Are there legitimate reasons to criticize what is perceived as extreme left foreign policy. The supporting of a gaggle of twisted ideologies and Islamic fundamentalists heck bent for leather as the Gipper would say? Is there good reason to explain the level of hostility from many jews towards Obama? After all, Obama has been an Arab killer to an even greater degree than his predecessors, somehow concealed by the high moral ground he has taken to cultivating, albeit artificially while attempting to wax and buff the image of “progressive.” If he’s booted out, maybe he can follow Carter and build homes for all the Muslim abodes, mainly humble, he has destroyed.
But would Obama, as Romney alleges, throw Israel under a bus? Some pundits, such as Charles Krauthammer , although highly predictable, have fear-mongered that Obama’s second term will probably see Israel is pressured and boxed as never before by a U.S. administration, meaning stonewalling and navel pontificating on Iran and charming and gracious receptions for the newly minted middle-class aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood, and select presentables from the Free Syrain Army. Its just that dash of “Che” to appeal to the romantic something wilds. With regard to Obama, its been called his “flexibility doctrine.”
Noam Chomsky: Obama is a man of absolutely no principles. He has two constituencies. One of them is the popular constituency, the people who voted for him. For them he is doing essentially nothing. He has another constituency: the people who financed his campaign, the financial institutions. And they are getting rewarded. Obama came in the middle of the financial crisis so the first issue was what to do with the economic crisis? Well, he put together an economic team to deal with it but take a look at them. The business press went through the appointments and pointed out that these people should be getting subpoenas and should not be fixing the economy. They are the people who wrecked it. Read More:http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hottopics/msg0222135213515.html?36
But there is a long history of America dictating to Israel what to do. The strings attached included LBJ tellin then P.M. Levi Eshkol not to go to war. After getting smacked, or worse, the jew should turn the other cheek as well. What would the outcome have been if Eshkol wimped to the President? Ultimately Israel has to do what’s best for itself. American interests are too wide ranging to incorporate something, to many, as purely abstract and insignificant within the broader spectrum of their shot, medium, and long term objectives. The Arab world will never like America, maybe something in the DNA, the betrayals, and the bald self-interest…
(see link at end)…The United States has reduced the size of a joint military exercise with Israel that was originally billed as being of unprecedented size, TIME Magazine reported Friday, citing “well-placed sources in both countries.” The reduction, although officially attributed to budgetary restrictions, was put into the context of Washington’s opposition to a military attack on Iran’s nuclear program….
The report quoted a senior Israeli military official speculating, “Basically what the Americans are saying is, ‘We don’t trust you.’”…
The annual exercise, Austere Challenge 12, was originally slated to include some 5,000 US troops, according to TIME.
tead, the United States will send anywhere between 1,200 and 1,500 troops, TIME reported.
Washington will still send the Patriot missile defense systems it planned to provide, but the crews that man them will not arrive, TIME reported. Whereas two Aegis ballistic missile defense ships were slated to arrive for the drill, only one is currently expected.
The drill, called Austere Challenge 12, was initially scheduled for April but was surprisingly postponed by Israel in January under a variety of budgetary and logistical claims….
The Defense Ministry admitted at the time that Defense Minister Ehud Barak was behind the decision to cancel the drill. This led to speculation that Israel was either planning on attacking Iran in the spring and therefore did not want US troops in the country or wanted to cause the US to think that it was planning an attack to get the administration to escalate sanctions.
The current reduction, US military sources told TIME, was made in full coordination with Israel.
Not specifically referring to the exercise, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey said Thursday that he did not want to be “complicit” if Israel chose to strike Iran’s nuclear program, positing that a premature attack would dissolve the international pressure on the Islamic Republic, The Guardian reported.
Speaking to journalists in London, Dempsey said an attack would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” but added that the “international coalition” pressuring Iran “could be undone if it was attacked prematurely.”
“I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it,” he added.
Earlier this year, while discussing Austere Challenge 12, Dempsey said, “We rescheduled it for October-November time frame,” adding, “I really don’t know what the final decision was, but it is our expectation that that’s when the event will occur.”
In April, the US’s EUCOM spokesman Capt. John Ross said that Austere Challenge was being held “in the context of a long-standing strategic partnership” with Israel and was part of a routine training cycle designed to improve cooperation. It was not in response to current events, such as the Iranian nuclear threat, he said. Read More:http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?ID=283399
(see link at end)…Regarding the Obama administration’s constant killing of Muslims in numerous countries, Chomsky said that “it’s almost as if they’re consciously trying to increase the threat” (last week, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief warned that Obama’s drone strikes in Yemen risk converting Yemeni domestic militants into “dedicated enemies of the west“). What’s most remarkable, Chomsky said, is how little debate is stirred by these constant acts of lawless violence compared to the controversy created by the less lethal Bush policies (though see the prior paragraph for why that is: “President Obama has progressivism in his heart and that makes all the difference in the world”).Read More:http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/chomsky_on_obama/
…(see link at end)…“He (Awlaki) was killed. The guy next to him was killed. Shortly after, his son was killed. Now, there was a little talk about the fact that he was an American citizen: you shouldn’t just murder American citizens.” Chomsky commented.
“But, you know, the New York Times headline, for example, when he was killed, said something like ‘West celebrates death of radical cleric,” he continued.
“First of all, it wasn’t death, it was murder. And the West celebrates the murder of a suspect. He’s a suspect, after all. There was something done almost 800 years ago called the Magna Carta, which is the foundation of Anglo-American law, that says that no one shall be subjected to a violation of rights without due process of law and a fair and speedy trial. It doesn’t say, if you think somebody’s a suspect, you should kill them,” Chomsky stressed. Read More:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/commie-noam-chomsky-bush-tortured-obama-murders-video/
(see link at end)…Maybe so. Then again, it isn’t often that this or any other U.S. president welcomes a foreign leader by sandbagging him with an adversarial policy speech a day before the visit. Remember when the Dalai Lama visited Mr. Obama last year? As a courtesy to Beijing, the president made sure to have the Tibetan spiritual leader exit by the door where the White House trash was piled up. And that was 11 months before Hu Jintao’s state visit to the U.S.
When this president wants to make a show of his exquisite diplomatic sensitivity—burgers with Medvedev, bows to Abdullah, New Year’s greetings to the mullahs—he knows how. And when he wants to show his contempt, he knows how, too.
The contempt was again on display Sunday, when Mr. Obama spoke to the Aipac policy conference in Washington. The speech was stocked with the perennial bromides about U.S.-Israeli friendship, which brought an anxious crowd to its feet a few times. As for the rest, it was a thin tissue of falsehoods, rhetorical legerdemain, telling omissions and self-contradictions. Read More:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341212934894494.html