Harry’s Place

I want to hear from Flanker before I mull any further.

I’ve made a few comments about this at the Commentary blog:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/5151?cp=2

After posing a hypothetical endorsement for McCain by the KKK I got this response:

“Shmuel: Fair question, but there is an answer. McCain has not said or done anything that could be viewed as favorable to the KKK, even though they may decide to endorse him for whatever reason. But Obama has taken positions that could reasonably be seen as favorable to Hamas: Meeting with Iran and quitting the battle in Iraq, to name but two. Thus, in the first there is no plausible link between the candidate’s positions and the endorsement, but in the second, there is a plausible link.”

I think there is some merit to this argument.

Not to mention that Obama’s pastor, friend and inspiration of 20 years gave a political platform to a Hamas representative. The reasons for Hamas’ endorsement *are* Obama’s responsibility.

I’m sure Hamas sincerely does want Obama to win, however I’m not at all convinced that they would benefit at all. In fact, they might do much worse with Obama in office. Its hard to for me to think of this as a “smear” though. Obama could just answer why he think Hamas would prefer him, and why they are wrong for doing so.

Yes, I saw this interview yesterday. But why are Hamas hoping he will win? That tells its own story.

Anyone would think Israel is voting in this election. Perhaps he thought he should lay it on thick due to Wolf Blitzer being a former AIPAC lobbyist.

Meanwhile I note Johann Hari has become the target of attacks for his reporting on Israel.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1299

“I want to hear from Flanker before I mull any further.”

I personally think he is pandering, but it feels dishonest how gunho he is. But I have no hopes for him helping the Palestinian people.

Schmuel: you’re on target.

Obama could just answer why he think Hamas would prefer him, and why they are wrong for doing so.

He probably should, but it’s worth noting that the “endorsement” came from one member of Hamas and not from the organization as a whole. And that member may have no idea of Obama’s position on Israel, and may just assume that as a “person of color,” he would be unsympathetic to Israel. Or he may simply be trying to cause some mischief.

Change.

Change.

If you’re ‘Black’ and can pronounce that word, you are without doubt the august successor to MLK!

Change.

Not only can one draw no conclusions whatsoever from Obama’s choice of church over a two decade period, but even an attempt to do so marks one out as a hopeless reactionary enemy of change and hope. The same is true of his decision to hang out with a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon once and any of the decisions he has ever made. EVER.
Clear?

Gene, how about Jimmy Carter, Hamas’ front man here in the US, saying though his aides that he supports Obama and only keeping quiet because his opening endorsement would hurt Obama? What does Jimmy know about Obama that the rest do not know?

Note: Obama hangs out with a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon back doing the Vietnam War? Cool, Man!
Serious: Most Americans do not know about the Weathermen Underground, etec and even fewer would care.

Gene, how about Jimmy Carter, Hamas’ front man here in the US, saying though his aides that he supports Obama and only keeping quiet because his opening endorsement would hurt Obama? What does Jimmy know about Obama that the rest do not know?

Not much, I suspect.

And really, as much as I can’t stomach Carter these days, it’s not fair to call him “Hamas’ front man.”

I think a better question is why anyone voting in the U.S. should care in the least whether Hamas prefers McCain or Obama, or Mike Gravel for that matter. It’s the same kind of stupidity that you get from John McCain saying that Al Quaeda wants us to leave Iraq so they can declare victory therfore we have to stay. It’s idiotic stuff and no way to make decisions on important matters.

“And really, as much as I can’t stomach Carter these days, it’s not fair to call him “Hamas’ front man.””

Not fair? How ’bout completely bonkers.

The main difference between Carter and Obama is one is a former president, the other is running for president.

Gene: Do you think Obama should permit himself to be photographed with Jimmy Carter?

I’m not a right wing zionist or any sort of anti-zionist, but I’m beginning to think Obama may be particularly fond of telling different groups what they do want to hear (as was the reason that Britain’s Chief Rabbi got into so much hot water when he said one thing to the strictly orthodox and another to the Jewish Chronicle, and then one thing to the Guardian and another to every synagogue he ever spoke in). Not that Obama is quite naive enough not to have realise that eventually, people start comparing notes. But this report does suggest that his choice of advisers is repeatedly in conflict with the views he puts over to the electorate–Jeremiah Wright, Carter and Malley do not seem either accidental or irrelevant….

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece

Well, Judy. As the Good Reverend tells us, Barack Obama is a politician, and a polititician has to go around saying the things a politician has to say.

Barack Obama is a politician, and a polititician has to go around saying the things a politician has to say.

Undoubtedly you’re right. After he wins the election, Obama will strip off his disguise, reveal himself as Yasser Arafat risen from the dead, and laugh maniacally.

Sigh.

Who knows, Gene?

But you’re only as smart as the crowd you run with.

From the Times (U.K.):

“One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council. “

Gene, I was about to agree with you that I had gone too far in calling Carter, Hamas front man, when I happened to come across his article on the Guardian’s comment is free section entitled “A Human Rights Crime: The World must stop standing idle while the people of Gaza are treated with such cruelty.” Find it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/08/israelandthepalestinians (thanks to the raving, ranting foaming at mouth right wingers at Little Green Footballs)

Can we now abandon any idea that Carter is either some sort of dupe or useful fool of Hamas and state unequivacially that he is the front man of an organization dedicated to Israel in which goal he evidently shares?

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.

Well I’m glad Malley is no longer officially one of Obama’s Middle East advisers. But clearly Malley was not among Obama’s more influential advisers. If he was, and assuming Malley is hostile to Israel, wouldn’t Obama have been speaking differently about Israel for the past year? Or do you think Malley was urging Obama to say pro-Israel things until he was elected, and then turn against Israel and take the side of Hamas afterwards?

In 1992, as I got to know Bill Clinton I was struck by the fact that he was so bold about his deceptions. He told small lies when none were needed for his political purposes, and big lies when small ones would do. (Again, for his political purposes.) These judgments about Clinton are now conventional wisdom, but I think any clear-eyed person could have seen them in 1992 — if that person wanted to.

In 2007 and 2008, I have been coming to the conclusion that Obama is a liar on a far grander scale than Clinton. Thomas Sowell had it right, I think, when he said (quoting an anonymous emailer) that Hillary Clinton was a consistent liar, but that Obama’s whole life was a lie.

Most of you will not like that conclusion. And no one should simply take my word for it (even if I was right in 1992). So I urge you to do what I have begun to do and check what he has said about his past. Here is what I have found so far: Whenever a journalist bothers to make such checks, they find discrepancies between what Obama says happened, and what others say happened, and often between what Obama says happened and what the records show.

An example: Obama worked for a small research firm in New York for about a year, Business International Corporation. Here’s what the New York Times found when they compared his account with what others said, and what the records show. Here’s their headline in case you don’t read the whole article: “Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say”. And you could use similar headlines on many other articles about his past.

Or, take a smaller example, his persistent claim that his mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in Kansas. In fact, she grew up in Kansas, Texas, California, and Washington state. And her high school years were spent close to where I live in Washington, under the influence of radical high school teachers. (I said more about this at my own web site.)

I mention this because Gene seems to believe that we should trust what Obama says. On this, I agree with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama says what he says (to political audiences) for political reasons. Wright implied that we should not trust what Obama says.

Gene dismisses that argument sarcastically, but he should not. Instead, he should do the same checks that I have begun to do, before he assures us that we can trust every word that Obama says, on Israel or any other subject.

(And he, and others, might also want to look at the case of Deval Patrick, who was elected governor of Massachusetts in a campaign that has eerie similarities to Obama’s. Governor Patrick has been, to put it mildly, a disappointment to the voters of Massachusetts. Many believed Patrick — and many of those now realize they were wrong to do so.)

As for Obama, it is obvious that he is a better then most politicians at figuring out what an audience wants and then appear to sincerely be in favor of that. He may not be Bill Clinton’s equal in this, but he is getting there. Obama reminds me of tag given to the main charecter, Sydney a master of disguise, in the spy series “Alias”. Obama, like Sydney, can be Anything You Want Him to Be!

And yes, I have to agree that the combination of the wrong Rev. Wright, Vichy Jimmy, and Malley does not look well for Obama. How many coincidences have to happen before we realize that these are not coincidences, but the realities of who Obama is and what his beliefs really are.

Video no longer available.

“Or do you think Malley was urging Obama to say pro-Israel things until he was elected, and then turn against Israel and take the side of Hamas afterwards?”

I seriously don’t know, Gene.

I know that Obama has an awful lot of anti-Israel connections.

Who do you think would be better for Israel during tough times? A foreign policy establishment put there by McCain, or one put there by Obama. I’m not talking about day-to-day platitudes and bromides, Gene. I am talking about the inevitable time when Israel will forced to take radical action for her survival in the face of hostile world opinion.

“Or do you think Malley was urging Obama to say pro-Israel things until he was elected, and then turn against Israel and take the side of Hamas afterwards?”

Based on who he decided to surround himself over the years, I think its at least possible that Obama had a very naive perspective on Middle East politics until very recently.

Jim Miller, thank you for probing into Obama’s record. The more I know about him, the less I like it. I say this reluctantly because in all probability, if he is the democratic nominee, I wll support and vote for him.

About Obama and the American Jewish vote, check out Rosner’s article, “Obama and the Jews: is 61% enough?” at http://www.haaretz.com . Just move down the front page till you see Rosner’s Domain in left most column and click on the article. It should be the first one under that heading.

John McCain’s free ride in the Media may have just ended. Friday’s Washington Post had story on Friday about how McCain engineered a land swap that benefited one of his leading fund raisers. See “McCain Pushed Land Swap That Helps Backer” at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/09/politics/washingtonpost/main4081992.shtml

Any response to what I said in an earlier post about Vichy Jimmy? Does everybody now agree with what I said about him being Hamas’ front man?

Any response to what I said in an earlier post about Vichy Jimmy? Does everybody now agree with what I said about him being Hamas’ front man?

I don’t know what the hell is going on with that guy lately. Something happened between Egypt and Israel which he was a part of. These days though, he’s acting like a complete dick. In fact, he can smell my dick for all I care.

“and assuming Malley is hostile to Israel..”

Well, here’s one of the various articles Malley penned on the Middle East Peace Process:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

This is his conclusion:

“Had there been, in hindsight, a generous Israeli offer? Ask a member of the American team, and an honest answer might be that there was a moving target of ideas, fluctuating impressions of the deal the US could sell to the two sides, a work in progress that reacted (and therefore was vulnerable) to the pressures and persuasion of both. Ask Barak, and he might volunteer that there was no Israeli offer and, besides, Arafat rejected it. Ask Arafat, and the response you might hear is that there was no offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that said, it had better remain on the table.”

What is he talking about? The July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Regards,

Inna

Daily Kos Reacts:

“Barack Obama betrays America by pledging allegiance to Israel”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/10/6710/73110/465/513114

I have no doubts about Obama’s support for Israel. My problem with Obama is that he wants to have a face-to-face meeting the President of Iran. I think that is giving up the store without getting anything in return.

The footage of the of them shaking hands will overwhelm anything Obama says. It will end up giving aid and comfort to Holocaust deniers and antisemites around the world. I know that isn’t Obama’s goal, but it will happen just the same.

Obama advisor Robert Malley is the one who wrote the article in the New York review of Books claiming that Barak and Arafat were both to blame for the failure of the Taba talks and consequently the Oslo process. Though the article was sheer b——, it provided some straws for the always-blame-Israel crowd to clutch at and has since become accepted wisdom for them.

Daily Kos also has a poll asking people if they agree with their “assessment”. 56% say the Daily Kos is nuts, 3% say they support Israel 100%, 11% say I agree on U.S.’s staunch relations with Israel, but criticism of Obama is unwarranted; and 5% say Israel is our most important ally. You ARE an anti-Semite for condemning Israel. So 75% of liberals (Daily Kos is mainly read by liberals) say the Daily Kos’ reaction is plain dumb.

Regards,

Inna

Inna, thanks for your comment. It is reassuring that most liberals still have common sense to reject anti-Israeli slanders and know the difference between warranted and unwarranted criticism of Israel.