Posted on 07/14/2008 11:51:53 AM PDT by SJackson
If anyone seriously believes Obama will be a friend to Israel, they are sadly mistaken. He didn’t choose Hagel by pure coincidence.
As Senator Hagel sits around for six more months and tries to decide whether to launch a futile bid for the White House, he has a lot of questions to answer about his commitment to Israel. Consider this:
- In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
- In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.
- In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refsued to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.
- In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authroity to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.
- In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.
Here's what the National Review wrote about Hagel's stance on Israel in 2002:
"There's nothing Hagel likes less than talking about right and wrong in the context of foreign policy. Pro-Israeli groups view him almost uniformly as a problem. "He doesn't always cast bad votes, but he always says the wrong thing," comments an Israel supporter who watches Congress. An April speech is a case in point. "We will need a wider lens to grasp the complex nature and consequences of terrorism," said Hagel. He went on to cite a few examples of terrorism: FARC in Colombia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the Palestinian suicide bombers. Then he continued, "Arabs and Palestinians view the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military occupation as terrorism." He didn't exactly say he shares this view — but he also failed to reject it."
And here's what the anti-Israel group, CAIR wrote in praise of Hagel:
“Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel …” [Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28
Chuck hagel...RINO and all around traitor. Another of the prime reasons the republican party is in trouble this fall.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Nice pick for a travelling companion there Barry.
Why don’t you put Weasely Clark on TV again to tell us that he has faith in your “judgment?”
I hope you show up with that @#$%^ Hagel in tow and Olmert shuts the door in your face.
Bi-Partisan hate that’s why Obama needs Hagel. Also gets the trip on the taxpayers as its a Senate mission.
Glad to know that pacifist-isolationist Hagel will be retiring soon.
God forbid we have a Senator who doesn’t always blindly bow to the Israeli lobby. What the hell has happened to conservatism?
“What the hell has happened to conservatism?”
Said the Libertarian.
Actually it's not the dreaded Jewish Lobby that's the main problem. It's the secret and ultra-sneaky Jewish cabal that runs the world from the basement in the Rothschild bank in London.
I didn’t say “Jewish Lobby”. Many Jews oppose groups like AIPAC. Those who assume all Jews think alike are the real anti-Semites.
The fact that there’s now a difference between the two underscores my point.
Libertarians are not conservatives. Don’t lecture us on how we should act.
If by “us” you mean conservatives, that would include me.
Libertarians are not conservatives
I’d consider myself both. American Heritage dictionary defines a conservative as somebody who adhere to the principles of conservatism, which is defined as:
“A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.”
A libertarian is defined as:
“One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.”
Can you explain to me how the two are mutually exclusive? I’d say there’s likely to be quite a bit of overlap there.
I leave you with a quote from Ronald Reagan:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
Yeah, you’re right, no relation at all.
Hagel was.
He is slipping further into “was” by trying to be Obama’s Liberman.
Liberman and Grahm will hold effective control of the Senate. Hagel will control nothing
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.