Posted on 09/08/2008 1:07:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
JERUSALEM – The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations have "legitimate claims" that are being "weakened" by the violence the terror groups carry out, Sen. Barack Obama stated in an interview today with the New York Times.
Speaking with columnist David Brooks, Obama said the U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers."
The presidential candidate compared Hezbollah to Hamas, stating they both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."
Brooks was speaking to Obama for clarification on an earlier statement the Illinois senator made implying Lebanese militias should be tempered with enticements.
Regarding Hezbollah, Obama earlier declared: "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."
Brooks took issue with that statement, writing it has the "whiff" of "appeasement."
"Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform?" asked Brooks, who said he called Obama today to clarify his remarks.
Obama immediately affirmed Hezbollah is "not a legitimate political party." Instead, "It's a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn’t happen without the support of Iran and Syria."
He continued by stating Hamas and Hezbollah violence weakens the groups' "legitimate claims."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Whatever “legitimate” claims that were possessed by the PLO and the Palestinians vanished long ago in the smoke of terrorist bombs.
That is an over-powering stench of capitulation!
Spoken like a true Muslim.
Does he consider the extirpation of Israel — which appears in the HAMAS charter — legitimate?
“How can this man have a good shot at the presidency?”
You can thank a long-dead Marxist from my country called Gramsci. Take over the universities, the press (MSM), the entertainment industries, and even creep into the churches et voilà: OBAMA.
I wish McCain a long long life... but after he passes away, you should carve his face on Mount Rushmore for choosing Sarah Palin and saving your country (and maybe even the world) from this shameful man.
Ayers and Jeremiah Wright should have sufficed to finish him off well before the Denver Convention. Republicans can rejoice to have such a man as their opponent instead of a much more difficult Hillary Clinton, but looking at the bigger and non-partisan picture, there’s much to worry about. It used to be a rightful boast of the American Dream that anybody could become President... with Obama there is now a new twist: anybody regardless of experience, integrity, truthfulness, morality. I hope this fear of mine is contradicted by a landslide for McCain and a complete re-organization / overhaul of the Democratic party.
McCain doesn’t need to produce any agitprop, all he needs to do is use news footage and stuff straight from zerObambi’s mouth.
> Does he consider the extirpation of Israel — which
> appears in the HAMAS charter — legitimate?
Depends on his audience.
My guess is that in Detroit the answer would be, “Yes,” but in Miami the answer would be, “No.”
No. Terrorists have no legitimate claims, nor do female anopheles mosquitoes. They are vermin that threaten the lives of innocent people and should be eradicated. Once a disease carrying mosquito is identified, the correct response is a permanent solution to the problem. Similarly, once a person trains as a terrorist and joins a terrorist organization, the solution is obvious.
If 0bama had a brain, what he would have meant to say was that the people in refugee camps surrounding Israel have legitimate claims. That is correct, and I find it sad that the Arab governments have made them political pawns and permanent refugees instead of settling them in communities where they could lead productive lives. But this is 0bama, and I assume he said what he meant - that he sees the perspective of the terrorists and wants to compromise and give them part of what they want to make them happy. This is the same guy who called for Georgia to show restraint after the Russian Army invaded their territory. I've heard all that I need to hear from him on international affairs.
He can re-invent himself in one speech. From tough on terrorism, to understanding “legitimate claims” and anger stemming from root causes such as ignorance and poverty. Just pick one from column A, and one from column B. For me, it just does not hang together.
First, kill or otherwise dissuade our enemies. When they see the light, then you can trade with them. Aid may be possible for a DEFEATED nation.
On O’Reilly, Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) called for us to take some of Iraq’s oil revenue. This played well with O’Reilly who has long thought that some of their oil revenue should defray the cost of the war. The idea was considered early by the Bush administration. But with all the complaining by people like BHO that this war was all about oil, they had to shelve the idea. If we do proceed to take their oil, on BHO’s recommendation, BHO would go on the offensive about the US stealing Iraqi oil!
He also has the easy answer that we should have devoted all our resources to Afghanistan and not to Iraq. I think that would have accomplished little. One thing for sure, Saddam Hussein would be alive and still supporting terrorists.
If Hussein Obama had been our President, Saddam Hussein would still be the President of Iraq.
You know, I kind of like this guy David Brooks. I was astonished to learn that he works for NYT. On the PBS coverage of the GOP convention I thought he seemed genuinely embarrassed about the press attacks on S. Palin, and his responses regarding the speakers, especially Sarah, was quite favorable - much more so than that hack Mark Shields.
As a hard-core Jewish conservative, I can't answer that question, especially since some of them are family. Drives me crazy (or meshuggah, as we like to say). But... several family members have quietly told me they intend to vote for McCain and those who have voiced support for Obama in the past are these days rather subdued about it.
We will most likely not make it 4 yrs. if this dangerous man weasels his way into the presidency. This man is the biggest threat to come to our survival yet and Kerry was right there as well, but the Demonrats sure have all of them.
“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. “
- Abraham Lincoln, 1838
I get to say it everyday: What an idiot!
It was in the NYT. Check the YND website for the source. Besides that, the article says it was sourced from the NYT. So there you go!
I was waiting to pick up my son from karate tonight and switched on a local talk station here in Pittsburgh. During the day I listen to a different station, but Savage was on so I switched to KDKA.
I am in Pittsburgh where it is 3/4 democrats of the steel mill kind. KDKA is famous for having some of the oldest listeners in America. Over and over people said they were staying home or voting McCain. I was shocked.
“my muslim faith”... words that I will NEVER forget.
LLS
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.