You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...republica.html
House Republican Leaders Twist Obama Statement on Israel
May 12, 2008 9:19 PM
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talked a great deal
House Republican Leaders Twist Obama Statement on Israel
May 12, 2008 9:19 PM
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talked a great deal about Israel. He was rather effusive in his support for the Jewish state.
Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.
After describing some of the first times he thought about Zionism, Obama said "the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience."
He talked about how "the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land."
He assailed Hamas as a terrorist organization and said the United States "should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements."
When the topic turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama said, "Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." When asked if Israel besmirches the United States' reputation, Obama said "No, no, no."
Then he said: "But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem..."
It seemed pretty clear to me that by "constant sore" Obama was referring to the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As he says in the next sentence: the "lack of a resolution to this problem."
Nonetheless, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who knows better, accused Obama of calling Israel a "constant sore."
"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims," Boehner said. "Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’"
(That's interesting because in that very same interview, Obama rejected Carter's use of the term "apartheid" as applied to Israel. Said Obama: "I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.")
Another member of the GOP House leadership, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, also misrepresented what Obama said.
"It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel," Cantor said.
When Obama twisted Sen. John McCain's "100 Years" comment, it was pretty dishonest as well.
But this may be worse, because Boehner et al are falsely accusing Obama of besmirching a nation and a people. They are accusing him of being anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic. It is false.
This kind of twisting is unbecoming a party that claims to have superior ideas to Obama's fairly orthodox liberal record. Voters may conclude that Republicans think they have to make things up to beat Obama. Which they don't.
- jpt
May 12, 2008 in John McCain, Obama, Barack | Permalink |
If the only way to run a campaign against Obama is to peddle race hatred or, as in this case, to twist his words out of all possible intended meaning, then that becomes the single best reason to vote for him.
If you're interested in responding to and quieting down disputation about race and the history of racism in this country, then a vote for Obama is an obvious choice since his opponents have, and will continue, to make race a major selling point for voting against him.
If you're sick of the correspondence between candidates and parties winning elections with their being willing to lie overtly, by omission, by code, by simplification and through hypocrisy, then Obama is once again the obvious choice.
If the kind of campaigning against him that is going on now continues, or perhaps gets worse over the course of the campaign, it seems likely to me that some, maybe many, people will vote for Obama because to vote against him will be to associate oneself with such despicable people that it would be shameful and humiliating to admit having done it.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Last edited by Leonidas; May 13th, 2008 at 02:54 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Leonidas For This Useful Post:
To be honest Leo I want Obama to be the next U.S. president, I however do not want him annointed or made to look like some flawless Mohatma Ghandi like person. My problem with you and the little protection detail you seem to have on here is that you dont just put up an article and make a point, you shove Obama down peoples throat, use racist or moral overtones when people are critical of Obama, and basically you come on here and campaign rather than discuss.
As for being a light-weight, that is fxxking rich. I am a whitey who was born during the civil war in Zimbabwe, was raised in apartheid South Africa, served in the South African army doing peace-keeping work in townships which basically involved stopping Zulus and Xhosas trying to kill each other during our first free and fair elections. I have a French father and a German mother and now live in Scotland. I will accept that with that background I might be damned as a person, but moral light weight? I have fxxking done my share of dealing with morality, especially people like yourself that sit and point fingers and shout racist.
Last edited by Crazy_Ivan; May 14th, 2008 at 04:14 PM.
So what you're saying Leo is that we should vote for Obama because Republicans are using the race card and not because of his stance on issues? That makes perfect sense.
__________________ "America didn't become the greatest nation on earth by redistributing wealth; we became the greatest nation by creating new wealth."
You say all this as if Obama ihas completely clean hands in the misrepresenting game. I do believe that 100 years in Iraq and more years of Bush are not exactly Obama's most honest moments.
__________________ ~ No man has ever gone through life without having a scared heart.
Latest declaration proving the Republicans will say any lie, promote any fear, and do anything, no matter how dishonorable to win an election they cannot win on by an honest campaign on policy issues.
Face it you guys, the Republicans have virtually nothing to base a campaign on except lies, smears, racism and fearmongering.
If the articles I'm posting in this thread are the Republican arguments for their continuation in power (and the CLINTON line too), then the question becomes, isn't there a powerful reason to vote the Republicans out just because they are campaigning in this way to avoid engaging on the real issues? When does the content and mass of this despicable **** become so disgraceful that it is something you who support them are ashamed of and are unwilling to support? If it's the issues that should drive the election of McCain why don't they run on the issues and policies they would put into effect?
Did the Republican House members intentionally lie about what Obama said about Israel?
Do you truly believe that the "Swift Boating" liars are going to make ads about "issues"?
Was Bush's blatant and dishonest smearing of Obama based on anything except the need to run a dirty and hypocritical campaign in order to win in November?
It's Not About Sound Bites, It's About Liars 
BIG JOE
