Not one cent for tribute: Obama's embarrassing gift to Israel (article)

I thought Obama hated Israel or some such stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. fuck Israel. Moreover, fuck the rest of the world. Let them fight it out amongst themselves with no interference from us.

Let's see who's left standing when the dust settles.

Stop giving money and other aid to foreign nations and worry about our own people in our own country first and foremost.
 
ugh first the caving on health care than the whole censor the internet thing and now this

i'm pretty sure i hate obama now. he is literally doing everything wrong
 
[quote name='Sporadic']he is literally doing everything wrong[/QUOTE]

Let me tell you, I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked.
 
You have to understand the power of the Israeli lobby in this country. If he hadn't caved he would have been made to look like some sort of Neo Nazi, no doubt the GOP would have lead the charge.
 
[quote name='Clak']You have to understand the power of the Israeli lobby in this country. If he hadn't caved he would have been made to look like some sort of Neo Nazi, no doubt the GOP would have lead the charge.[/QUOTE]

Of course, everything Obama does that's bad is the Republicans' fault. No wonder the Democratic Party is viewed as the party of no self responsibility.
 
[quote name='Clak']You have to understand the power of the Israeli lobby in this country. If he hadn't caved he would have been made to look like some sort of Neo Nazi, no doubt the GOP would have lead the charge.[/QUOTE]

what happened to that whole "I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president" thing he was talking about earlier this year?

- edit and here's a pretty good article i ran into while trying to find that quote

In the heat of divisive politics, President Obama declared that he was willing to be a one-term President if that's what it took to get a health care bill passed. It seemed at the time like a show of principle, the kind of thing a mature, adult leader would say rather than a self-serving politician. But in the background, Democrats believed that he would never have to live up to his words. At the time, the country hated Republicans more than ever. The 2008 election had been a rout. When re-election time came, there seemed to be no credible Republican candidate for President in 2012, much less a serious challenger.

The midterms radically changed that perception. Obama's "shellacking" press conference made him seem weak and uncertain. The worst had happened, which wasn't just the resounding setback of the progressive agenda. Far worse was the evidence that a principled leader who wanted to heal the country's corrosive gridlock had been defeated by the party of no. By acting as selfish and unscrupulous as they wanted, the Republicans halted the process of governance, blocked hundreds of appointments both judicial and executive, thumbed their noses at the Democrats' super-majority in the Senate, and to add insult to injury, ran against Obama's health care bill after they were the ones who ruined it. In the process of having their cake and eating it, too, the Republicans proved that being the party of no could fool most of the people most of the time.

Suddenly pundits were saying that a Romney or Huckabee had a chance against him in 2012 (today's Gallup poll shows him losing to both of them at this point). We began to witness the Jimmy Carterizing of Barack Obama. And the scary part is that he seems to want to fill the role. His most ardent supporters -- and I am one of them -- started to see his virtues as liabilities. This may not be the time for a laid-back man whose instincts are conciliatory. His brain trust didn't fix the economy. The recent trade meeting with the rest of the world brought back few victories, signaling that American prestige isn't what it used to be. So are our fears right? Is Obama the wrong leader at the wrong time? I think that Democrats have to make this a serious consideration, so here are two rationales that are struggling against each other:

Rationale #1-- America is going through a tough transition. Wall Street caused a worldwide recession, and in their anger, the rest of the world refused to share the pain. Instead, they told the U.S. to bear the burden, and we are. German, France, and China have recovered better and faster on their own, while we are weighed down by the same sagging housing market that triggered the meltdown. Obama cannot be blamed for this. It's a storm any President would buckle under. Even Roosevelt saw the Depression enter a double dip in 1937, despite all his best efforts. We don't have another Roosevelt today because the country is too divided. The public speaks out of two sides of its mouth. People cry for Washington to do something to help them, yet time after time they elect the most divisive candidates pledging to get the government off their backs. Obama believes that he gave the right medicine, but the patient rebelled and refused to swallow it. Nobody could do any better. Therefore keeping him as President, because of his vision of a better future, based on the campaign of 2008, still represents our best hope.

Rationale #2 -- Obama inspired us in 2008, but he buckled once he got into office. The Republicans ran roughshod over him, and instead of fighting back, he remained aloof and out of touch. The serious reforms that Obama promised in health care and the financial sector never materialized. He caved on the public option. He caved on punishing Wall Street and bringing them under strict regulations. Each piece of legislation that he calls a compromise is actually a defeat. Now that the tide has turned and the right wing is stronger than ever, Obama has been discredited. He is the same man he always was, but that's the problem. We need a warrior, not a negotiator. Divisiveness is incurable. The economy is horrible. Leaders can't escape paying the price for their failures, and we need to stop pretending that Obama has hidden potential waiting to be unleashed. He needs to step down and turn to what he is best at: inspiring the rest of the world. That's what got him the Nobel Peace Prize, so let him move on to the role he was born to fill.

I cannot choose between these two scenarios, because both rationales can be made to look persuasive. Maybe Hilary Clinton, aided by Bill's incredible political skills, can take the Republicans to the mat the way her husband decisively defeated Newt Gingrich and put an end to the Republican dominance of 1994. Or maybe it's foolish to think that history ever repeats itself. Obama is holding his finger in the dike, and just as he averted having the recession spiral into a depression, he is holding back the darkness of full-blown reactionary rule as represented by Sarah Palin's gleeful brand of know-nothing bigotry.

Since so many of us are confused, there are two things we need in order to move forward. The first is for the White House to realize that both rationales are in play. Taking the stand that the doctor gave the right medicine but the patient wouldn't swallow it just doesn't wash anymore. Second, Obama needs to do what it takes to wipe out rationale #2, because what defeats a sitting President isn't a crisis but a sense of paralysis. Jimmy Carter's one term brought about more productive legislation than anyone realizes, unfortunately his achievements are overshadowed by his paralysis over the Iran hostage crisis. Obama can't afford to let the same image overshadow his achievements, and his enormous potential. We need a fix-it president, but far more we need a President who can erase an image of weakness. Images have a way of turning into reality, and right now, the two are beginning to merge quite dangerously.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/one-term-obama-should-he_b_783292.html
 
Oh I wish he'd told them to fuck off too, but it's politics, image is everything. The man needs a back bone frankly. He should have had one from the start, but the whole wanting to work across party lines thing backfired.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']ugh first the caving on health care than the whole censor the internet thing and now this

i'm pretty sure i hate obama now. he is literally doing everything wrong[/QUOTE]


hehe only took 2 years to figure out something a lot of us knew after the first 2 months.
 
Are you fucking kidding me? I'm usually of the stance of at least some marginal assistance of Israel by the US but GIVING them out stealth jets and funding another 20?!? fuck that shit.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']hehe only took 2 years to figure out something a lot of us knew after the first 2 months.[/QUOTE]
It only took us 2 years, it took you all 8 the last time.
 
[quote name='Clak']It only took us 2 years, it took you all 8 the last time.[/QUOTE]

lol I've heard way more bitching from dems about obama and his crew than I ever heard from repubs about W...

I've had quite a few dems talk to me about some serious buyers remorse within the first 6 months.
 
Well of course you have, they voted for him twice, I wouldn't expect too much bitching. But I'm willing to bet most tea partiers voted for him at least once.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] Let me tell you, I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked.[/QUOTE]

Question that's a little bit off-topic. Is there any politician out there who best represents your views?

I think most of the Dems here would have said that Obama best represented our views. But what he stood for and what he actually *did* are extremely different.
 
[quote name='IRHari'] But what he stood for and what he actually *did* are extremely different.[/QUOTE]


Are you really sure about that? Do you actually know what he really stood for. For all you know it was all just smoke and mirrors.


There's a big difference in what a politician says and what is in their hearts. I remember back during the campaign I had a good friend going on and on about how Obama is different. He wants to bring the country back together... blah blah blah. We went back and forth a lot about it and my last comment on the subject was that I hope he was right.

All I can say is that it was a bittersweet win in that discussion because basically by winning that we all lose.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']lol I've heard way more bitching from dems about obama and his crew than I ever heard from repubs about W...

I've had quite a few dems talk to me about some serious buyers remorse within the first 6 months.[/QUOTE]

Because Republicans only care about "winning." The country could be going down the drain and it's all about returning this country back to the Founding Fathers and Christ.

Translation for tivo: Rich white Christians only care about rich White Christians.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Question that's a little bit off-topic. Is there any politician out there who best represents your views?

I think most of the Dems here would have said that Obama best represented our views. But what he stood for and what he actually *did* are extremely different.[/QUOTE]

"Best"? Best major politician who comes closest to my views would be Ron Paul - although his religion comes in to play a bit too much, overall we're about the best match.
 
Ross Perot might've come about 16 years too soon.

As for the F-35's, we act as if the first 20 weren't free in the first place. They "bought" those with the 2 billion dollar defense industry gift card we give them every year. The power that the Israel lobby has over this country is ridiculous and its seriously compromising our interests and our national security.
 
Israel is the one nation that's acting like a buffer between the West and Iran. Iran would still develop nuclear weapons. You think they'd be itching to use them against India or China?
 
I'm usually the first to hate on our relationship with Israel. I detest AIPAC. I think Americans that are Israel first are borderline traitors. I think Americans that serve in the Israeli military should have their citizenship revoked. I hate Netanyahu and his entire governing coalition with a furious passion.

So yea. What's the big deal? Sure, we're getting played by Netanyahu for money. What's new? At least it's achieving a policy goal of America to do so, rather than the yearly bucket of subsidy money we shovel at them. Dumb? Of course. It's always dumb. Did someone really vote for Obama because he wanted him to spank the Israelis? Did someone really vote for Obama believing he would spank the Israelis? Of course not.

But if you think it would be "better" under McCain (or any Republican ever), you're positively insane. Let's be real here. Show me even a single presidential contender that would have put up even token resistance to Israeli demands. Clinton? Ha. Biden? Haha. Romney? Palin? lollerskates

Who doesn't think that the Republican contender in 2012 will talk about how Obama hasn't done enough for Israel?
 
Hillary was trying to be a little tougher on Israel until Obama reigned her in. But yeah, I'm sure McCain would be no better. Nobody in politics has the courage to stand up to the Israel lobby.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm usually the first to hate on our relationship with Israel. I detest AIPAC. I think Americans that are Israel first are borderline traitors. I think Americans that serve in the Israeli military should have their citizenship revoked. I hate Netanyahu and his entire governing coalition with a furious passion.

So yea. What's the big deal? Sure, we're getting played by Netanyahu for money. What's new? At least it's achieving a policy goal of America to do so, rather than the yearly bucket of subsidy money we shovel at them. Dumb? Of course. It's always dumb. Did someone really vote for Obama because he wanted him to spank the Israelis? Did someone really vote for Obama believing he would spank the Israelis? Of course not.

But if you think it would be "better" under McCain (or any Republican ever), you're positively insane. Let's be real here. Show me even a single presidential contender that would have put up even token resistance to Israeli demands. Clinton? Ha. Biden? Haha. Romney? Palin? lollerskates

Who doesn't think that the Republican contender in 2012 will talk about how Obama hasn't done enough for Israel?[/QUOTE]

Bush (1) actually pushed back against Israel more than any other president in the last 30 years. He insisted on settlement freezes before the yearly blank check. Then the lobbies started to get involved and he discovered what others already knew. You run afoul with AIPAC, you become a one-termer. He caved, gave them their money and settlements continued, but it's the closest thing I've evern seen to a President trying to be even handed in the area. And remember, this is the same Bush with tons of foreign policy and intelligence experience.

[quote name='dafoomie']Hillary was trying to be a little tougher on Israel until Obama reigned her in. But yeah, I'm sure McCain would be no better. Nobody in politics has the courage to stand up to the Israel lobby.[/QUOTE]

Jimmy Carter had to retire from politics to do it!
 
[quote name='speedracer']But if you think it would be "better" under McCain (or any Republican ever), you're positively insane. Let's be real here. Show me even a single presidential contender that would have put up even token resistance to Israeli demands. Clinton? Ha. Biden? Haha. Romney? Palin? lollerskates[/QUOTE]

Paul?
 
[quote name='Clak']Doubt it, I'm sure he'd say he would if elected, but that's before the lobbyists target him.[/QUOTE]

And you say this based on what, exactly?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Paul?[/QUOTE]

Paul only works when he can say no to everything.

I can't imagine him in a position of power where he would have to make real decisions.
 
Why can't we give money to Israel? They're our closest ally in the Middle East.

We give money to Pakistan and countless other dictatorships but everyone gets their panties in a bunch over Israel...
 
Because if we don't prop up Pakistan, you will have the failed state that was Afghanistan with the added bonus of loose nukes.

The article makes it perfectly clear (not that you read it), its not about the billions of dollars we give them every year or even really the latest bribe they demanded of us to do something in their own best interests. Its about how much power the Israel lobby wields over Washington and how Netanyahu wields that to his advantage. He flaunts it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Paul?[/QUOTE]
This is the only thing I could find that even remotely spoke to the issue:
Mr. McCoy asked how future President Paul would handle Shmolmert's demand to stay in Iraq lest Iranian influence take over that country and destroy Israel. In truth, Iranian influence has grown in Iraq and the hardline Iranian position strengthened specifically because of the occupation of Iraq and the end to the balance of power between those countries that any realist scholar would advocate and the traditional Republican policy sought to maintain. In response, Paul repeats the Zionists for Ron Paul talking points - our aid finances the Arabs collectively more than Israel despite Israel being the largest single aid receipient and our interventionist policy restrains Israel from defending itself either by military operations or peace initiatives.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul and Israel seems to cause quite the commotion. Paultards... I'm sorry. That's wrong of me. Paul-ites seem to spend a ton of energy trying to convince the rest of the conservatives that Paul's stance on cutting aid to everyone (and therefore Israel) is actually in Israel's security interest because it would also defund Arab states. The reasoning gets pretty bullshitty pretty quick though. I saw a couple of places (that all seem to be rehashes from Zionists for Paul) that since Arab states get roughly double what Israel does, it's a win for Israel. But they count Egypt as an enemy of Israel which is plainly ridiculous. And the logic that aid to Pakistan (which is nothing compared to the aid to Israel) being withdrawn makes Israel safer is pretty damned tortured.

It seems like he just doesn't want to talk about it which I guess can be construed as a good thing, inasmuch as it means he not out there whoring himself to AIPAC shitbags. And since the argument "supporting" Paul's Zionist cred is wholly bullshit, yea, I guess he could be counted as an Army of 1 on this one. But if he's willing to take on every single entrenched interest BUT Israel, what does that say about him and his views?

berzirk, I think I'm coming to the realization that Bush I was one of the better presidents of the last 50 years. I can't believe it but I think it's actually true. Certainly better than Reagan, Bush II, Clinton, Obama (so far), Carter, Nixon, Johnson...man. That's sad.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Because if we don't prop up Pakistan, you will have the failed state that was Afghanistan with the added bonus of loose nukes.

The article makes it perfectly clear (not that you read it), its not about the billions of dollars we give them every year or even really the latest bribe they demanded of us to do something in their own best interests. Its about how much power the Israel lobby wields over Washington and how Netanyahu wields that to his advantage. He flaunts it.[/QUOTE]

I did read it. Thanks. Pakistan pulls the same shit all the time. Musharraf tells us we can pound sand anytime we ask him to go after the Islamic radicals in his government. He takes our money and laughs all the way to the bank.

Why he wouldn't Netanyahu flaunt his relationship with us. Wouldn't you if you had a high powered "investor" that covers your ass?

There are dozens of companies and special interests that have special access to Washington. Unfortunately, it's the worst part of our political system.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I did read it. Thanks. Pakistan pulls the same shit all the time. Musharraf tells us we can pound sand anytime we ask him to go after the Islamic radicals in his government. He takes our money and laughs all the way to the bank.

Why he wouldn't Netanyahu flaunt his relationship with us. Wouldn't you if you had a high powered "investor" that covers your ass?

There are dozens of companies and special interests that have special access to Washington. Unfortunately, it's the worst part of our political system.[/QUOTE]
Netanyahu doesn't flaunt his "relationship". He flaunts his control over our political system as it relates to his country. The amount of power Israel has over our foreign policy is completely outrageous.

They are the client state in this relationship. Its time to start demanding that they act in our best interests, as well as their own long term interests. They don't genuinely desire a final resolution with the Palestinians because there is no power in the world which could threaten them. They are happy with the status quo and they would like to continue their land grab indefinitely, this in turn jeopardizes our security.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And you say this based on what, exactly?[/QUOTE]
The power of the lobby of course. I know Paul is some deity way on high to you, but he's no less susceptible from pressure than any other politician, at least he wouldn't be as president. He can act like the independent lone wolf as he is because he has less power, he couldn't act that way as president.
 
So if you guys wanted to see what the other side of crazy looks like, here it is. Found this on a nationalist Israeli's blog while trying to get a better idea of the Ron Paul-Israel position thing. FYI, their nickname for their Prime Minister is Bibi.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's brutal and illogical anti-Jewish, pro-Arab building freeze to facilitate the establishment of a Pseudostinian aka Palestinian sic State in the heart of the State and Land of Israel is obviously a danger to the continued viability of the State of Israel. Netanyahu, who for years was a spokesman against such a state and such policies. There must be something that the American Government, its Intelligence people, have over Bibi which has forced him to change his tune. Honestly, I don't need to know what it is. I'd just like him to do the right thing and resign. He fears them more than he fears G-d and his future name in history books.
Click to expand...
Comments on the post:
Also, someone has got to give Obama a message that he can't push Israel around.. Can't wait til he his out of office.. Hopefully the change in the congress will help things.
Click to expand...
I just think poor Bibi is one of the hords of people who have been suckered by Obama.
Click to expand...
The world is a strange place.
 
[quote name='speedracer']This is the only thing I could find that even remotely spoke to the issue:

Ron Paul and Israel seems to cause quite the commotion. Paultards... I'm sorry. That's wrong of me. Paul-ites seem to spend a ton of energy trying to convince the rest of the conservatives that Paul's stance on cutting aid to everyone (and therefore Israel) is actually in Israel's security interest because it would also defund Arab states. The reasoning gets pretty bullshitty pretty quick though. I saw a couple of places (that all seem to be rehashes from Zionists for Paul) that since Arab states get roughly double what Israel does, it's a win for Israel. But they count Egypt as an enemy of Israel which is plainly ridiculous. And the logic that aid to Pakistan (which is nothing compared to the aid to Israel) being withdrawn makes Israel safer is pretty damned tortured.

It seems like he just doesn't want to talk about it which I guess can be construed as a good thing, inasmuch as it means he not out there whoring himself to AIPAC shitbags. And since the argument "supporting" Paul's Zionist cred is wholly bullshit, yea, I guess he could be counted as an Army of 1 on this one. But if he's willing to take on every single entrenched interest BUT Israel, what does that say about him and his views?[/QUOTE]

He speaks out against Israel's treatment of Palestine pretty frequently (likened the situation to concentration camps at some point this year), and says we should stop acting in Israel's interests in the Middle East all the time (Meet the Press, 2007). He's called anti-Semetic pretty frequently.

Most of his discussion about Israel and foreign aid occurs when he's talking to Republicans and Israel-firsters, so he tries to frame the debate in terms they'll find acceptable. That's where that angle comes from. Conservative or religious-leaning types tend to hype this aspect without understanding the context of his comments.

You think the Zionist supporters are bad? You ain't seen nothin' until you see the Theocrat crazies who support him. I'll admit, though, it's pretty funny to imagine them foaming at the mouth when I bring up Paul's support of repealing DADT to them. Or his support of legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc.

Here's an awesome video from 1998:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZtPzOukjZA&feature=player_embedded#

I can only hope Rand Paul ends up being a carbon copy of that instead of the AIPAC-schmoozing guy Rand was in his campaign.
 
[quote name='Clak']The power of the lobby of course. I know Paul is some deity way on high to you, but he's no less susceptible from pressure than any other politician, at least he wouldn't be as president. He can act like the independent lone wolf as he is because he has less power, he couldn't act that way as president.[/QUOTE]

Ah, so all politicians are going to be corrupted once they take office?

So why ever bother?
 
[quote name='speedracer']
berzirk, I think I'm coming to the realization that Bush I was one of the better presidents of the last 50 years. I can't believe it but I think it's actually true. Certainly better than Reagan, Bush II, Clinton, Obama (so far), Carter, Nixon, Johnson...man. That's sad.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. I think it was his 2nd campaign that was the first one I could vote in, and he won my vote as a naive 18 year old that more or less voted as his parents did. The "no new taxes line" and ironically enough, the introduction of a viable third party candidate, did him in. Ross Perot (who I also really liked) doesn't run, I think we are talking about 2 term Bush (I).

On the Paul thing, (who I think is the most sincere politician of our time) during the debates he essentially said that the terrorists don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for being in their countries, bombing their houses and killing their children. Of course Giuliani soapboxed quickly and everyone else had to pretend like he was speaking in tongues. While I don't have the desire to find quotes where he goes into detail on funding to Israel, I would also assume that he views our continued one-sided support at the expense of the Palestinians or others in the area, as another cause of the hatred some in the rest of the world, and specifically the so-called muslim world, harbor for us.
 
The Israelis rejected our "offer". Apparently it wasn't good enough. And Netanyahu could give a shit about what Obama wants. And Netanyahu is refusing direct talks with the Palestinians.

We should immediately cut off the money spigot until we can "reassess" our strategic priorities. At this point Israel is a welfare baby that doesn't believe we'll throw it off the dole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top