Jerusalem Post write Caroline Glick:
“As the election drew closer, the Obama campaign expanded its efforts to present its candidate as a foreign policy moderate. Moderate foreign policy advisers such as Ross were paraded before reporters. Both Obama and his surrogates insisted that he supports a strong American alliance with Israel. Obama abandoned his earlier pledge to withdraw all US forces from Iraq by 2010. He attempted to temper and later deny his public pledge to hold direct negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
Due in large part to media credulousness, Obama’s new image as a centrist was widely accepted by the public. And it is likely that he owes a significant portion of his support in the American Jewish community to the campaign’s success in distancing Obama from men like Brzezinski and Malley.
BUT NOW that the campaign is over, it appears that as his critics warned, Obama’s moves toward the center on issues relating to the Middle East were little more than campaign tactics to obscure his true policy preferences.
Two days after his election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius gave a sense of the direction in which Obama will likely take US foreign policy. And, apparently directed by Obama’s campaign staff, Ignatius based much of his column on his belief that Obama’s foreign policy views have been shaped by his “informal” adviser, Brzezinski.
Based on what Brzezinski and Obama’s “official” campaign told him, Ignatius wrote that the two major issues where Obama’s foreign policy is likely to diverge from Bush’s right off the bat are Israel and Iran. Obama, he claimed, will want to push hard to force Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians as soon as he comes into office. As for Iran, Obama plans to move immediately to improve US relations with the nuclear-weapons-building ayatollahs.”
This of course isn’t news to anyone who followed this or other blogs warning of the slide of hand Obama and his handlers were showing the American people. He will not only disarm America, but Americas allies as well. During the campaign it was reported that:
“Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his election, Obama’s advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in order not to harm Obama’s chances of being elected.”
But…
“Both Obama’s transition team and Hamas leaders were quick to deny Youssef’s statements. Yet, together with the earlier Times of London story about Malley’s contacts with Hamas and the new revelations about Malley serving as Obama’s unofficial Middle East envoy, the Al-Hayat report has the ring of truth.”
Because no doubt it is true. The Sunday Times of London today writes that Obama has bought into the Arab peace plan that calls for Israel to give up the farm in order to buy peace with Muslims.
4 Responses
Obama’s Plan to Sell Out Israel : Stop The ACLU
November 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
1[...] Obama’s Deadly Plans for Israel The perils [...]
Paul_In_Houston
November 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
2You know, the Israelis are supposed to have an estimated 150 to 200 nuclear warheads. and God-Knows-What biological capabilities, with which to exercise a “Samson” option.
And this ain’t the “Turn the other cheek” crowd; I don’t think they’re into that part of the Book.
Is Obama going to sternly warn the Israelis, in the event they get overrun, or Haifa and Tel Aviv disappear under mushroom clouds,
“DON’T YOU DARE OVERREACT!”?
-
Bent Notes » Blog Archive » The Marxist-elect to the West’s enemies: Feel free to end Israel’s existence
November 16th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
3[...] He’s going to push hard for pre-1967 borders. [...]
Paul_In_Houston
November 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
4Follow up to earlier post. After all, if we’re going to sell them out, shall we look at consequences?…
An exercise for the students:
As Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff ) or whatever the rank is), you are ordered to design a “Samson” option to (in the event of Holocaust II) take down as many of those bastards with you as possible, given 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, and possibly enormous biological expertise.
What would you consider?
Would “those bastards” include countries (including so-called allies) that just stood by and let it happen?
What would really do the most damage to them?
(All of this assuming that you will not go gently into the good night.)
-
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Get the Discover® More Card
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. Starting at just $149.95 with free shipping.
Tags
2008 Election abortion Acorn Add new tag Bailout Barack Obama Bill Ayers Blagojevich Bush Chris Dodd Colin Powell Conservatism corrupt democrats Corruption democrats economy Election 2008 Election Fraud Elections Financial Crisis Gay Marriage George Tiller GOP Hillary Clinton Iraq Israel Joe Biden Joe the Plumber John McCain Liberals Macranger Show media media bias Michelle Obama News Politics Poll Juice polls Rahm Emanuel Rev. Wright Rick Warren Rod Blagojevich Sarah Palin Tech News terrorismRecent Comments
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
Macsmind Copyright 2008, Macsmind is a registered trademark of Macsmind Media - BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease