This opinion piece is what I thought it would be: half truths and innuendos. It is weak beer indeed.
“for our most dependable Middle East ally.”
For whom 2 spies have been prosecuted in the last 30 years…and those were the ones we caught. Why does our “closet ally” in the middle east spy on us?
“He has also said that he has been in the “foxholes” in Chicago with his Jewish friends trying to heal the rifts between the African-American and Jewish populations. There is absolutely no proof of any of these claims.”
And the “proof” of most of your assertions are no where to be seen either.
“the Woods Foundation, a charity with a broad mandate”
Their foremost mandate is fighting poverty.
“(Obama) has singled out two figures demonized by anti-Semites, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, as being responsible for the Iraq War. This despite the fact that Perle was not in the government and George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld were the key figures and decision-makers.”
Is this a joke? It is clear, from the many investigative pieces, written since 2003, that Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, et.al, did have undue influence on the prosecution of the War whether they were offically in the Government or not.
“His use of the term “separation barrier” or “wall” rather than the far more commonly used “security barrier” has apartheid-like connotations.”
It seems to me that YOU are the one giving the term “barrier wall”, etc. an apartheid connotation, although if we are being honest the Wall is de facto a “seperation barrier” not to mention that once again, Palestinan Land has been confiscated to build parts of the barrier.
“(Israeli removal of all settlements from Gaza has not resulted in peace.)”
Maybe the fact that Gaza is maintained like the Warsaw Ghetto has something to do with the lack of “peace.”
“this seems to be Obama’s approach to the Iranian problem, only with Iran, he believes that they will give up their nuclear program if America will just negotiate with them to reach an agreement to let them have the nuclear weapons.”
Oh please, Obama never said that “just talking” to the Iranians would take care of their Nuclear Ambitions, but talking first (yes even without pre-conditions) is certainly better than threatening them with the “Obliterate” button ala Clinton and McCain. Cold War Era Politics are simply not working any longer…the fact is that going into Iraq has emboldened Iran and weakened our “friend” Israel. BTW, Ronald Reagan actually did speak privately to Gorbachov before Communism imploded (they corrosponded with Letters.) Reagan knew that you could catch a fly or 2 with Honey instead of vinegar. Need more proof that “talking” can make a positive change? Look at the Bush Administration’s success with North Korea this past week; diplomacy should always be the first line of defense..(someone needs to wake McCain up to this fact before he bomb,bomb,bombs Iran.)
Obama would rather keep Iran from going Nuclear and diplomacy is on the table, but military action, he has made clear, will always be an option, In short, Obama promises to “speak softly but carry a BIG stick.”
Personally I’m an American Firster who actually doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about protecting Israel, especially at the cost of American lives, that said, I believe that Obama meant what he said at AIPAC: he will continue the strong relationship between the US and Israel that Harry Truman got rolling 60 years ago (a mistake, IMO, but I digress.)
