Posted on 04/16/2008 6:47:31 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
DEMOCRATIC hopeful Barack Obama said that as president he would do his utmost to help Israel defend itself from any regional threat, as he criticized ex-president Jimmy Carter for seeking to meet with Hamas.
"As president, I will do everything that I can to help (Israel) protect itself ... We will make sure that it can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran," Senator Obama told a synagogue in Philadelphia, according to his campaign aides.
He said US-Israeli cooperation, although successful, "can be deepened and strengthened".
Senator Obama, who has said he would meet with US enemies Iran and Cuba if elected president, criticised Mr Carter's expected meeting in Cairo with Hamas, stressing: "Hamas is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organisation".
Later, Senator Obama faced pressure from the Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who told Fox News that he and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton should get much tougher with Mr Carter, a fellow Democrat.
"These are thugs and murderers," Senator McCain said.
"Senator Obama and Senator Clinton should directly repudiate and tell President Carter he should not meet with what is, fundamentally, a terrorist (group) that's been responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Bravo Sierra, over.
He doesn’t seem credible when he makes that statement.
Stay cool John, and stay healthy.
Our Country is on the edge of a precipice.
LOL, yeah right. Like empowering their enemies and painting big targets on the backs of Israelis.
Obama goes to a church that sympathizes with the Pali’s, then expects us to believe he’s pro-Israel.
If Obama were going to "deepen and strengthen" ties with Israel, would this be so? I think not.
Yeah, he'll help them right into nonexistence. Didn't he also say he wanted to have tea with Ahmanutjob and other terrorist enemies of Israel?
That's exactly the way it sounded to me. What does "do everything " mean? On the face of it, I guess that would include nuclear counterattack.
But note his reticence to be specific. Maybe "everything" means sending his Reverend and the especially honored Farrakahn to deliver an audacious message of hope to the Israelis.
Obama would do everything to help Israel defend itself against those who oppose the Middle East surrender process. Beyond that, coming from him, that statement makes no sense at all.
I actually took time to watch the whole debate. It was a bunch of meaningless platitudes, no talking about cutting spending, and extremely selective cutting of taxes. Their answers on gas prices(which were not challenged) were the emptiest, most vacuous “answers” I had ever heard. What if they find nothing from the “investigations”?
I mean do they think that gas companies just find a certain time(including Republican Administrations) to raise the prices so that they can raise profits? There wasn’t this pattern in the 80s and 90s, can somebody tell me why? The fuel efficiency might help, but that makes the whole USA like California, and who can afford organic automobiles?
What they were saying was let’s squeeze the average Joe so that they have to buy certain cars under federal regulations. They cannot make their own cars, nor can they find a cheaper alternative. It sounded extremely stupid.
And on Israel: It was all a ploy to get the Jewish vote. Everytime on there was calculated to appeal to the masses. It doesn’t matter if they don’t believe in it, they must act like chameleons.
The funny thing was AA(Affirmative Action), you see Obama answered that one(as much as I hate to admit). Clinton answered with an all-exclusive radical egalitarian Universal Pre-K so that people must send their kids there or else there will be a new law that will put their kids in child protective services. Why not Universal college tuition, Hillary?
They dodged a lot of questions, answered nothing(also about Iraq I did not hear the V word used once. It was all about how we are babysitting the Iraqi government who, BTW, don’t have all of the arms we have to destroy AQ). Two empty suits(one a pantsuit) with elitism, and Hillary’s rough voice which isn’t pleasant. Obama also sounds a little too much like John Kerry with his droning Northern voice. Their difference on Iraq was like Hubert Humphrey(I’ll withdraw slowly) and McGovern(I’ll withdraw all in 16 months). There were so many problems with their answers I felt very bored, and sick of listening to them.
You might want to replace the word “that” with the word “any.”
yes or no question Snob-oma
This is a piece to set quickly the narrative. But poor BO was a loser. On the Israel question he was weak as water. On the other hand, Hilly said she would retaliate against any country that would attack (or her implication use nukes on) Israel. He wobbled. She quickly laid out the conventional US policy - to her credit - and then went on to blather. But she did signal her absolute support of Israel as a US president, but quickly went off to broader topics to avoid much attention from the revwright-DU faction.
The problem with this is that nothing Israel does would be considered defensive. To people like Obama, Israel will always be considered the aggressor.
There is something weak about that statement. Guess I am to dumb and bitter to understand.
Does he feel the same weak way about Taiwan?
“The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die.”
- Former US President, current full-time buffoon Bill Clinton, July 31, 2002
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.