A few months ago, AIPAC held its American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference in Washington, DC. Both Barack Obama and John McCain accepted invitations to speak at the conference. Both speeches offer a helpful glimpse into each candidate's stance on Middle East issues, and hence the Middle East policy each one would pursue if elected president. Now more than ever, we need a president that will take an uncompromising "hardline" stance against Islamic terrorist groups, as well as state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria, and Lybia. We also need a president who is not afraid to look Lebanon in the eye and declare that it is completely and utterly acceptable that its government is, in effect, allowing the Hezbollah terrorists to run their country. In much the same way, our new president must make it crystal clear to PLO leader Abbas that there will be no U.S. sponsored peace talks until Abbas uses the full power and resources of the PLO to drive Hamas out of the Gaza Strip (even if it comes down to chasing these thugs into the Mediterranean Sea and making them swim for their lives). With that said, let's look at some highlights of both Obama's and McCain's speeches to the AIPAC conference. It's not difficult to tell which candidtate is sure to take the correct positions on these EXTREMELY crucial foreign policy issues.
We'll start with Barack Obama:
OBAMA: "When I was eleven years old, I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture."
Okay nice start. At least Obama is smart enough to at least give lip service to the struggles of the Jewish people, especially when speaking at an AIPAC conference. Let's now examine the rest of his speech to assess whether he's really learned anything at all.
OBAMA: "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security . . . I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats."
That is HIGHLY debatable. Obama has consistently voted to oppose troop surges in Iraq and even plans as president to begin complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq, regardless of whether the job has been finished. As a result, the United States, Israel's most dependable ally, will appear weak and vulnerable. This is indeed a compromise to Israel's security, as it will embolden its enemies, particularly Iran, who want Israel "wiped off the map."
OBAMA: "As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security . . . We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism."
Okay, now we know that Obama either has no clue, or even worse, is secretly in cahoots with Hamas itself. Hamas is not a legitimate political party, but a morbidly evil terrorist organization. Its leaders hate for the sake of hate, and are always more than willing to commit atrocities even against their fellow Palestinians in order to achieve their objectives. Does Obama actually think that Hamas will EVER "renounce" terrorism? Furthermore, eliminating the threat of Hamas will not be achieved by merely "isolating" them. That is the same mistake the Bush administration made with the Taliban. To put it in terms that might be more familiar to Obama, you can isolate a pig, but it's still a pig!
OBAMA: "The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking."
This is ludicrous. If the Palestinians are truly "committed to cracking down on terror," why have they not shown any effort or willingness to forcefully take back the Gaza Strip from Hamas. Until the Palestinians at least make some attempt to do this, we have no reason to believe that they have any genuine desire for peace whatsoever. The fact that Obama is so easily manipulated regarding this issue is downright frightening.
OBAMA: "Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security- to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements."
That's a very subtle and cogent way of accusing Israel of somehow being responsible for the violence it has suffered all of these years. Obama sounds more like a news anchor for Al-Jazeera than a legitimate U.S. presidential candidate. The whole "consistent with its security" disclaimer is a nice try, but I'm not buying it. Hopefully the people at AIPAC can see right through this little game and understand clearly that what Obama is really implying is that Israel is partly to blame for the cowardly attacks of terrorism it has fallen victim to. He might as well say that the 9/11 attacks were America's own fault for being "culturally insensitive" to Muslims (and I would not at all be surprised if deep down, that's how Obama really does feel). As long as rockets are being indiscriminantly fired at Israel from both Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, Israel is under absolutely no obligation to "ease freedom of movement" or provide economic assistance to supporters of the terrorist groups who attack her. This will not "advance the cause of peace," but rather give terrorists open season on the country they so desperately want to destroy. Could you imagine how offended you would be, as an American, if someone suggested we should make such concessions to those who attack our country? Israel owes no concessions whatsoever to terrorists and their supporters, and for Barack Obama to even imply that such concessions would be in Israel's best interests demonstrates that either he has no knowledge about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or is secretly aligned with Israel's enemies.
OBAMA: "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
That's a wonderful utopian proposal, but as long as there are terrorists in their midst, until the PLO uses its full resources and military might to show they are committed to destroying these terrorists once and for all, there's no way the Palestinians should have their land returned to them and get their own sovereignly recognized "state."
OBAMA: "Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran- it is precisely what has strengthened it."
This clearly shows Obama has no understanding whatsoever of the situation in Iraq, Iran, or any other locale in the Middle East. The man can't even get his facts right. ALL of our troops are in Iraq? Is Obama unaware of our troops stationed in Afghanistan hunting down the Taliban? How about the DMZ on the Korean peninsula? Do those troops not count either?
Talk about a textbook "foot in mouth" moment. Iran has NOT been strengthened. In my previous post, I shared a report in which Iran's own Commerce Director admits that Iran has been significantly weakened by the well-deserved draconian sanctions placed on that nation for its failure to heed multiple directives to abandon its nuclear programs. On the otherhand, Iran will actually be strengthened by premature U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. My position on the war in Iraq has always been that whether or not we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, we DID, and to run away our tails between our legs before achieving victory would greatly embolden Iran. It would imply that even if it takes several years, the U.S. will ultimately "give up" and surrender in the end. Given the fact that we are Israel's greatest ally, and Iran is Israel's greatest enemy, it is very clear that no matter how he attempts to portray himself, Barack Obama is no friend of Israel who has legitimate concern for its security (not surprising because he doesn't even show that much concern for the security of his own country).
OBAMA: "I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing- if, and only if- it can advance the interests of the United States."
Another 100% misnomer. As long as Iran operates as an Islamic theocracy, it will NEVER advance U.S. interests to sit down with its leaders.
OBAMA: (to Iran) "If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will me meaningful incentives- including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure."
IF, IF, IF, IF, IF. Does Barack Obama actually think that Iran would do anything of these things, especially ceasing threats to Israel? Once again, Obama does not understand how evil, dishonest, and manipulatuve that the Iranian regime truly is. If Barack Obama is elected president, Iran would have him in the palm of its hands. This islamofacist regime would LOVE a president who they can easily manipulate into thinking they have abandoned their nuclear ambitions (as Saddam Hussein attempted to do) and that they all of the sudden despise terrorism and love Israel. It's all part of the Arab culture (another thing Obama doesn't get): Lying is perfectly acceptable if its achieves your means, and agreements and promises are invalidated if they don't work for you. This is not a racist stereotype; it is simply the culture in the Arab world. I am sure any of you who have tried to do business with an Arab know exactly what I am talking about. It reminds me of a few years ago, when I stayed two nights in an Arab-owned hotel and they charged my credit card TEN times. In the area where I live, an Arab-owned towing company is facing numerous lawsuits, as well as a criminal investigation, for illegally towing cars and charging owners more than the maximum amount allowed by law to have their cars released. These examples are not isolated incidents, but reminiscent of the "values" of Arab culture. It is downright frightening that we are considering electing a president who would fall for this nonsense and place the national security of the United States, Israel, and the entire free world at risk!
OBAMA: "Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together . . . We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer."
Downright nauseating, to say the least. Obama can't seem to stoop low enough with the propaganda he employs in an attempt to trick the Jews into thinking he is their friend. I'd say it's a pretty bold move for someone who refuses to renounce his ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who many feel, based on sheer anti-semitic rhetoric alone, outperforms even Adolf Hitler himself.
*Excuse me for a moment while I drink about ten bottles of Pepto-Bismol before I move on to my analysis of McCain's comments to AIPAC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment