Sores, flaming infections and filthy bacteria. What sexually transmitted diseases are Obama and Ahmadinejad suffering from?
Stop smearing Obama. Everyone, read the article from Atlantic Mag. Here is an excerpt:
BO: I think that 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. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.
Your post is one of the outstanding achievements I've seen so far this year in right-wing 3-D: distortion, deceipt and demagoguery.
Obama isn't characterizing Israel as an infection; he's obviously talking about the interminable struggle between the Palestinians and Israelis. That six-decades-old conflict has fueled the rise of jihadist terrorism and served to make enemies for the U.S. all over the Arab Muslim world. It's why Saudis fund terrorists, provide suicide-bomber recruits for al Qaeda in Iraq and why so many Saudis were involved in the 9-11 attacks.
You have a problem with Obama as a presidential candidate, don't like his policies, etc., go ahead and criticize. Your resort to lies and distortion just points up what a lackluster candidate the right is stuck with.
Oh, and while I'm on this, Obama is not a Muslim, doesn't support Hamas in any way and is appalled at Jeremiah Wright's rants.
You're trying too hard . Just say you don't like the guy , and leave it at that. At least it'd be more honest .
Read the article again. ( for the 1st time?) What you portray just isn't there.
While paying lip service to Israel in the article (calling it a "just idea" isn't exactly the strongest defense I've heard), there is little doubt that Obama's comments were not taken out of context.
If you have a quibble with that entire paragraph, take it up with Barack... not me.
It was surprising to read an interview Obama had with the JTA. In it he said it was essential that Israel give up land to create a contiguous Palestinian State. To do that Israel would have to sever itself into two separate pieces. Not even the U.N. mandate did such a thing. After all Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan. After all the Arabs who didn't want to be in Isrtael left and went to those places the respective countries wanted nothing to do with those people. So now Obama wants Israel to cut itself into two pieces. What will that do to Israel's security and survival. That is pro Hamas thinking and anti Israel l support.
Doug Ross wrote:
While paying lip service to Israel in the article (calling it a "just idea" isn't exactly the strongest defense I've heard), there is little doubt that Obama's comments were not taken out of context.
You went beyond taking Obama's words out of context. You put words in his mouth and twisted them. Your headline is a complete lie, as anyone who actually reads the Atlantic article will realize immediately. Well, anyone not blinded by political necessity and/or hate.
How pathetic.
I took from this he wants to severe our support for Israel as an autonomous Jewish State. This is signing their death warrant.
This moron is going to trigger nuclear war in the middle east.
SW Anderson - respectfully, you're wrong. I took his entire response -- whole -- and pasted it into the post.
The only quibble you might have with the headline might be the subject (whether Obama meant the "the Israeli/Palestinian conflict" or "Israel" itself).
He was answering the question about the latter, not the former.
His words... unadulterated.
Obviously Ahmedinajad didn't speak in English, so who translated from the Farsi? Was it MEMRI, the outfit owned by the Mossad, which deliberately mistranslates things to make them sound bad to Americans?
The only quibble you might have with the headline might be the subject (whether Obama meant the "the Israeli/Palestinian conflict" or "Israel" itself).
He was answering the question about the latter, not the former.
Just as so many saw new clothes on the emperor. They were absolutely sure he had new clothes on. And you, Ross, are interpreting Obama's words to suit your preconceived notions or for what you perceive as some kind of political advantage.
It won't wash. Obama has supported and does support Israel. Any reasonable person who reads the Atlantic interview will get that.
That leaves out anyone whose mission is to try to drive a wedge between Obama and American Jewish voters, which is what you and your post appear to be about.
SW Anderson, the combination of Obama's response (unredacted, unmodified) in combination with the following -- should give any American pause.
1) One of Obama's advisers was just terminated for negotiating with Hamas
2) Another of Obama's advisers is counseling Israel to consider giving up control of Jerusalem to make headway in the "peace process"
3) Obama appeared on a cover of his church magazine (Trumpet) with Louis Farrakhan
4) Obama's church published a Hamas manifesto in 2006
5) Obama's church honored Farrakhan in 2006
6) Obama's first fundraiser was held at the house of William Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, and he served on the board with Ayers and his wife (Bernadine Dohrn) of the Woods Fund. Among the recipients of gifts from the Woods fund: Arab-Action Network (AAN), founded by the PLO public relations head in the US and linked to some unsavory groups.
7) Arab activists at "Electronic Intifida" (Ali Abumineh) confide that Obama had privately told them that his pro-Israel stance was for political purposes and that he would be able to more publicly sympathize with Arab causes once he was elected.
Obama's pastor, mentor and adviser (Wright) visited Libya and Gaddhafi with Farrakhan.
That's just off the top of my head. I can send more detailed info - or just check the blog at http://directorblue.blogspot.com - put simply, the more I read about Obama, the more I am convinced he is a friend of terror.
The late Sen. Joseph McCarthy would be impressed.
I will file this intelligence with the dossiers on all those Hollywood commies from the '40s and '50s, the "real-dirt" stories on Bill and Hillary holding secret orgies in the Arkansas governor's mansion, while state troopers stood guard outside; and then there's that yet-to-be solved murder, covered up as a suicide, that Hillary is supposed to be resonsible for. Or maybe it was Bill. No, wait, the rap on him was that he molested Chelsea throughout her childhood.
But now, the "focus" is on Obama. And it doesn't take three guesses to come up with why.
SW Anderson:
Please enlighten me as to which of the items I've listed are inaccurate. I'll gladly retract them.
Feel free to peruse my archives. I am neither a conspiracy theorist nor a historical revisionist.
I have documented -- with photographs -- every assertion listed above.
Interestingly, some of the more bizarre affiliations have been redacted from Obama's website (I have before and after screencaps to prove it).
Oh, I forgot, it's about CHANGE!
Again - provide me a list of items that are inaccurate regarding Obama, his "spiritual adviser" of 20 years (and inspiration for his book's title), his church, and his fellow Woods Fund board members.
If any one of them is inaccurate, I promise to publish a complete apology and credit you.
Commenting by HaloScan
