Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Obama's Lie-Filled "Jews Please Love Me" Speech at AIPAC

Shame on AIPAC! The President of the United States lied to them about his record. He lied to them about the effect of sanctions. And, judging by their applause, they ate up every lie, every political spin.

Since the AIPAC attendees couldn't discern the difference between truth and lies, honestly and political campaigning (and the mainstream media would never dare) allow me to point out some of his misinformation.

Obama started by saying nice things about the liberal and powerless Israeli president Shimon Peres and announcing this year Peres would be invited back to the US to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The President would tell you that the award to Peres, has nothing to do with the fact that its an election year and he is worried about the Jewish vote.

To give credit where credit is due, his choice of Peres is much better than the two Jew haters he picked his first year as POTUS, former Irish President Mary Robinson, who was responsible for the 1991 UN Conference on Racism (which turned out to be a conference for every type of Antisemitism in the world) and Desmond Tutu a man who not only claims the Jews run the US government but “the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God.

 The President next turned his attention to the upcoming election,  repeating the position first announced by his surrogates at the ADL and AJC "if you disagree with Barack Obama Shut Up!"
That is why America’s commitment to Israel has endured under Democratic and Republican Presidents, and congressional leaders of both parties. In the United States, our support for Israel is bipartisan, and that is how it should stay.
That's just nonsense! And the fact that Obama said that reveals even he believes his record on Israel is awful. Obama must have have thought he was back at Disney World because this next section had the President speaking as has if he was in Fantasy Land.
But as you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds. Because over the last three years, as President of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture – at every fork in the road – we have been there for Israel. Every single time.
Keeping commitments? One of Obama's first acts of "friendship" toward Israel was breaking a deal between the United States and Israel. The agreement stated that Israel could add apartment units to existing communities that were outside the 1949 armistice line but would not start new communities (with the exception of Jerusalem). Although the position of the US was the final status of Jerusalem was to be negotiated, Israel would continue to build communities in its capital city.  Obama broke the agreement, lied about its existence, and publicly berated Israel for continuing to follow its guidelines.
Four years ago, I stood before you and said that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.” That belief has guided my actions as President. The fact is, my Administration’s commitment to Israel’s security has been unprecedented. Our military and intelligence cooperation has never been closer. Our joint exercises and training have never been more robust. Despite a tough budget environment, our security assistance has increased every year. We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology – the type of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies. And make no mistake: we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge – because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.
The paragraph above is true, he just leaves out the fact that four years ago he also told AIPAC the US should move it's Israeli embassy to Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy (a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates) and that it should remain undivided. That undivided Jerusalem promise lasted almost a week. And while the President may believe Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, he has constantly warned and criticized the Jewish state for using that ability.
Just as we’ve been there with our security assistance, we have been there through our diplomacy. When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it.
Obama still doesn't get it..the report didn't unfairly single out Israel it lied...made bogus charges and his administration's stance was Israel should make a full investigation of the charges, even though they were lies, even though his acquiescence put the US in danger.
When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them.
Untrue..in the immediate aftermath of the flotilla the Obama administration called for a UN Goldstone-type investigation
When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism.
The Obama administration participated in the planning meetings for the "Durban follow-up conference." One by one hateful anti-Israel provisions were discussed, on each one the United States remained silent. The delegation even remained silent when a discussion of the Holocaust was tabled by Iran because the Iranians claimed there wasn't enough information to prove that the Holocaust really happened.
When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to help save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to de-legitimize the state of Israel, my Administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.
The President has Israel's back so he can thrust a knife into it.  Like the time with U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice vetoed an anti-Israel UN resolution,  then launch into a speech saying she agreed with the resolution:
"While we agree with our fellow Council members and indeed with the wider world about the folly and the illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, we think it unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians," Ambassador Rice said. "We therefore, regrettably, have opposed this draft resolution."
Next the president went into his "please love me rhetoric."
So if during this political season you hear some question my Administration’s support for Israel, remember that it’s not backed up by the facts. And remember that the U.S.-Israel relationship is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics. America’s national security is too important. Israel’s security is too important.
Actually Mr. President it is backed up very well by facts, those mentioned above are just a few.  It is important that supporters of Israel do not allow themselves to be persuaded by partisan progressive politics. America’s national security is too important. Israel’s security is too important. Barack Obama has been a disaster for America and for its ally Israel. Amazingly the President continues with a little Jewish guilt (Jews didn't invent guilt we just learned to market it better).
I make no apologies for pursuing peace. Israel’s own leaders understand the necessity of peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Barak, and President Peres – each of them have called for two states, a secure Israel that lives side by side with an independent Palestinian state.
If you close your eyes you can almost hear him say, I carried you for nine months.....
Of course, peace is hard to achieve. There’s a reason why it has remained elusive for six decades. The upheaval and uncertainty in Israel’s neighborhood makes it that much harder – from the horrific violence raging in Syria, to the transition in Egypt. And the division within the Palestinian leadership makes it harder still – most notably, with Hamas’s continued rejection of Israel’s very right to exist.
Sadly, not once has this President called for Hamas, or the ruling Fatah (led by Abbas) to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. This is a significant omission. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is a larger issue than how to describe a particular nation. Once Israel is recognized as a Jewish State the Palestinian demand for a right of return for the descendants of the original refugees (plus their cousins, former neighbors and anyone they've ever met) within the borders of Israel is resolved. Being a democracy, if Israel allows herself to be flooded with millions of the descendants of those 1948 refugees, she will cease to be the Jewish State. Instead Israel will be just another Muslim country in the Middle East. That is why the original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947, UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States. Palestinian President Abbas has always refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, and Obama has always refused to call on the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel's Jewishness.
But as hard as it may be, we should not give in to cynicism or despair. The changes taking place in the region make peace more important, not less. And I have made it clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met. That is why we continue to press Arab leaders to reach out to Israel, and will continue to support the peace treaty with Egypt. That’s why – just as we encourage Israel to be resolute in the pursuit of peace – we have continued to insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist [a lie...see above] , reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements. And that is why my Administration has consistently rejected any efforts to short-cut negotiations or impose an agreement on the parties.
Next the President turned attention to Iran. On the bright side he did acknowledge that a nuclear Iran is not just a threat to Israel but to the United States.
A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we have done so much to build. There are risks that an Iranian nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. It is almost certain that others in the region would feel compelled to get their own nuclear weapon, triggering an arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. It would embolden a regime that has brutalized its own people, and it would embolden Iran’s proxies, who have carried out terrorist attacks from the Levant to southwest Asia.
But he went on to do a little spinning...
Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before. People predicted that Russia and China wouldn’t join us in moving toward pressure. They did, and in 2010 the UN Security Council overwhelmingly supported a comprehensive sanctions effort. Few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on the Iranian regime. They have, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt in 2011. Many questioned whether we could hold our coalition together as we moved against Iran’s Central Bank and oil exports. But our friends in Europe and Asia and elsewhere are joining us. And in 2012, the Iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions.
On the other hand, he continued with his spin. If it wasn't for the Israel created Stuxnet virus which delayed the Iranian program for more than a year, Iran would already be nuclear. And those crippling sanctions he is talking about aren't due to start until June. In the interim the Iranians are busily moving their nuclear facilities way underground where they will be totally protected from a military strike.  The real deadline is not when the Iranians have enough fuel to build a nuclear bomb, but when their nuclear program is moved underground where it could be totally protected from an Israeli attack. Eliminating what Obama promised --Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.
In that effort, I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy – backed by pressure – to succeed. The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program. Now, the international community has a responsibility to use the time and space that exists. Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July – thanks to our diplomatic coordination – a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold. Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end.
Given their history, there are of course no guarantees that the Iranian regime will make the right choice. But both Israel and the United States have an interest in seeing this challenge resolved diplomatically. After all, the only way to truly solve this problem is for the Iranian government to make a decision to forsake nuclear weapons. That’s what history tells us.
Despite what you may be reading in the press,  Israel has not yet decided to attack Iran. All they have decided is when/if that decision is made the US will not get advanced warning. An indication of the Israeli government's lack of trust in Barack Obama and his administration.
Moreover, as President and Commander-in-Chief, I have a deeply-held preference for peace over war. I have sent men and women into harm’s way. I have seen the consequences of those decisions in the eyes of those I meet who have come back gravely wounded, and the absence of those who don’t make it home. Long after I leave this office, I will remember those moments as the most searing of my presidency. For this reason, as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I only use force when the time and circumstances demand it. And I know that Israeli leaders also know all too well the costs and consequences of war, even as they recognize their obligation to defend their country.
In the past week, with this event approaching Obama has (at least publicly) seemed to gravitate from his policy of containment, and he continued that theme here:
We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.
Here's the question, is the new "tough-talking" Obama the real Barack Obama, or is the "containment Obama" who existed before this week the real Obama? Which Obama will be the one to show up the day after the election?

If he is putting all of this pressure on Israel when, by all indications, their decision so far is not to attack, what kind of pressure will he make if their decision changes?

Look at what this President has done while he still needed the Jewish vote to get reelected---broken-agreements, broken promises, pressure on Israel without the similar pressure on the Palestinians--just imagine what he would do in a second term when he wouldn't need a Jewish vote.

Unfortunately it didn't seem as if the attendees listened to Obama's speech with a discerning ear, or an understanding of the damage this President has done to the United States and Israel. Obama lied, and AIPAC swore to it....shame on them!

1 comment:

tarkas said...

The unfortunate situation is that most American voters are conditioned by television to have misplaced interest and abbreviated memory and attention spans.
We would all be speaking German if Joseph Goebbels had access to the "wonders" of the modern television media. And who's to say something of his spirit isn't currently involved in it.