By Ted Belman
Obama is on record of wanting to reduce the US defense budget. McCain is on record of wanting to increase it. Considering the growing threat emanating from Russia, Iran, Venezuela and possibly China which is the better policy.
Obama is on record of wanting to engage Iran in talks. He ignores that Iran has been engaged for years by various of our allies and even by low level Americans to no avail. McCain is against doing so. I would ask Obama what he intends to offer Iran to get them to become peaceful. Perhaps Iraq, perhaps Lebanon, perhaps Israel. what?
Obama is on record of intending to work for a nuclear free world? Is this doable or wise? What American would want to get rid of all its nuclear weapons.
Obama suggests that by engaging Iran he could get them to abandon their pursuit of Nuclear weapons. Dollars to doughnuts he would offer them a nuclear free Israel. What friend of Israel would force Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal.
Obama is on record of wanting to stay vigorously engaged in the peace process but also suggests that he wouldn’t force Israel to make concessions. Who would buy that bridge. If Israel refuses to make further concessions there is no peace process to engage in. Obama would never force the Palestinians to make the necessary concessions to achieve a deal. One must conclude that to stay vigourously engaged is to force Israel to make concessions. On the other hand McCain recently said he would not stay engaged.
Obama is on record of supporting the greenline as the border with minor adjustments. If Israel refuses to accept such borders then what would Obama do? Stay engaged?
Obama has called the settlements an “obstacle to peace”. Biden is on record of threatening to withhold aid to Israel to force it to abandon the settlements. Of course they would oppose settlements and checkpoints.
Guess what? Lashon Harah doesn’t apply. Try to figure out why. Multiple correct answers. Fun quiz for the entire family!
As for what you claim to seek and claim to be best for us Jews, we’ve discussed this over the last few weeks. No thanks.
Those who know me, rather than those who desperately engage in a campaign of disinformation, lashon hara, know I seek what is best for the United States and Israel. Why does that disturb you?
Chuck Baldwin is best for the United States and Israel.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin is no friend-in-need of Israel. Read carefully and draw the conclusions:
RON PAUL’S ISRAEL PROBLEM
To get an idea of the kind of crap that supports Baldwin (and why), read:
America Wins, Israel Loses: Chuck Baldwin over Alan Keyes in Constitution Party Presidential Sweepstakes
Know your enemy, David Hoover (a.k.a., David ben Ariel) included.
Hear presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin explain why everybody who loves the United States and Israel should vote for him:
“I also share Ron Paul’s concerns for the way the two major parties have allowed the United States to become a meddlesome, interventionist, nation-building empire for the sake of satisfying the greedy machinations of international bankers and power-hungry politicians. I will not only bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also from most of the other 130 nations that currently house U.S. forces. I will end foreign aid. I will get the U.S. out of NATO. It is past time for the European states to defend themselves. It is time for us to stop sticking our nose in every other nation’s business and start taking care of the United States. The Warfare State will kill us. Global empires are not sustainable. I repeat: global empires are not sustainable. If history teaches anything, it teaches that.” – Thank you, Dr. Ron Paul
Have you forgotten Tweedle Power?
I agree with you, Bill, concerning the implications of the candidates’ stances on defense spending. McCain also has a more urgent and practical plan toward achieving energy independence for the US (which would free us from entanglements with the Arabs).
Concerning “friendship with Israel”, I don’t think many Jews are swayed by statements of politicians during an election year. Sarah has called Israel the “good guys”, which is really remarkable in contrast to today’s culture of political correctness and doublespeak.
All told, McCain looks like a much better bet for being helpful to Israel. If Obama gets elected, I expect to see more of the same: Twewdle George, Tweedle Bubba, Tweedle other George, Tweedle Schultz, Tweedle Kissinger, etc. Now, if the Israelis themselves get their act together, maybe we can expect good things — regardless of who is in the White House.
Well now, in the VP debate Palin said that she supports the State Department’s suicidal concessions for Israel and is glad that she and Biden both love Israel.
From McCain’s words, it seems he, more then Obama sees Israel’s well being, security and strength as an integral part of America’s overall foreing or Middle Eastern and anti-Islamist/Terrorism policies geared to advancing America’s own best interests both in the foreign domain and domestically.
Ted, from what you and others have stated and what I have managed to discern myself, it seems that while Obama speaks of supporting Israel, given the meaning or lack thereof of his parsed words and the prior views of those foreign policy advisers he has been relying upon, he really sees Israel as more of a liability to America. To put it another way, I believe that that for so long as there is no peace between Palestinians and Israelis, Obama sees Israel to be a stumbling block to America being able to advance her interests in the Middle East.
If I had a vote it would be with McCain. Nonetheless, with each passing day it seems more likely that Obama will be the next President.
Given that, I hope Israel has its elections soon and the next leader, while hoping for the best, has time to plan for the worst which would plan would be how to react to and resist Obama’s efforts to force suicidal concessions on Israel or to take any step vis a vis Iran or any other nation, which would translate into giving something to them by taking it away from Israel or the Jews.