Count Me Out: The Obama Craze by Matt Gonzalez

[DharmaBum]

[QUOTE=spook;1723620]
The One Candidate Worth Our Vote
Nader the Best Antidote to American Imperialism

By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON

We want to express our strong support for Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy.

Secondly, Obama has taken an extremely immoral stand on the Palestinian-Israeli issue by, among other positions, actually applauding Israel's siege and starvation of 1.5 million innocent Gazans, and by mourning Israel's losses to Palestinian rocket fire (12 people in seven years) without bothering even to mention the approximately 2,600 Gazans killed by Israeli rocket fire, airstrikes, and assassinations in those same seven years. He made one reference last year to Palestinian suffering, was immediately dumped on by Jewish leaders, and has since said nothing honest about the occupation -- not even expressing support for the two-state solution.[QUOTE]

Some statements are just too easy to debunk. I went to Obama's website and found this in about 30 seconds.

"Work towards Two States Living Side by Side in Peace and Security: Barack Obama believes in working towards a two-state solution, with both states living side by side in peace and security. Obama is a cosponsor of
the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006....."

There's more, but you'll have to do your own research.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Nader/Gonzalez = Political hacks.

Nader is obsessed with being in the limelight and Gonzalez is riding his coat tails to get in the limelight.

People supporting them in this election = delusional

[spook]

There's more, but you'll have to do your own research.

there's more? let's see it. perhaps the christisons were referring to legitimate support of a sovereign, democratically-elected palestinian government, which we already know is off the table in the u.s. i see no concern for the second state in the so-called two-state solution other than they stop trying to stop being slaughtered.

only the most naive--or perhaps, pro-israel--would accept a website statement endorsing a two-state solution without delving into what he actually means by that (or what has ever been meant by that in the u.s. political class) or what he has said, which, typically, is nothing less than total support of israel and the complete responsibility for any solution on the palestinians.

do you have any idea what the palestinian anti-terrorism act entailed? do you have any idea what is going on in the region?

while you're looking it up, perhaps you can check out what israel did in lebanon in 2006. you might also consider examining how democratic the "only established democracy" in the middle east actually is.
.....

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2007

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period."

Israel is "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," Obama said, assuring his audience that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." Such advanced multi-billion dollar systems he asserted, would help Israel "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Obama offered not a single word of criticism of Israel, of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians.
...While constantly emphasizing his concern about the threat Israelis face from Palestinians, Obama said nothing about the exponentially more lethal threat Israelis present to Palestinians. In 2006, according to B'Tselem, Israeli occupation forces killed 660 Palestinians of whom 141 were children -- triple the death toll for 2005. In the same period, 23 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, half the number of 2005 (by contrast, 500 Israelis die each year in road accidents).
....
There was absolutely nothing in Obama's speech that deviated from the hardline consensus underpinning US policy in the region. Echoing the sort of exaggeration and alarmism that got the United States into the Iraq war, he called Iran "one of the greatest threats to the United States, to Israel, and world peace." While advocating "tough" diplomacy with Iran he confirmed that "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." He opposed a Palestinian unity government between Hamas and Fatah and insisted "we must maintain the isolation of Hamas" until it meets the Quartet's one-sided conditions. He said Hizbullah, which represents millions of Lebanon's disenfranchised and excluded, "threatened the fledgling movement for democracy" and blamed it for "engulf[ing] that entire nation in violence and conflict."
...

A Song Only Obama Hears, A Vision Only Obama Sees
The Presidential Candidate’s Visit To A Remote Palestinian Village Leads Him To Some Strange And Inaccurate Conclusions

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...m?ItemID=12401

The reality is that the village of Fassuta [3] is not an integrated community as Senator Obama claims, but one that is comprised almost solely of Melkite Christian, Palestinian Arabs.
...
The government of Israel views its Palestinian population as second class citizens at best, and officially sanctioned discrimination against its minority communities is openly acknowledged.
....
Obama’s speech conflates both discussions with equal measures of falsehoods and flights of fancy.

Mr. Obama is often depicted as a politician who can communicate a message of hope to his listeners. But a message of false hope is destructive and shows a disregard for the suffering of the victims. I do not know what Mr. Obama wanted to communicate to his listeners at AIPAC. However, what he communicated to those who are knowledgeable about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is that he is not at this time prepared to seriously discuss Middle Eastern policy.

......
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
AIPAC Policy Forum
March 2, 2007
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_fo/
...
The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction.

The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
...

Obama and Israel
http://www.nysun.com/article/69154
And Mr. Obama rejected the idea, put forth by Israel's false friends, that America does Israel any favors by exerting pressure in the name of peace. "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States," Mr. Obama said. "When I am president, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel," Mr. Obama told the National Jewish Democratic Council in February of 2007.

"Those who have worked with me in Chicago in the state Legislature and now in the United States Senate will testify that I have not just talked the talk, I have walked the walk when it comes to Israel's security. I think it is fundamental. I think it is something that is in the interests of the United States because of our special relationship, because Israel has not only established a democracy in the region but has been a stalwart ally of ours," Mr. Obama said to the NJDC. "The United States government and an Obama Presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security."
...

The Problem with Barack Obama's Israel Pose
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10683

Sen. Barack Obama isn't quite sure how he feels about the lopsided situation between Israel and Palestine. Less than two weeks after Obama gloated to AIPAC about his love for Israel, he unexpectedly admitted the truth while campaigning in Iowa recently. "[N]obody is suffering more than the Palestinian people..." said Obama, "the Israeli government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart..." The truth hurts indeed, and Obama has been feeling the wrath of the pro-Israel activists since his statement last week.

Nonetheless, Obama shouldn't be trusted on the issue. While Rep. Dennis Kucinich hired avid pro-Palestine advocate Noura Erakat to sit on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Obama has been backpedaling – assuring AIPAC and others that he is unwavering in his support for Israel's continued bullying of Iran and occupation of Palestine.
....
So while Obama admits that Palestinians suffer more than Israelis, he still won't do a damn thing to balance out the asymmetrical relationship. In fact, Obama has made it clear that U.S. taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for Israel's ever-growing arsenal of weapons and missiles if he is indeed elected president in 2008.

In Obama's March 2 speech, he even had the audacity to declare that "we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end."

If Obama is truly interested in invoking U.N. Resolutions to prop up his case for a military assault on Iran, we may as well note the some 65 Resolutions the senator has blatantly ignored that condemn Israel's actions – past and present – including Resolution 242 which calls for the withdraw of "Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" during the Six-Day War of 1967.

Sen. Obama, despite his acknowledgment of Palestinian suffering, has little to offer those who recognize that lasting peace in the Middle East will only begin when the U.S. radically alters its relationship with Israel. Continued funding of Israel's illegal occupation won't end the violence – it'll only continue it.

.....
Obama Rebuffs Challenges on Israel Stance
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3887752.shtml

Asked by moderator Tim Russert what he could do to reassure Jewish Americans, Obama cited his belief that Israel's security is "sacrosanct."

[spook]

since i'm trying to pad my post count to get to 1000, here's another worthless nugget for you:

Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/2...i_war_rhetoric

Now, I’ve looked very carefully at both of their Iraq plans, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lifted much of their Iraq plans from two sources. One is the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, and then the other is the 2007 Iraq supplemental, which was portrayed as the Democrats’ withdrawal plan. And both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a three-pronged approach to what they see as a longer-term presence in Iraq. They say that US personnel are going to remain in the country to protect diplomats and other US officials in the country. And we’ve already talked a bit about that with Obama. Hillary Clinton appears to be taking the same approach on that. Number two is that they want to keep trainers in place that will train the Iraqi military. At present, there’s 10,000 to 20,000 US trainers, all of whom will require security, so that’s a substantial force. And then the third is that they’re saying that they want to keep a force in place to, quote, “strike at al-Qaeda,” in the words of Barack Obama’s Iraq plan.

When the Institute for Policy Studies did an analysis of what this would mean, they said it’s 20,000 to 60,000 troops, not including contractors. And right now we have a one-to-one ratio with contractors and troops in the country. 20,000 to 60,000 troops indefinitely in Iraq, this is something that over the course of ten years the Congressional Budget Office says could cost half-a-trillion dollars. This doesn’t include the fact that you have to have troops bringing supplies in and out of Iraq. It doesn’t include the troops that Obama and Clinton are going to keep in Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and elsewhere. I mean, this is actually a pretty sustained indefinite occupation that’s going to be on the table if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are in office and take power.

And I mean, you know, the reality is that now would be the time for people to raise these issues, and yet no one is talking about this. It’s “Oh, yeah, Barack Obama is going to withdraw troops from Iraq.” Well, not exactly. He’s actually looking at keeping a pretty sizeable deployment. The other thing about them is they’re both calling for an increase in the number of troops in the permanent US military. In the case of Obama—and Juan, you’ve brought this up recently on the show—in the case of Obama, he says 90,000 new troops. Well, that’s going to be a $15 billion increase in military funding just for those troops to be in the United States, not including their deployment.

The other thing is that Obama is saying he wants to increase the US occupation of Afghanistan by 7,000 troops. What’s interesting is that we see Hillary Clinton, in her Iraq rhetoric, trying to move to the left; Obama, I think, now feeling that he’s going to be facing John McCain, is moving to the right. I mean, his rhetoric talking about striking at al-Qaeda in Iraq, yes, he pointed out the irony of McCain criticizing him for that because there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded, but Obama is sort of adopting their language now. And in his plan, the idea of striking at al-Qaeda in Iraq, I mean, who is al-Qaeda in Iraq? I mean, what—the Iraqi resistance is largely Iraqis who are attacking US troops. And so, Obama is—he’s sort of positioning himself for this debate to make himself seem tough against John McCain.

[AlpineJunkie]

Secondly, Obama has taken an extremely immoral stand on the Palestinian-Israeli issue

Yeah, Isrealis are the immoral ones

[rideit]

since i'm trying to pad my post count to get to 1000.

Hey, when you hit 1000, can you pleeeze change your avatar?

I'll pay for the new one.

[spook]

Yeah, Isrealis are the immoral ones

if you're done being such an astonishingly simplistic nimrod, you might enjoy these stats.


Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d9d...2!OpenDocument

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

and, of course, these are just a shell of the actual suffering inflicted by the israelis on the palestinians. i wonder what you would do under similar circumstances. good thing for those vague interpretations of the second amendment, eh? give me liberty or give me death, eh?

[spook]

Hey, when you hit 1000, can you pleeeze change your avatar?

I'll pay for the new one.

i bet you'd be happier if i just quit posting at 999.

but if i decide to sell, you'll be the first one i call.

[AlpineJunkie]

and, of course, these are just a shell of the actual suffering inflicted by the israelis on the palestinians.

Extent of suffering is the definition of who is moral? Geez I guess all those guys suffering life in prison are the real victims in this world

[spook]

Extent of suffering is the definition of who is moral? Geez I guess all those guys suffering life in prison are the real victims in this world

i get it. you're one of those righteous types. i did say "inflicted", though i'm not sure that is necessary. but unintentionally equating the palestinian territories with a prison isn't a bad analogy, so you get half a gold star for that.

and yes, there are a good number of people in prison who have been victimized by the justice system and then are victimized in prison. but don't look too hard for the large amounts of documentation supporting those ideas. i don't want your head to explode. especially when you realize you're paying for it with your tax dollars. i know how much that hurts the righteous.

why can't god just punish the wicked?

p.s. if you keep rolling your eyes they might get stuck that way.

[AlpineJunkie]

equating the palestinian territories with a prison isn't a bad analogy

Most prisoners are in prison for a reason so I am glad you concede that they are in fact offenders

[Jer]

i get it. you're one of those righteous types. i did say "inflicted", though i'm not sure that is necessary. but unintentionally equating the palestinian territories with a prison isn't a bad analogy, so you get half a gold star for that.

and yes, there are a good number of people in prison who have been victimized by the justice system and then are victimized in prison. but don't look too hard for the large amounts of documentation supporting those ideas. i don't want your head to explode. especially when you realize you're paying for it with your tax dollars. i know how much that hurts the righteous.

why can't god just punish the wicked?

p.s. if you keep rolling your eyes they might get stuck that way.

Click 'em

[spook]

Some statements are just too easy to debunk. I went to Obama's website and found this in about 30 seconds.

"Work towards Two States Living Side by Side in Peace and Security: Barack Obama believes in working towards a two-state solution, with both states living side by side in peace and security. Obama is a cosponsor of
the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006....."

There's more, but you'll have to do your own research.

apologies for beating a dead horse, but i found it interesting that there is no mention of the "two-state solution" on the main section of obama's stance on israel, which is at the very bottom of his page on foreign policy and which also mentions his strong support for israel's slaughter of nearly 1000 lebanese civilians (roughly a 20:1 ratio to israeli civilians) in 2006 under the guise of self-defense (without mentioning the slaughter, of course, or the realities of that conflict).

in fact, to get his stance on the "two-state solution" you have to open the factsheet pdf, where you will find it half way through page 2.

powerful stance on such a hotbed issue. nice research you did, too. you had to dig for that. funny how none of it sounds like change at all.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

On Israel

* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
* (PDF)Read the full Israel Fact Sheet

[spook]

Most prisoners are in prison for a reason so I am glad you concede that they are in fact offenders

i only gave you half a gold star, because you were only inadvertently describing the nature of the territories, not the occupants. if you'd care to enlighten me about the offenses committed by the palestinian people, i'd love to hear them.

[AlpineJunkie]

if you'd care to enlighten me about the offenses committed by the palestinian people, i'd love to hear them.

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...Bomb_in_Israel

Need more or do thousands of pieces of bloody body parts of dozens of women and children not count as offenses in your liberal ideaology? Perhaps they are just misguided mistakes?

[Cono Este]

There is no two state solution because Arafart rejected basically 90% of what he asked for.

[spook]

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/11...Bomb_in_Israel

Need more or do thousands of pieces of bloody body parts of dozens of women and children not count as offenses in your liberal ideaology? Perhaps they are just misguided mistakes?

not at all. i would expect nothing else in resistance to campaign of genocide. you can't possibly expect people to stand there and get slaughtered in a pen, can you?

and before you get TOO righteous, you might want to start looking at those same kinds of pictures that are caused by a) the IDF in the palestinian territories, lebanon, etc., or b) the u.s. military in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX

and while you're at it, don't forget the pictures of the aftermath of depleted uranium.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdub...ml#DUBABIESPIX

and who can forget abu ghraib?

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqabu...l#ABUGHRAIBPIX

it's not even close. not the firepower and not the numbers. so you're being quite selective about your moral outrage.

[Nanuq]

Most prisoners are in prison for a reason so I am glad you concede that they are in fact offenders

In the USA? Hardly. We are now the number 1 nation in THE WORLD for incarcerated citiz3ens. Yeah, America Fuck Yeah, we're number 1.

Alpine, you are a real idiot. A true idiot actually. We have a little over 1 in 100 citizens in jail or prison, and do you know what percentage is in there for petty NON VIOLENT drug offenses? SEVENTY FUCKING PERCENT ASSHOLE. Oh yes, you are right, most are in there for a reason. That reason is the number one fastest growing "business" in this country is the for profit detention cneter busines...I.E. PRIVATE PRISONS. Do you need me to connect the dots for you now?

Alpine, everytime you write somthing you just make retards look like Oxford Grads.

[Nanuq]

i only gave you half a gold star, because you were only inadvertently describing the nature of the territories, not the occupants. if you'd care to enlighten me about the offenses committed by the palestinian people, i'd love to hear them.

Hey spook,

I like what you have to say, but the Palestinians aren't exactly blameless in all this.

[Cono Este]

AN ALPINE JUNKIE AND SPOOKER FACE OFF

make this a sticky

[Nanuq]

And for Alpine, the photo wiz...Yes, Americans would NEVER exploit children for their own cause would they...







Ahhh, but wait, this is TOTALLY different right? 'Cause, like, we're the GOOD guys, right?

Alpine = Asswipe

[Nanuq]

not at all. i would expect nothing else in resistance to campaign of genocide. you can't possibly expect people to stand there and get slaughtered in a pen, can you?

and before you get TOO righteous, you might want to start looking at those same kinds of pictures that are caused by a) the IDF in the palestinian territories, lebanon, etc., or b) the u.s. military in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, etc., etc., etc.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX

and while you're at it, don't forget the pictures of the aftermath of depleted uranium.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdub...ml#DUBABIESPIX

and who can forget abu ghraib?

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqabu...l#ABUGHRAIBPIX

it's not even close. not the firepower and not the numbers. so you're being quite selective about your moral outrage.

Truth be told spook, I am not sure Alpine even knows how to read. I think he gets his "news" from the pretty moving pictures at Fox "Pravda" News and from Rush Limbaugh. That said, Alpine has shown great aptitude at regurgitating his party line pablum. And why wouldn't ya, you don't have to THINK that way, or confront things which are uncomfortable but real.

People like Alpine are responsible for the moral decay and degradation of what used to be a great country. Now they are the true problem. Talk about your axis of evil.

[Cono Este]

[spook]

Hey spook,

I like what you have to say, but the Palestinians aren't exactly blameless in all this.

i'm not suggesting that they are "blameless." i am suggesting that they are doing what any people would do faced with the same situation. they are not armed or financed with billions of dollars from the u.s. they do not have u.n. resolutions condemning their activities routinely vetoed by the u.s. they do not dominate u.s. foreign policy. they are in no way fighting in a fight between equals. to suggest that they are more responsible--or even equally responsible--for the situation than the israeli and u.s. governments is insane. (and i'm not saying you're saying that).

[AlpineJunkie]

i am suggesting that they are doing what any people would do faced with the same situation.

This is what you'd do? Damn dude you are either a really fucked up terrible father or you are going to be a real fucked up terrible father.



Although Spook I don't think admitting that you'd turn your baby into a bomb to blow up women and children since 'hey that's what anyone would do' is really all that much worse then Nanuq comparing that to this...



And btw, it wasn't %90 of what Palestian wanted that Isreal offered, it was %98.3. Which was turned down by Palestian because that didn't include the slaughter of the Isreali people and complete destruction of the country which is their openly stated ultimate goal. But I suppose Isreal is immoral for not offerring to committ mass suicide uh?