Despite (sadly) Americans continuing lack of interest in foreign affairs, Americans generally do care about God and Israel. The omission of “God” and “Jerusalem” in the original platform was a window into the soul of the current Democratic party’s view of the world. Obama’s foreign policy record is frankly abysmal, yet polls keep showing that the public feels more comfortable with him at the head of foreign policy rather then Mitt Romney.
by Caroline Glick
Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama and his supporters have been dogged by criticism of his position on Israel. From the very outset of his tenure in office, critics and supporters alike have not been able to shake the sense that Obama is deeply hostile to the Jewish state.
Obama and his supporters have responded to every criticism of his treatment of Israel by pulling out a list. Every time his record on Israel is criticized, Obama and his supporters pull out a list of the things he has done for Israel. Just this week, in an op-ed in The New York Times, Democratic donor Haim Saban pulled out the list to justify his support for Obama.
As the list notes, Obama has given billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel. He has gotten stiff sanctions passed against Iran by the UN Security Council. He has agreed to sell F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Israel. During his presidency, they say, the US has expanded its intelligence and military coordination with Israel. Obama has opposed some anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.
Obama’s critics respond to Obama’s list with a series of points. They note that in approving increases in US military assistance to Israel, including for the Iron Dome rocket defense system, Obama is simply carrying out a pledge made by his predecessor George W. Bush. They note that the UN Security Council sanctions have had no impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
So, too, Obama opposed even stronger sanctions against Iran passed with the overwhelming support of both houses of Congress.
[.........]
Obama’s critics mention that due to his insistence on appeasing Iran, last week Iran enjoyed its greatest diplomatic triumph since the 1979 Iranian revolution. More than a hundred nations sent representatives to Tehran to participate in the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit. And in the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon, those nations expressed support for Iran’s nuclear program.
And while it is true that Obama has blocked two anti-Israel initiatives at the UN, he has been more supportive of the inherently anti-American and anti-Israel UN system than any of his recent predecessors.
As for Israeli-US intelligence cooperation, under Obama for the first time, the US has systematically leaked Israel’s most closely guarded secrets to the media.
Indeed, critics of Obama’s policy towards Israel have their own list. It includes Obama’s repeated humiliations of Israel’s prime minister. It includes the multiple clashes Obama has initiated with Israel with regards to Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. It includes Obama’s adoption of the Palestinians’ position on Israel’s borders.
But still, as Obama and his supporters will say, facts are facts and they have a list. And because the list is true – as far as it goes – they can argue that Obama is supportive of Israel.
Given its superficially compelling argument, it is remarkable that Obama’s list has failed to end the debate about his position on Israel. Today Americans have no interest in foreign policy.
They don’t want to hear that by leaving Iraq as he did, Obama squandered everything that the US fought for. They don’t want to hear that he effectively handed the country over to Iran, which now has the ability to use Iraq as its forward base for operations in Syria, Lebanon and beyond.
They don’t want to hear that Obama’s surgeand- leave strategy in Afghanistan is fomenting a US defeat in that war and setting the conditions for the reinstitution of the Taliban government.
They don’t want to hear about how Russia and China view the US with contempt and challenge its economic and strategic interests every day.
They don’t want to hear how Obama played a key role in overthrowing the US’s key ally in the Arab world, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They don’t want to consider the implications of the fact that the US is now bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood’s transformation of Egypt into an anti- American, radical Islamic regime.
[.......]
There are two reasons for Americans’ enduring interest and concern about Israel. And they were both revealed this week at the Democratic National Convention when the story broke about how this year’s Democratic platform differs from its 2008 platform. First it was reported that the platform contained no mention of God.
Then it was reported that unlike the 2008 platform, this year’s Democratic Party platform made no mention of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
This year’s platform watered down the language on Israel in other significant ways as well.
It did not refer to Israel as the US’s “strongest ally” in the Middle East. It did not call for the continued eschewal of the Hamas terror group by the international community. It did not mention US opposition to the Palestinian demand for the so-called “right of return” – through which Israel would be destroyed by an influx of millions of foreign Arabs in the framework of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. But whereas these other deletions were generally ignored, the platform’s silence on Jerusalem generated a maelstrom of criticism that exceeded even its deletion of God.
Significantly, rather than treat the deletions of God and Jerusalem as separate issues, the media and the Democrats themselves presented them as two sides of the same coin. When on Wednesday the party’s leadership decided to restore the language of the 2008 platform on God and Jerusalem – but not on Hamas, the so-called “right of return,” and Israel’s strategic significance to the US – they opted to do so in the same amendment.
[........]
Prof. Walter Russell Mead described Israel’s place in the American mindset last year. As he put it, “Israel matters in American politics like almost no other country on earth. Well beyond the American Jewish and the Protestant fundamentalist communities, the people and the story of Israel stir some of the deepest and most mysterious reaches of the American soul. The idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism is profoundly tied to the idea of American exceptionalism. The belief that God favors and protects Israel is connected to the idea that God favors and protects America.”
Mead continued, “Being pro-Israel matters in American mass politics because the public mind believes at a deep level that to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America and pro-faith. Substantial numbers of voters believe that politicians who don’t ‘get’ Israel also don’t ‘get’ America and don’t ‘get’ God.”
By removing both God and Jerusalem from the platform, Obama and his fellow Democrats stirred the furies of that American soul at its foundations.
They showed they don’t “get” Israel or God. And by extension, they don’t “get” America.
The intellectually confusing decision to lump Jerusalem and God together in the same amendment no doubt owed to the fact that someone in the party recognized how disastrous the deletions were for their ability to convince wavering voters that the Democratic Party has their back.
And this brings us to nature of the Democratic Party today. For the amendment to the platform to pass, it needed the support of two-thirds of the convention’s delegates. And so, on Wednesday morning, the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, brought the amendment to the floor for a voice vote.
Much to his obvious shock, the amendment did not receive the requisite support. Calls supporting the amendment were met by at least equally strong calls opposing it. Villaraigosa was forced to call the vote three times before declaring – contrary to the evidence – that the amendment had passed.
More than anything else, the floor vote showed how out of step a large and significant constituency in the Democratic Party is with the basic character of their country. The spectacle should raise concerns among all supporters of Israel who believe Obama’s pro-Israel list is proof they have a safe home today in the Democratic Party.
Jerusalem’s conflation with God in the American imagination is not the only reason so many people attacked the platform’s watered-down language on US-Israel ties. The second reason for the uproar explains why the issue of Obama’s support for Israel is the only foreign policy question that has dogged his administration since he took office. It explains why American support for Israel is a more salient issue for Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan, Britain, Turkey or Russia.
Here, too, Israel’s symbolic importance in the American imagination is central for understanding the matter. Beyond its religious significance, there is a widespread perception that Israel is on the front line of the war against America. As a consequence, Israel is the only foreign policy issue that telegraphs messages about the nature of America’s foreign policy to an otherwise disengaged and largely indifferent American public.
For most Americans – if not for most Democrats – support for Israel is the most important plank of US foreign policy because it indicates the nature of that foreign policy as a whole. A president who supports Israel is a president who has his priorities straight. A president who is hostile to Israel is a president who can’t be trusted on Iran or Russia or China or anything else.
In an apparent effort to end this state of affairs, Obama has adopted a policy towards Iran – whose nuclear program represents the greatest rising threat to US national security – that frames the issue as Israel’s problem.
In so doing, Obama seeks to achieve two goals. First, he seeks to decouple Israel’s national security from America’s national security in the popular imagination. And second, he seeks to diminish popular support for Israel by presenting Israel as a country that is pushing America into an unnecessary war.
[........]
In line with this, it is telling that the amendment of the Democratic platform did not return the 2008 platform’s characterization of Israel as America’s “strongest ally” in the Middle East.
But as the outcry the platform changes provoked demonstrated, Obama has failed to achieve this goal. And this is wonderful news.
But as long as he has supporters willing to publish op-eds and give interviews devoted to repeating the list, Obama will continue to make the case that he can be trusted on foreign policy despite his abandonment of God, Jerusalem and America’s most vital interests.
Read the rest - God, Jerusalem and American Foreign policy
Tags: Caroline Glick
That’s because Romney sounds to bellicose for many voter’s taste. He keeps talking about getting involved in Syria and people don’t want to. Romney either needs to back off an aggressive foreign policy, we can’t afford or shut up about it.
Americans don’t want any more nation building exercises.
Rodan wrote:
Yes, those of us who know better advocate the following nation-destroying exercise:
@ Rodan:
I don’t think he is bellicose at all. He points out that Obama shits on our friends.
@ Macker:
That’s not going to happen. Romney should advocate a peace through strength foreign policy and no nation building.
@ Rodan:
Let’s leave the Foreign policy to Bush’s buddies Bolton, McCain, Miss Lindsay. That really worked out WELL.
@ Speranza:
He called for getting involved in Syria. He calls Russia our #1 enemy, when it’s the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. His tough talk does turn people off. I have spoken to people who say Romney’s foreign policy views make them leery. Americans are tired of nation building and looking for confrontations.
Bush ruined the GOP’s edge on foreign policy. Romney needs to be clear, he will not push the Bush doctrine and will go back to the traditional cautious Republican foreign policy.
theoutsider wrote:
Those clowns have not seen a war they never liked. THe Republican foreign policy is too Wilsonian Progressive. It’s not Conservative at all. Peace through strength is a Conservative policy. Nation Building Interventionism is not.
@ Rodan:
Nation building is out, but isolationism is not a wise foreign policy either. We cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If that means war with Iran, so be it. Smash their infrastructure, and sink their navy. Leave them helpless.
theoutsider wrote:
Yeah and Obama has been a wunderkind -- how’s that Iranian bomb coming along? We are so much better off with the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo instead of Hosni Mubarak. /
Iron Fist wrote:
Peace through strength is not isolationism. For me it’s not either or.
In the case of Iran, we need to do a Linebacker II style bombing campaign. After we are done with Iran, we should announce, we are through with the Mideast and let the savages kil each other.
@ Rodan:
Absolutely. We disagree on a lot of shit, but we hate Neo-Cons.
Rodan wrote:
“Peace through superior firepower” is what I favor.
@ Speranza:
McCain. Ms. Lindsey and the GOP establishemnet supported the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. Mitt Romney supports the Arab spring. Obama and Romney are no different in this regard.
theoutsider wrote:
We dislike their policies for different reasons.
@ Speranza:
That’s what I believe as well. I also believe speak softly and carry a big sick. That was the traditional Republican foreign policy until Bush decided he was the 2nd coming of Woodrow Wilson and LBJ.
Rodan wrote:
Obama’s foreign policy has been “apologize and turn a blind eye”.
@ Speranza:
I don’t like Obama’s policies, but I am not a fan of Romney’s Bush style foreign policy. Both are failures.
I am voting on economic/fiscal reasons since I don’t like either Romney nor Obama on foreign policy.
Rodan wrote:
Oh I hate Obama’s foreign policy and one of the reasons I am voting for Romney is it correct Obama’s disasters. I don’t want a POTUS who apologizes for this great, charitable, and compassionate nation.
@ Rodan:
How so? I’m a non-interventionist. I thought you were the same.
@ Speranza:
Bullshit. Prove it?
@ Speranza:
Romney will not correct anything. He supported the Arab Spring and wants us involved in Syria. That’s not the answer either. We need to fix our fiscal situation asap. An adventure in Syria will bankrupt us.
Romney is too much of an interventionist for my taste.
@ theoutsider:
No, I am non Nation building interventionist.
theoutsider wrote:
Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood and aided Jihadists in Libya.
@ Speranza:
Do not forget that Obama’s the one who changed the mission in Afghanistan. Bush’s policy drove out the Taliban and put the Karzai government in their place, but Obama is the one who insisted on nation building. And now he is the one who will give Afghanistan back to the Taliban.
@ Rodan:
So, we agree.
Obama calls Paul Ryan, Jack Ryan!
This will be swept under the rug.
@ theoutsider:
Do you believe in smashing Iran? I do, but not to invade and do nation building. But to leave that nation in rubble through a Linebacker II style campaign.
Then I want nothing to do with the Mideast other than arm Israel.
@ Rodan:
heh, i have been on training exercises that cost more than it would take to wipe out BOTH sides in the war in syria.
nation building is what costs the $$$
@ Rodan:
As long as oil remains a critical component of the economy, simply ignoring the rest of the Middle East is not a viable policy. Even if we get Obama’s boot off our oil industry’s neck, the Middle East will still be a vital strategic area.
@ Iron Fist:
Once we don’t need their oil, we can tell the Muzz to take a hike. I am sick of Saudi Arabia dictating to us our foreign policy. Our forefathers reblled for freedom against a foreign king, we need to do the same. Other than arming Israel, the Mideast is not strategic to us. Let Russia, China and the Euros deal with it.
We have all the resources we need in this hemisphere.
@ coldwarrior:
That’s the big problem with the GOP foreign policy establishment, they love nation building.
@ Rodan:
@ Rodan:
@ Rodan:
What are you talking about? The sanctions against Iran are killing them. There Nuclear ambitions are NADA.
theoutsider wrote:
the goal of the sanctions is to stop iran from pursuing nukes.
iran is still pursuing nukes.
how is that a success?
serious question. i guess i need a definition for success in this case.
@ theoutsider:
You are delusional there. The sanctions haven’t stop their program. They want Nukes so they can start a war that will bring the 12th Iman back. Read up on 12ther Shia and get back to me.
@ coldwarrior:
This guy is delusional. He doesn’t understand about the 12ther Shia.
a quick word on sanctions.
about 15 years ago i help set up and run a study on how often sanctions worked. by success the study meant that the sanctions stopped the behavior in question.
65% of the time they work.
ymmv, as this study did not include crazy ass zeaolot islam maniacs
@ coldwarrior:
The rules don’t apply to people who think an apocolyptic war will bring back some 12th Iman.
Rodan wrote:
sure dont.
this was based on more or less ‘western’ civilized countries who dont love death more than life.
@ Rodan:
Are you in Glenn Beck territory Rodan? You take that clown seriously?
@ theoutsider:
That may be the single dumbest statement I’ve read in a year. The only people being harmed by the sanctions against Iran are the people who have absolutely no say or care about political happenings. Your statement is proven wrong on its face simply by looking at what is happening even as we debate this here. Iran is working furiously to develop her nuclear weapons capability, completely undaunted by the supposed Obama efforts to prevent this eventuality, voluminous as they are.
@ Rodan:
Next, I suppose Обама will tell us that he’s a Tom Clancy Fan….
theoutsider wrote:
Have you read about 12ther Shia Islam?
Quick drive-by O/T
Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
theoutsider wrote:
Are you joking?
@theoutsider
Why did Obama not support the Iranian people during their anti mullah uprisings of 2009?
@ Rodan:
Come on? You’re smarter than that. Are you really going to tie yourself to that guy?
coldwarrior wrote:
Kind of like Bill Clinton’s definition of “sex”.
@ theoutsider:
Are you questioning either Glenn Beck, or the Shiite Mohammedans?
The Dems had a point taking mention of God out of
their platform.
First of all, we know that God is concerned with religion
& that makes many people feel left out & hurts their self-
esteem.
Second, everybody knows that God is a Republican.
@ coldwarrior:
Same reason that conventional ideas of “deterrence” don’t work with them.
@ citizen_q:
And what are they going to do with those cars once the lease period ends?
I remember what GM did with the last electric cars it produced once they were returned from lease: They crushed them, so there wouldn’t be pictures of thousands of them sitting in a lot.
theoutsider wrote:
can i get a definition of success vis a vis sanctions please.
thanks
theoutsider wrote:
You’re the one who brought up Glenn Beck.
Not everyone who understands the motivations of the current Iranian leadership gets their information from him.
lobo91 wrote:
Iran continues to steam ahead with a lot of their delusions. Whether or not Glenn Beck calls the Twelvers out, they are real and in power in Iran.
Speranza wrote:
what the definition of ‘is’ is
A Modern Liberal Democrat
--–with apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan and “A Modern Major-General”
I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
I’ve spread out ‘cross the nation from my native campus habitat
I know our shabby history of policies discriminate
And think we should apologize from now until the infinite
I look upon myself as a citizen international
I think restricting entry of illegals is irrational
I take care always to show elevated moral attitude
And speak with unimpeachable political correctitude
And speak with unimpeachable political correctitude
And speak with unimpeachable political correctitude
And speak with unimpeachable political correcti-rectitude
Though not myself religious I will talk of spirituality
I worship at the shrine of income and gender equality
I support racial set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats
I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
He supports racial set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats
He is the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
I reject the notion that Al-Qaeda wants to form a Caliphate
We’d rapidly end differences if we would just negotiate
I think we should do more to prevent other nations’ genocide
But if we use our military I’ll support the other side
I second-guess every decision strategic and tactical
I support our troops in every way, as long as it’s not practical
Our army should not engage in perilous foreign adventure
So I oppose on principle each new defense expenditure
So I oppose on principle each new defense expenditure
So I oppose on principle each new defense expenditure
So I oppose on principle each new defense expend-expenditure
I think that women should have choices when they’re faced with pregnancy
But there is one choice over others I view preferentially
In short, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats
I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
In short, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats
I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
But when I have shed my nostalgic dreams of a revolution
When I know government’s the problem more than the solution
When I realize there’s no way that we can fund Social Security
With so much of our population having reached maturity
When I have learnt taxation doesn’t create private sector jobs
When I stop using tax grants as a way to buy votes from the mob
In short, when I have shorn some of my more blatant hypocrisies
You might actually see me begin to support democracy
You might actually see me begin to support democracy
You might actually see me begin to support democracy
You might actually see me begin to support democra-mocracy
Still the economic knowledge which I’ve clung to from my early teens
Says, “To each who wants it must come from each person who has got the means”
And so, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats
I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
And so, supporting set-asides, preferences, and bureaucrats
I am the very model of a modern liberal Democrat
Too bad nobody in our government is paying attention:
@ lobo91:
Is that how he feels? Perhaps our Spooks in Pocky-STAWN, whoever they may be, should undertake to silence him permanently.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Buzz, I tried to leave a comment at pjmedia on your last post, but my comments over there never show up. I’ve given up there other than reading!
@ lobo91:
Pakistan hid Osama bin Laden for how many years? We are fools to keep paying them jizya.
Macker wrote:
He doesn’t feel that way. He says that the ISI does.
theoutsider wrote:
What does Glenn Beck have to do about 12ther Shia Islam? Do you know about its belief’s?
Tanker wrote:
I saw it—thanks!—but it got routed into the “spam” filter for some reason. They have a weird filter, which I’ve never quite managed to figure out; it’s caught me a few times, too, and I’m considered a “contributor.”
I asked them to bail your comment out of spam, but by the time I saw it the post itself was already rolled over off the first page, so I guess they didn’t get around to it. I, unfortunately, do not have the power to rescue things myself.
@ Macker:
I don’t have time to follow the link, but from what Lobo91 posted, I take a 180 degree perspective. Aren’t they quoting Shakil Afridi’s statement about pock-e-stan’s ISI attitudes towards the US, not his own.
Did you misread that or did I?
I thought Shakil Afridi is a hero for our side. If our intelligence assets do anything they should save him.
@ citizen_q:
Correct
@ citizen_q:
Barack Hussein Obama considers him a traitor to Islam. That is why we aren’t doing anything to rescue him.
Iron Fist wrote:
And supported the taliban before that.
To hell with pock-e-stan but I repeat myself.
citizen_q wrote:
But I’m sure Obama got the best jizz—yeah!—of his life when he went there as a student.
@ lobo91:
@ Iron Fist:
Looking at how we treat our friends and allies, I bet human intel recruitment is one of the tougher jobs out there.
At least they’re consistent:
New Thread up at 2:00 PM EST.
@ lobo91:
I’ve long maintained that while Obama has a deep affinity for Islam and claims to be a Christian he is in reality an atheist. This obvious rejection of religion adds weight to that assertion.
lobo91 wrote:
Only Effeminates such as أوباما dare to leave God out of 9/11 and encourage Public Service. I don’t think I’m being out of line by hoping that Romney restores this. That, and order the military to resume normal operations prior to January 20, 2009!
From Washington Post via Drudge. Ozero doesn’t bother with foreign policy (my phrase)
By Marc A. Thiessen, Monday, September 10, 10:41 AM
President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.
The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.
I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor about the findings, and whether there were any instances where the president attended the intelligence meeting that were not on his public schedule. Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail, “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”
Yet Vietor also directed me to a Post story written this year in which Obama officials discuss the importance of the intelligence meeting and extol how brilliantly the president runs it. “Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue,” The Post reported. “One regular participant in the roughly 500 Oval Office sessions during Obama’s presidency said the meetings show a president consistently participating in an exploration of foreign policy and intelligence issues.”
Not so consistently, it seems. Since Obama officials have actively promoted the way the president runs his daily intelligence meeting as evidence of his national security leadership (even releasing a photo of him receiving the briefing on an iPad), it is fair to ask why he skips the daily meeting so often.
Rodan wrote:
Did Glenn Beck tell you to say that?
///
@ yenta-fada:
the president does not need to be at these briefings every day.
lbj did go to all of the meetings and look at the mess he made in viet nam.
yenta-fada wrote:
It’s simple.
He knows more than his policy advisors; he’s a better speechwriter than his speechwriters; he’s a better campaign strategist than his campaign strategists.
He knows it all, already—he knows that he knows it all, so why should he risk learning that he doesn’t know it all by actually listening to anybody else (except, of course, Valerie Jarrett and his wife)? He knows and he knows he knows, and he won, and you can now expect the IRS to call on you for even raising the question.
From our old LGF friend “Carl in Jerusalem”
coldwarrior wrote:
My point is only that Ozero neglects the real work of being President because he cannot make a decision without Valjar, and he is undereducated and lazy.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Two paws up!
Iron Fist wrote:
He is in reality an Obamist. After that, it’s black and Muslim. imo.
yenta-fada wrote:
Not “undereducated”; uneducated, and over-credentialed. He has the credentials from the “right” sources, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he has acquired any education in the course of his gathering of sheepskins.
He has the certainty of the solid ignoramus, and by all accounts he has—in person—the glibness of the con man, but education he has none.
Iron Fist wrote:
I’m about 1/3 of the way through this, which is the book that goes along with the “2016″ documentary. It goes into more detail about the things they researched to make the film.
D’Souza asserts that Obama believes, above all else, in anti-colonialism. Anything else he claims to believe in is just a prop.
lobo91 wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself:
Jerusalem
—apologies to William Blake and “Jerusalem”
And did those feet, ere election
Once walk before the Western Wall?
And did the president-to-be
E’en then plan Netanyahu’s fall?
Did his anti-colonial mind
Then clench the fist of his left hand
And dream Jerusalem held entire
By murderous Palestinians?
“Bring me my club of foreign aid!
“Bring appeasement to the UN!
“Bring a blind eye now to al-Qaed’!
“Bring the old borders up again!
“I will not cease to temporize
“Nor oppose nuclear Iran
“Till Arabs wrest Jerusalem
“From Israel’s devastated land.”
theoutsider wrote:
These are the same people who run children across minefields to clear them, tied together with rope so they can’t chicken out.
They really do want to destroy Israel and sanctions are not going to bother them in the least.
Prebanned wrote:
Anybody who has ever been mugged knows that the stupidest thing you can do when someone is bearing down on you with violence for their own reasons is to try and talk them out of it.
The Iranians have been at war with the United States, and with Israel, since James Earl Carter helped the mullahs to power. The United States is so physically distant from Iran and so fat-assed that it has been able to ignore this fact for a very long time—though that time is drawing rapidly to a close. Israel does not have that luxury, being smaller and far closer to Iran.
@ lobo91:
3rd World Liberatiopn.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Now, now…Iran is a “tiny” country and not a threat to us, according to Ear Leader.
lobo91 wrote:
Guess he never watched “The Mouse That Roared.”
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
If someone says they want to kill you, take them at their word.
@ Macker:
Obama will tell us Tom Clancy didn’t write all those books.