[papertyger]

First, please forgive my terse responses. FReeping on a phone will do that.

Your summation of my thesis is accurate.

Please restate your alternative hypothesis as I don’t understand the statement.

As to Obama’s motivations vis’a vis’ Israel, I see regarding him as a quasi-muslim, with all the atavistic antagonism that entails, as having sufficient explanatory power for his actions thus far; bearing in mind he still has to maintain his “cult of personality.”

All that being said, I regard Obama primarily a Maoist with a domestic “cultural revolution” at the top of his agenda, all other considerations being secondary.

[nathanbedford]

I think your example of chairman Mao is brilliant. He was even more of a social engineer than Stalin and he was also a supreme narcissist which is the one element I would add to your analysis of Obama. His narcissism uses his communism as the go to rationale to sustain itself.

Incidentally, I have been posting for years on these threads that this narcissism means Obama is potentially not a pacifist in the style of Jimmy Carter but potentially someone who can commit us to war to sustain his own narcissism rather than pursuit of legitimate national interests. In other words, we should not mistake the character of Barack Obama, he can be very, very dangerous.

The alternative hypothesis:

For decades in America politicians appealed to the Irish vote by twisting the British lion's tail, I think much the same has obviously transpired in American politics. When that happens it's analogous to government running a business, profit is not the motive and everything goes awry. If the politicians are pandering to an ethnic group concerning foreign policy you can bet the national interests of the country become secondary.