ideology, and outmoded concepts like honor.
It is obvious in reading this account, that Buchanan is joining the Mearsheimer and Walt approach in drawing an analogy to the the US gov't's devotion to its ally, Israel, in spite of US vital interests that point in exactly the opposite direction. Interesting that some of the most interesting work on this subject comes from the paleoconservative right.
"The borderline anti-semitic comments of Malcolm and black nationalists (even some of the Panthers), strained the native sympathy for black emancipation."
– aha! I had almost forgotten about Rev. Pfleger!
Forgot my larger point, which has to do with Phil's post:
I don't think things will change in this country through presidential politics as long as the US retains its current place as "imperial overlord" of the world. It's place on the international stage is going to have to be threatened much more than it is right now by Al Queda. It is going to involve China or India or Russia. In the case of WWII, the British gov't finally did figure out its vital interests, but by that time the world was immersed in a world war, which ended up tearing apart the British empire.
Thus, I think there is a place for grass roots organizing, helping the ADC, the antiwar movement, etc. etc, but I think the shoe will only drop on this when the failure to pursue US vital interests are widely perceived to be damaging US power and prestige. We are still a long way off from that.
As Witty states, "The vast majority of Jews supported the civil rights" of blacks in America.
What he fails to add is the irony that the vast majority of jews also favor the Apartheid practices of Israel as evidenced by their overwhelming support for continued American aid to the Apartheid Regime. This double standard is rather obviously predicated upon racist constructs as to the goodness of Jews having a expansionist state of their own whereas others deserve no such entitlement.
I watched Obama's speech to AIPAC and was inclined to gag upon his devotion to Israel. Shouldn't candidates for the Presidency of the USA be expressing their devotion to America? I don't think the unadulterated statements of devotion to Israel would have passed the American smell test even 10 years ago. Now, thanks to the post 9-11 propaganda they are now de rigueur.
memo to jewry and its war gathering in DC and to the politicos loafer-licking their way(ours) to serfdom: israel has no right to exist; the amurderkan racists murdering iraqis and afganis, mayb others, are not heroes.
comment from the garage(all great americn ideas originate in a garage): german education has made germans into ghosts.
Obama clearly wants to mend frazzled ties to Jewish Zionists uncomfortable with his historical ties to radical egalitarians and borderline “anti-Semites” (radical egalitarianism is only conducive to the Jewish community when it is NOT on the top, as in the era of Jewish activists Schwerner and Goodman; in America today, Jews ARE on the top, and so less interested in egalitarianism, or for that matter real “change”). Obama’s story is the same story we saw in the 2006 Congressional elections, where the Democrat base swept “anti-war” Democrats into the majority, and was promptly stabbed in the back by it’s beneficiaries. Is Obama’s character really that different than all those back-stabbing Dems elected on ‘06?
And so the co-opting of Obama by the moneyed Establishment begins. Look here, he’s breaking 20 year ties to his radical church; look there, he’s going to AIPAC on one knee and pledging to do “Everything…everything” to prevent Iran from getting nukes. The moneyed Establishment is bad enough when it is dominated by WASPS , who are at least moderated by their professed Christian ethos; it is unconscionable when dominated by Jews, as we have witnessed in American social decline over the last 20 years, culminating in the Iraq war and the larger “war on terror” that parallels Israel’s war against Islam. And things will only get worse so long as the innately supremacist Jewish ethos is allowed to dominate the establishment.
Wow. Lots of 'stroking' in Obama's speech, producing the usual eruptions from the assembled host.
The only masterful sentence I heard was the one about how 'the war in Iraq has not lead to greater security for Israel or the US'. Which begs the obvious question: And what effect will a war on Iran have on the security of Israel and the US??? hmmmmm?
The rest of Obama's speech was a pile of crap, absolutely unsupported by the realities on the ground in the middle east.
Hopefully, Michel will straighten him out tonight…
The history of American Jews and Civil Rights is far more complex that is being discussed in this forum.
In link to members.aol.com , I discuss the three strata of American Jews.
Historically, Spanish American Jews were heavily involved with slavery and the Confederacy.
The great German Jewish investment banks were to a large extent founded on the profits of slavery. Yet, in the 20th century, German Jewish philanthropists were heavily involved in self-improvement of Colored People, but such concerns did not mean support for equal civil rights, and several important Jewish philanthropists associated with the NAACP did nothing to stop Southern practices that amounted to slavery by another name and which provided profits to investment banks with which the aforementioned philanthropists were associated.
In general support for equal civil rights was associated with Yiddish American radicals and not with German American Jews or with the remnants of Spanish American Jews. The wealthy funders of Jewish communal organizations generally opposed equal civil rights while other Jews tended to take all sorts of positions.
Labor Zionists tended to indifference while Jabontinskian Zionists always supported black civil rights as a sort of distraction from the crimes planned or ongoing in Palestine.
I have the impression from reading the primary and secondary literature on Jews and civil rights
* that an intellectual element within the staff of the organized Jewish community concluded that raising the status of American blacks would raise the status of American Jews commensurately and
* that this element manipulated young radically inclined Jews to take part in the freedom rides in the hope of creating an incident that could be used to create a pro-civil rights reaction among American Jews, among Jewish communal organizations, and especially among wealthy funders of Jewish communal organizations.
Eventually the incident took place, and the ramifications continue to this day.
See end of link to members.aol.com for a discussion of the Mississippi synagogue bombing.
madrid,
Buchanan is an idiot. In Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" she points out that the British could only fulfill their obligation to enter WWI to aid the French IF Germany invaded Belgium, which all of the major powers had pledged to protect. Otherwise the British had no causus belli and would have had to leave the French in the lurch. Belgium was just a convenient pretext and the Germans knew it. The Germans simply thought the war would be over too quickly for the British assistance to count for much and that invading Belgium was necessary to quickly defeat the French.
Madrid
Easy there with the insults of Aamerica's last adult in public life, PJB. Have not read his latest book but was not the Brit security guarantee given in secret without Parliamentreay approval or serious public debate ?
re Tuchman…she fell for the zionist hoax book by Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial. 1985. her gullibility casts doubt on her credentials and expertise
"Nancy Pelosi had just dangled dogtags on the stage, of Goldwasser, Shalit, and Regev, the three captured Israeli soldiers. Tearjerker."
OMG, did she really do that? Did the American people get to see this on TV?
At a time when over 150,000 U.S. troops are fighting and dying in Iraq, there is something deeply inappropriate about the Speaker of the House expressing her personal concern for members of a foreign military. Apparently, she rightly sensed that her Jewish-American AIPAC audience would care more about those three members of the Israeli military than about the over 4,000 U.S. soldiers who have died in what is, at least in part, a war undertaken for Israel's interests.
Jimmy Carter rightly warned Obama not to yoke himself to the millstone of Hillary Clinton. But having the dreadfully compromised, dual-loyalty sellout named Nancy Pelosi as his House speaker would be an equally large obstacle to the "real change" Obama has promised. Dump 'em both, Barack!
Hagee’s a No-Show at Israel Lobby Meet,
But He Has Plenty of Friends There
Nathan Guttman, Forward, Jun 03, 2008
Controversial evangelical leader Pastor John Hagee did not attend this week’s annual AIPAC policy conference, but the continuing support he enjoys within the pro-Israel community was nevertheless on display. In a closed-door, off-the-record session, there was plenty of enthusiasm for the embattled pastor. Speakers at the session, titled Friends in Faith : Evangelical Christians and the Pro-Israel Movement, included Gary Bauer, president of American Values, John Buhler, founder of Christian Advocates for Israel, and David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, the group led by Hagee. Brog told the Forward later that it indicated to him that the pro-Israel community still strongly supports Hagee. According to Brog, Hagee was invited to join this year’s conference as a participant, but could not attend due to his busy schedule.
(The logic of Hagee’s position is that Nazism should come to power in the USA, Europe, Russia, etc. as soon as possible, so as to drive the remaining Diaspora Jews to Israel too – RB)
John:
Your comment about Buchanan being an "idiot" doesn't surprise me a bit. You perhaps don't know that Phil Weiss writes for the American Conservative, which is the magazine that Buchanan founded.
But your comment is so indicative of most of the left, a group within which I count myself, and it makes me sad that a more constructive dialogue cannot be had with certain elements within the conservative community in this country. The website, http://www.antiwar.com, is the only publication that attempts to bring the two wings together, and, as a result, its organizers are routinely banned from speaking at antiwar rallies.
To your point about the war: all of the major powers did not pledge to protect Belgium– only Britain and France did, and rest of what you say above does not contradict Buchanan's account whatsoever. Buchanan's point is that it was stupid for Britain, on the basis of an outdated 1839 treaty with Belgium, to tie itself to that country's welfare. His point is that Germany's invasion of both Belgium and France posed no threat to Britain's naval based empire, and by commiting itself to Belgium (a commitment which Churchill strongly supported), Britain made a bad situation much, much worse, ultimately weakening all three major powers in the process, by the long drawn out trench warfare.
The irony is that he quotes a lot of historians who say that at least half of Belgians were cheering the Germans on as they swept through Belgium on their way to France. He doesn't cite percentages, but a segment of the Belgian military apparently did not even fight.
In general, we see the same thing with the US relationship with Israel– all of our candidates have tied ourselves to that country, come hill or highwater. Like Britain during the period that Bucnanan analyzes, our options are, as a result, much more limited than they should be. We essentially have the option of attacking Iran with McCain as president or attacking Iran with Obama as president–note Obama's threat to use everything and anything to make Iran back down. What do you suppose that means?
Check out this little gem from McCain's speech:
"Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid,"
[Pregnant Pause...audience is flabbergasted, remains completely silent...]
McCain continues: "In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran"
[Relieved, the audience breaks out in applause]
Yes, even as he demonstrates his servility in the most obsequious terms, McCain gives them a small taste of sarcasm. Like the pandering Senator in the film 'The Godfather' who intentionally mispronounces the Corleone family name, McCain is willing to drop hints that he knows that civilised nations find Israel's conduct to be revolting. And he lets them know, ever so subtly, that his allegiance is merely rented; it is not heartfelt.
According to JTA, "In a wide-ranging speech, Obama said he would be steadfast in his support for Israel and praised the Jewish state for destroying a nuclear reactor in Syria last September."
link to jta.org
ZXC:
I see no evidence in what you cite from McCain that the man has any awareness of the rest of the world's comparison of the South African situation with the Palestinian one.
Discussion of Israel in this country has, rather, approached the absurdity of Soviet levels of denial and obfuscation of the truth. McCain's statement is like the Soviet premiere, who used to rail on about capitalist exploitation of labor in Italy and West Germany, conveniently ignoring the fact that both countries had strong vibrant participatory labor unions that protected labor rights in ways that the Soviet worker could only dream of.
"Like the pandering Senator in the film 'The Godfather' who intentionally mispronounces the Corleone family name, McCain is willing to drop hints that he knows that civilised nations find Israel's conduct to be revolting."
Great observation. This goes to the cynical scam that the entirety of Israel's vast support in Washington is based upon. They're all playing the game with a nod and a wink; they all know how morally bankrupt Israel is, but they go right along with the see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil charade — both Democrats and Republicans.
Given the implications of playing their game out to its logical conclusion (of which the Iraq war is just a taste) what does this tell you about the two-party system? Let me help: it's corrupt beyond salvation.
There was one other sentence in Obama's obeisance. It was full of "I'll do this and I'll do that to Iran…..in America's interest". It was a small scrap for us I think.
Sorry but the 1839 treaty was signed by all the major powers-Austria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, and France. Also, Great Britain's was due to it's old strategic principle of opposing any power that conquers the Low Countries and the Channel ports. Finally what about La Libre Belge and other aspects of Belgian resistance to German occupation?
It may well be that World War I was justified but these present-day wars are not.
According to Mearsheimer/Walt, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60% of the money, so it's instructive to look at this site:
link to chicagotribune.com
You can bet McCain and Obama's people are studying it.
I did a rough and simple test with the names Cohen and Smith and the facts seem to be:
* Each individual contributing Jew gives more than each individual contributing Gentile (approx 50-100% more)
* The numbers of Jewish contributors for Clinton and Obama were equally divided, but (perhaps because Jewish Clintonians are older and therefore richer) Clinton received more per Jew.
* Each Gentile Clintonian also gives much more then Gentile Obama-ites, so that although there are twice as many Gentile Obama-ite contributors, the money raised by Obama and Clinton almost the same.
* Obama had more Gentile supporters than Clinton and McCain combined
Here are the figures:
Cohen
Obama – 247 people gave a total of $227k (£919 each)
Clinton – 253 people gave a total of $307k ($1213 each)
McCain – 94 people gave a total of $67k ($713 each)
Smith
Obama – 1150 people gave a total of $537k ($466 each)
Clinton – 514 people gave a total of $483k ($939 each)
McCain – 543 people gave a total of $205k ($377 each)
An American can donate or die. Who's willing to die for whom these days? Who are the Americans the three candidates all talk about? I agree with Ed.
The recent Bradley Report finds that America is facing an identity crisis and is in danger of becoming not From Many, One – E Pluribus Unum – But its Opposite, From One, Many
Sixty-Three Percent of Americans Believe our National Identity is Weakening, and One in Four Believe the Nation is So Divided That a Common National Identity is Not Possible.
Of course this won't surprise Pat B.
Why should Obama's remarks be disappointing? Every major candidate panders to the Lobby that makes US Mideast policy, even though as M&W point out, Israel is of no strategic interest to the US. M&W also state that we'd not be in Iraq or threatening Iran, but for the Lobby.
=======================================
I am disturbed by the words of Joachim Martillo.
You need to go out to the real world.
Learn 4-5 languages, live on different continents, and listen to the people's stories.
=======================================
Phil is the same. Theories and theories.
=======================================
Finally, Iran's fingerprints are all over Obama.
Do not believe one word of him!
=======================================
"It is obvious in reading this account, that Buchanan is joining the Mearsheimer and Walt approach in drawing an analogy to the the US gov't's devotion to its ally, Israel, in spite of US vital interests that point in exactly the opposite direction. Interesting that some of the most interesting work on this subject comes from the paleoconservative right."
Buchanan has been talking America first in regards to Israel for twenty years or more. I'm not sure how sincere he is, or what exactly he means because he seems to be something of a sentimental philo-semite.
My guess is that Buchanan is something of a softie or sucker, and will now allow the same forces to co-opt and destroy his efforts that made a mockery of WFB and National Review.
If Obama had had any integrity and vision he would have declined to appear at AIPAC.
Just turning up and making a speech, regardless of its content, acts to further legitimises this contemptible racist fifth column.
I agree that the left leaning antiwar movement should welcome the right wing antiwar voices such as Buchanan, Raimondo, Paul Craig Roberts, William Lind and such. Cockburn at Counterpunch, a very lefty place, also encourages that dialogue. We need all the allies we can muster.
I dont' agree about Buchanan. CounterPunch may regard AmConMag as a necessary ally in the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' sense, but they printed an article last week that called him a Nazi (with which I agree – I think the US really is full of Nazis):
link to counterpunch.org
As for Antiwar.com, I am OK with Scott Horton's interviews, but that's about it. All the worthwhile articles there are merely reprints (Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe articles are from IPS, which is subscription only).
Joachim is an ultra-leftist, rather than an ultra-rightist, but his main argument is both racist and circular : he has defined Ashkenazim as non-Jews, so he can juggle the category of 'Jewish' to prove whatever he likes.
More reducto ad one-state solutionum, which is too tired for me to really take issue with at this point. What I do take issue with is your claim that the "younger" people at AIPAC are all pused to the back of the convention hall. In fact they sit in a huge area just to the right of stage; the year I went to AIPAC there were over 1,000 college students in attendance.
Talking of McCain's little ploy with South Africa, ThinkProgress point out that, despite voting to override President Reagan’s veto of a bill imposing economic sanctions against South Africa in 1986, McCain voted against sanctions on at least six other occasions:
– 1985: Voted To Recommit Anti-Apartheid Act To Foreign Affairs Committee Postponing Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted to postpone for one year the imposition of any sanctions against South Africa, permitting the president to waive the sanctions if he determined that the African National Congress had not renounced violence. [HR 1460, Vote 129, 6/5/85, Failed 139-282, D 7-238; R 132-44; I 0-0]
– 1985: Voted To Allow U.S. Firms Continue Investing In South Africa: McCain voted to let U.S. firms continue investing in South Africa if their units comply with a code of worker rights. [HR 1460, Vote 110, 5/21/85, Failed 148-256, D 3-227; R 145-29; I 0-0]
– 1985: Voted Against Requiring Immediate Withdrawal Of U.S. Investment From South Africa: McCain voted against imposing a total ban on U.S. exports to South Africa. [HR 1460, Vote 128, 6/5/85, Failed 77-345, D 77-167; R 0-178; I 0-0]
– 1985: Voted Against Establishing A Commission To Study Apartheid In South Africa And To Recommend Sanctions: McCain voted against establishing a commission to study apartheid in South Africa and to recommend what sanctions the United States should impose on the government. [HR 1460, Vote 126, 6/5/85, Failed 108-310, D 6-235; R 102-75; I 0-0]
– 1985: Voted Against Imposing Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted against imposing sanctions immediately against South Africa. [HR 1460, Vote 130, 6/5/85, Passed 295-127, D 239-6; R 56-121; I 0-0]
– 1986: Voted Against Considering Imposing Economic Sanctions Against South Africa: McCain voted against providing for House floor consideration of the bill to impose economic sanctions against South Africa. [HR 4868, Vote 159, 6/18/86, Passed 286-127, D 238-4; R 48-123; I 0-0]
While I am no Buchanan aficionado, I find a lot of his written stuff compelling. It stands up to fact-checking.
We are in the 21st C, thankfully. With the net as a great vetting tool.
I find now that the so much of what I was spoon-fed in grad school as the history of the 20th C served the author, not the truth, served a hidden agenda, not a desire to have us never repeat certain atrocities.
Few in this country speak or read French or German. We can't read original accounts even if we wanted to. We rely upon iconic books like Tuchman's "The Guns of August" and assume, just assume, her research skills are greater than an inquisitive 16-year-old with access to the web, and translators.
For most people, "The Guns of August" will be the only history book they'll read in their life, so they'll believe it. Because they finsihed reading the book.
Buchanan's book will be vetted. The archives of The London Times are now available online to help in that regard. I've been pouring through their 1910-1916 archives reading about British Jewish horror at what their fellow Jews of Salonica, the Donmeh Jews known as The Young Turks, were doing to the Armenians. The contemporaneous accounts of their mind-numbing torture belie what most believe now.
All of this, too, will come out when some enterprising historian makes use of these records, and someone certainly will.
I dont think it is fair to diss Buchanan's book without reading it or verifying his sources just because you dont like his politics. He's smart enough to know his books will last, his politics wont.
Besides, it's always the victors who write history. Or it has been until the web came along. Thank God.
Because of the serious damage Bush’s lies did to government credibility, it was necessary to submit a candidate for the highest office that stood for a clean break (sic) A break with the Bush style. Hillary was flawed by her vote for the Iraq war. Obama appears to have been their man.
The establishment's man that is, packaged
as the people's choice.
********************************************
Recall that Mayor Daley of Chicago, when he scuttled the antiwar resolution on Iran,warned people "not to tie Obama's hands".And,least anyone forget, Daley, added:
"Israel and America, are tied at the hip."
Apparently, somebody gave him a draft of Obama's AIPAC speech…
.
If Obama was your man cause you thought he was the multicultural peace alternative to
the fascism of the Christian zionist/ Bush war party, its time to rethink the matter.
Yesterday at the AIPAC conference, Obama sounded a lot like Haim Saban,Hillary Clinton’s zionist sugar daddy. Saban in his interview with Haaretz, told the Israeli daily.that he thought America should keep the military option
ready,
As Saban sees it you put money and a gun on the table and let Iran choose. His problem with Bush
is he always shoots first from the hip….missing his target a lot, causing collateral damage, and making the spectators uncomfortableAfter Obamas speech to AIPAC yesterday, Saban ought to have no problem switching horses.
In some weird way, this dialectic between Hillary, Obama,and even Mccain, has a positive twist.Americans and the World are getting a real glimpse of the power of the Israeli Lobby. For example: the intense struggle for the nomination between Hillary and
Obama is playing out with a final reach for Jewish money and votes.in Fla, where the Jews are 5% of the total voters.
Like suitors before a vetting committee ,the candidates each genuflected to AIPAC and claimed they were best able to convince the vast majority of Americans who aren’t Jewish, that wars in the Mideast for Israel, are justified.
Mccain wants more of the cowboy Bush doctrine, Hillary a better managed war, and Obama promises a better sell to multicultural America: that sacrificing blood and treasure for Jews in Israel, is really all about the values that their nation stands for.
Sadly, lacking something unforseen, there will be no debate on whether Israel’s interests are the same as Americans. I don’t know if someone like Nader can force this debate…
Perhaps we need to organize a grass roots internet movement to raise the question of whether we should go to war to support Israel’s agenda. An agenda that assumes its quite alright to to kick Palestinians off their land and deprive them of their human rights..
And so Obama,the one candidate that MoveOn told us , would be for real change, kneeled before the Israeli Lobby- and made it clear he hadn’t forgot where he came from: from a civil rights struggle, that couldn’t have succeeded without the help of Jews. And with this act of opportunism, Obama let the world know that if he’s elected, America will support Israel against Hamas and Iran and Hezbollah.How? By jaw boning diplomacy if possible, and the gun if necessary. AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, that claims it speaks for all American Jews, has got to be celebrating.
Could it have been otherwise? Perhaps if Kucinich or Ron Paul hadn’t been marginalized by the Media. A real debate on the issues of Palestinian rights and Israeli agression might have happened. But a media that acted as lap dog for Bush and the neocons on the Iraq war was not interested in helping to foster debate. Indeed, they see their jobs mainly as reporting what politicans and government (Pentagon) spokesman feed them. Media reaction to McClellan’s book on Bush and the Iraq war is proof of this. Their job is to parrot the Pentagon, not investigate the truth of what it says. The Pentagon and Zionism it seems, are "tied to the hip".
The lines are clearly drawn. Let MoveOn and others who think as they do choose whether: (A) to support this imperial strategy of wars for Israel, with some apology for Obama,or (B)admit they were wrong, do self criticism, and stop supporting him….
And Start working now to support the efforts of a third party, that will tell Americans the truth about what is happening in the Middle East.
I’m pessimistic about this happening. . Instead we will hear about how dirty and cynical politics is and how much worse, Mccain will be.
So instead of real change what we have is more of the same. The intentions of Obama’s supporters don’t matter. The end product of the Obama movement is to reproduce a lessor of evils choice for voters in Nov.
Not an encouraging outcome.
But don’t mourn, organize….
There was good in the speech. But there were other gaffes too aside fr. the one you noted. And they were pretty boneheaded for someone who's usually intellectually on top of his game.
He called the Green Line the "blue line" acc. to the NYT transcript. Also, he confused the academic BOYCOTT of Israel with DIVESTMENT. Inexcusable though understandable given that AIPAC WANTS people to confuse the two, which are quite diff.
Because of the serious damage Bush’s lies did to government credibility, it was necessary to submit a candidate for the highest office that stood for a clean break (sic) A break with the Bush style. Hillary was flawed by her vote for the Iraq war. Obama appears to have been their man.
.
If Obama was your man cause you thought he was the multicultural peace alternative to
the fascism of the Christian zionist/ Bush war party, its time to rethink the matter.
Yesterday at the AIPAC conference, Obama sounded a lot like Haim Saban,Hillary Clinton’s zionist sugar daddy. Saban in his interview with Haaretz, told the Israeli daily.that he thought America should keep the military option
ready,
As Saban sees it you put money and a gun on the table and let Iran choose. His problem with Bush
is he always shoots first from the hip….missing his target a lot, causing collateral damage, and making the spectators uncomfortableAfter Obamas speech to AIPAC yesterday, Saban ought to have no problem switching horses.
In some weird way, this dialectic between Hillary, Obama,and even Mccain, has a positive twist.Americans and the World are getting a real glimpse of the power of the Israeli Lobby. For example: the intense struggle for the nomination between Hillary and
Obama is playing out with a final reach for Jewish money and votes.in Fla, where the Jews are 5% of the total voters.
Like suitors before a vetting committee ,the candidates each genuflected to AIPAC and claimed they were best able to convince the vast majority of Americans who aren’t Jewish, that wars in the Mideast for Israel, are justified.
Mccain wants more of the cowboy Bush doctrine, Hillary a better managed war, and Obama promises a better sell to multicultural America: that sacrificing blood and treasure for Jews in Israel, is really all about the values that their nation stands for.
Sadly, lacking something unforseen, there will be no debate on whether Israel’s interests are the same as Americans. I don’t know if someone like Nader can force this debate…
Only if he organizes a grass roots internet movement to raise the question of whether we should go to war to support Israel’s agenda. An agenda that assumes that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and depriving them of human rights is justified
. MoveOn promised progressives, that Obama would be for real change, instead he kneeled before the Israeli Lobby- and made it clear he hadn’t forgotten where he came from: from a civil rights struggle, that couldn’t have succeeded without the help of Jews. And with this act of opportunism, Obama let the world know that if he’s elected, America will support Israel against Hamas and Iran and Hezbollah.How? Thru jaw boning diplomacy- if possible, and the gun if necessary. AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, that claims it speaks for all American Jews, has got to be celebrating.
Could it have been otherwise? Perhaps if Kucinich or Ron Paul hadn’t been marginalized by the Media. A real debate on the issues of Palestinian rights and Israeli agression might have happened. But a media that acted as lap dog for Bush and the neocons on the Iraq war was not interested in helping to foster debate. Indeed, they see their jobs mainly as reporting what politicans and government (Pentagon) spokesman feed them. Media reaction to McClellan’s book on Bush and the Iraq war is proof of this. Their job is to parrot the Pentagon, not investigate the truth of what it says.
The lines are clearly drawn. Let MoveOn and others who think as they do choose whether: (A) to support this imperial strategy of wars for Israel, with some apology for Obama,or (B)admit they were wrong, do self criticism, and stop supporting him….
Then what??
Start working to support the efforts of a third party, that will tell Americans the truth about what is happening in the Middle East.
I’m pessimistic about this happening. . Instead we will hear about how dirty and cynical politics is and how much worse, Mccain will be.
“Say hello to the new boss..same as the old boss.”. The intentions of Obama’s supporters don’t matter. The end product of the Obama movement is to reproduce a lessor of evils choice for voters in Nov.
Not an encouraging outcome.
But don’t mourn, organize….
Has Obama also spoken to the NAACP? Has he pointed out the American "law and order" policies that imprison 1 out of 7 black youths in this country? Is he gonna do something about that? Naah.. that kind of "change" is not what interests the powers that be..
I sure am happy that my hard earned tax dollars are being used to "protect israel" from those bad old arabs and also it's great that my tax dollars are used for locking up the hip hop crowd cause they hate whitey
I can't wait for Obama the Great to save this nation (and Israel of course) from all that ails it. But I guess I will have to work harder cause my taxes will need to be doubled to pay for all the "changes" that are coming .. especially to Iran.
Has Obama also spoken to the NAACP? Has he pointed out the American "law and order" policies that imprison 1 out of 7 black youths in this country? Is he gonna do something about that? Naah.. that kind of "change" is not what interests the powers that be..
I sure am happy that my hard earned tax dollars are being used to "protect israel" from those bad old arabs and also it's great that my tax dollars are used for locking up the hip hop crowd cause they hate whitey
I can't wait for Obama the Great to save this nation (and Israel of course) from all that ails it. But I guess I will have to work harder cause my taxes will need to be doubled to pay for all the "changes" that are coming .. especially to Iran.
Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
So much for change …
link to moonofalabama.org
Here's Phil on alJazeera-english:
File 1
link to youtube.com
File 2
link to youtube.com
Even though they have stacked the panel two to one superficially in favor of 'the Left', I could have told him that al Jazeera-english is a waste of time. In fact, I've said so repeatedly on my blog over the last few days, and I have given precise details.
I have seen it several times before, and it's like watching two would-be assassins from 'the Left' trying to stab some guy from 'the Right' with rubber daggers, while an incompetent buffoon pretending to be a professional TV presenter cheers them on. I am not exaggerating : it really is that bad, and it isn't by accident ; that's the way alJazeera-english is SUPPOSED to look. It's a set-up, as should be obvious to US viewers, including our own dear Phil, if they weren't comprehensively and continuously brainwashed by their own mass media into believing that al-Jazeera is some sort of 'opponent of US policy.'
.
Phil acquitted himself well in the al Jazeera panel discussion, coming across as reasonable, observant and articulate. Eli Lake was articulate, but most of his aasertions were just partisan nonsense.
For example, Lake claimed that AIPAC mainly influences Congress, while exerting little sway over the executive branch. But in fact, as Jeffrey Goldberg has written in the New Yorker, the now-fired Steven Rosen began expanding AIPAC's reach into the executive branch as early as 1983. For Lake to peddle the absurd, outdated myth that AIPAC mainly prevails upon Congress to pass symbolic resolutions is ludicrous. Link to the Goldberg article:
link to newyorker.com
If Phil's gonna get into broadcast punditry (for which he's eminently qualified), that dour scowl has got to go. His somber mein reminded me of the "old version" photo of Justin Raimondo, which used to be posted at antiwar.com:
link to mediamonitors.net
If that's the image you want, just go whole-hog with the dangling cigarette and a snappy fedora! Maybe a bit of mascara, too, for the Keith Richards aristocrat-junkie heroin-chic look.
But of course, hanging out at an AIPAC convention would ruin my friggin' day too.