July 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — July 16 — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) sent the following letter to President Bush yesterday:
The Honorable George W. Bush
President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for requesting that the Department of State respond to my letter of May 14, 2008 regarding the ongoing crisis in Gaza and Israel.
Your letter states that “it is Hamas’ behavior that is responsible for the current crisis, and any meaningful improvements on the ground will require Hamas to end its attacks against Israel.” This response is very troubling.
The responsibility to care for the civilian population in Gaza is Israel’s, pursuant to the Fourth Geneva Convention (FGC) which defines the protection afforded civilians in times of war and military occupation. Israel’s right to national security indeed affords it the right to take action against Hamas. However that action should not and cannot amount to collective punishment as it does today. The current crisis may be exacerbated, instigated, even perpetuated by Hamas, but the responsibility for beginning and ending the humanitarian crisis is certainly not Hamas’s.
As an occupying power, only Israel has the ability to resume the flow of basic goods and humanitarian supplies into, and out of, the Gaza Strip. To make the resumption of such goods contingent on Hamas’s behavior is to endorse the collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5 million population in contravention of Article 33 of the FGC. Moreover, by supporting Israel’s practice of collective punishment in response to Hamas’s abominable attacks, the U.S. State Department effectively abdicates its diplomatic principles and its role as a “honest broker”.
The Gaza-Israel ceasefire, enacted on June 19, 2008, has done little to mitigate the humanitarian crisis wrought by the Israeli-imposed blockade of Gaza. The United States can and should use its influence to urge Israel to continue to ease restrictions on goods, economic activity and movement into and out of the Gaza Strip.
Additionally, the United States can help to improve conditions in Gaza by supporting United Nations programming. At present, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is able to provide an additional 12,500 jobs in Gaza as part of their sponsorship of The Summer Games. To create these jobs, UNRWA needs an additional $30 million in funding. The U.S. should work with the international community to fill this funding gap.
I look forward to your prompt response regarding the above concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Dennis Kucinich,
George W. Bush,
Israel-Palestine
June 26, 2008
Per FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting):
Talk Show Host Calls for Murder
Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason
WASHINGTON — June 26 — Nationally syndicated conservative radio host Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist on June 10. Reagan, a frequent guest on cable news shows and the son of President Ronald Reagan, singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination.
(Click here to listen to a 3 minute audio clip.)
Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly been sending letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq, advancing the theory that the U.S. government had carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. For promoting this unpopular view, the talkshow host advocated that these activists should be killed as “traitors”:
“We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”
Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual:
“How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”
Reagan subsequently had Dice on his show (6/16/08) as a guest and stated, “I’m sorry for what I said.” As an explanation, Reagan offered, “Sometimes radio hosts we get fired up and angry and we say things that are actually stupid, and we make mistakes.”
Reagan’s “mistakes,” unfortunately, have repeatedly involved advocating murder to his audience. On August 15, 2006, Reagan called for violently killing babies who were reportedly being named for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah:
“Naming their children ‘Hezbollah.’ You know what I’d get ‘em for a first birthday? I’d put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy birthday, baby. Bye bye.”
In response to a caller who pointed out that children are not responsible for the names they are given, Reagan repeatedly asserted, “So what’s wrong with killing the mothers and the babies?”
On December 5, 2005, Reagan said Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean “should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq War.” (Watch clip on the Media Matters website) This was in response to Dean’s statement (WOAI-AM, 12/5/05) that “the idea that we’re going to win this war is just plain wrong.”
Reagan’s distributor, Radio America, also distributes the G. Gordon Liddy Show. Liddy, a former Nixon aide sent to prison for the Watergate break-in, also has a history of calling for violence over the airwaves, repeatedly advocating that listeners shoot federal law enforcement officials in the head. For example, on August 26, 1994, Liddy told his listeners:
“Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests…. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.”
Needless to say, calls for violence against those one disagrees with are dangerous and corrosive to the public discussion. A responsible distributor has rules against such on-air death threats — and consequences when such rules are violated.
ACTION:
Ask Radio America to explain its policies regarding calls for violence on its nationally syndicated programming. Does the company really permit its hosts to call for murder on the air?
Reagan’s show is broadcast on “more than 150 stations,” according to Radio America. If the show broadcasts near where you live, contact the local station management and ask them to stop broadcasting death threats on your local public airwaves.
CONTACT:
Radio America President Jim Roberts
703-302-1000 ext 215.
Email: jroberts@radioamerica.org
Sapph says: Why aren’t these people behind bars? Why are they allowed out on the streets, and on the air? Oh, and, by the way — while this is a minor issue compared to calls for murder, the question is valid: Is there anyone left (looking in Barack Obama’s direction) who still doesn’t understand the need for the Fairness Doctrine?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category: Barack Obama, Hate Speech, Homeland Insecurity, Howard Dean, Israel-Palestine, Media, Press Releases, Radical Religious Right, Republicans, September 11
June 21, 2008
| House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation
WASHINGTON, DC — June 20 — Following a vote in the House of Representatives sanctioning warrantless wiretapping and handing immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at representatives who voted for the unconstitutional legislation. The bill, H.R. 6304, or The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed the chamber by a vote of 293-129, and is expected to be voted on in the Senate next week.
The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office:
“It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.
“No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.
“More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House.”
For more information, go to: www.aclu.org/fisa
To read the ACLU’s letter on H.R. 6304, go to: www.aclu.org/safefree… |
Did you really think I wouldn’t take Obamaniacs — not mere supporters, but Obamaniacs — to the woodshed on this one?
I’m not talking about his AIPAC speech, his endorsement of (and TV ad for) warmongering, Bush-tax-cuts-loving, right-wing Democrat John Barrow, or even the appalling notion that DADT darling Sam Nunn really is on his short list of VP picks — all blogworthy topics, but all of which pale in comparison to Obama’s sell-out on…
…you know what I’m going to say. G’head, say it with me: FISA.
Grab a cold one, sit back, and get comfortable.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA “Compromise”
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance — making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”
So, how ya feelin’, Obama supporters, now that your guy, Mister “Constitutional Lawyer,” has just peed all over the Constitution — or, more acurately, driven a stake through the heart of the Fourth Amendment?
Sorry (no, actually, after the rotten way you’ve treated me and every other non-Obamaite, I’m not sorry at all) to rub salt into your freshly opened wounds, but I told you so: He was bound to disappoint you, in a big, big way. Me, I’m not “disappointed” or at all surprised, because this is exactly the sort of behavior I — and more real Democrats than you want to know about — have expected of him. The signs have always been there. You just stuck your fingers in your ears and went “Lalalalalalala! I can’t hear you! Lalalalalalala!” — that is, when you weren’t channeling the dis-ease of cognitive dissonance into making schoolyard-bully, ad hominem attacks on the people who have been trying to force you to see Obama for what he is: just another slick, old-school politician — and worse, in my book, a gen-u-ine DINO.
| What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by “bipartisanship”
Telling Americans that we have to give up basic constitutional rights — and allow rampant lawbreaking — if we want to save ourselves from “the grave threats we face” sounds awfully familiar. He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. …
Nobody should be fooled by Obama’s vow to work to remove telecom amnesty from this bill. Harry Reid is already acknowledging that this “effort” is likely to fail and is just pure political theater: Reid said: “Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try.” The article continued: “Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to ‘express their views.’”
We should continue to demand that amnesty is removed from the bill — and fight it to the bitter end — but this whole separate vote they’ll have in the Senate on whether to remove amnesty is principally designed to enable Obama, once he votes to enact this bill, to say: “Well, I tried to get immunity out, and when I couldn’t, I decided to support the compromise.” It’s almost certainly the case that Hoyer secured Obama’s support for the bill before unveiling it.
Either way, Obama — if amnesty isn’t removed — is going to vote for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, and his statement today all but sealed the fate of this bill. There is no point in sugarcoating that, though we ought to continue to fight its enactment with a focus on removing amnesty in the Senate.
|
I kept telling you: Obama is no liberal. Obama was never a liberal.
But you let him pull the wool over your eyes. And we are all going to pay for it.
Today, from what I’ve been observing on the pro-Obama blogs and boards, half of you are sick to your stomachs over Obama’s FISA sell-out (and those rational Obama supporters who dare to criticize Teh Chosen One are getting eaten alive by the Obamaniacs; wade through the hysteria at Democratic Underground yourself if you want evidence), while the other half are still in denial, grasping desperately at straws; i.e., “Obama probably knows something we don’t, and he just can’t talk about it publicly right now! This is all part of a big plan that’s for the greater good! We have to trust him!” (And where have you heard that kind of talk before? I’ll tell you: from Bush supporters.)
And then there’s this oft-seen apologist justification: “Obama can’t be seen as soft on terror! Once he gets into the White House, then he’ll roll back FISA, completely! We have to trust him!“
So you’re worried about being seen as “soft on terror,” eh? So the Obamapologists, like the spineless, mealy-mouthed House Democrats who passed this ugly thing, are stuck in the same old groove: always running defense, in the position they allow Republicans to put them in. Some leadership. Some change.
If you can’t hold Mr. Accountability accountable now, do you really believe he’s going to give two shits what you think when he’s the one basking in all that unfettered power he’ll have inherited from Bush? (How’d ya like the juxtaposition between “the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people” and “I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary …”?)
In short, Barack doesn’t want to forfeit all that nice, juicy, limitless power George W. Bush has right now.
I know y’all are sick to death of us gays and our silly little civil-rights “wedge issue,” but damn it anyway, I’ll say it again: Didja notice how Obama didn’t give two shits about what the gay community had to say during the Donnie McClurkin flap? That was a sign — a big sign to those of us on the receiving end of Barack’s blatant F.U. But you wouldn’t sit up and take notice then, because it didn’t impact you. Well, now, this FISA thing impacts everybody. How’s it feel to know Obama doesn’t give a damn about your civil liberties anymore than he does our civil rights?
| The Odd Assity of Hope
I agree with my man Thoreau that telecom immunity is a genuine test of Barack Obama’s bona fides on civil liberties. It’s also a genuine test of the liberal side of any liberal-libertarian fusionism.
I think it’s very possibly a test that Obama has already failed. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass.
|
Really, kids, when are you going to face reality? Obama going back on his word over public campaign financing should have been a big clue of what was to come (namely, something even bigger), but which had little effect on your insistence that Obama is the best thing to come along for democracy since the invention of the printing press. You know what I saw most of the Obamaniacs saying at DU? That public campaign financing was a non-issue. That the American people don’t care about public campaign financing. That the American people are too ignorant to even understand public campaign financing. That the MSM was creating a mountain out of a molehole. That this, too, shall pass.
But you didn’t get it. Whether or not anyone cares about or understands public campaign financing (which plenty of us do), those who don’t do understand the one thing you wish they didn’t: Obama did commit to public campaign financing, and he went back on his word. (I’d quote the headline in Time magazine that says it all, but it’s an AP source; let’s just say it echoes what I wrote two days ago: Obama decided to forgo integrity in favor of cold, hard cash.)
No matter how many months you’ve spent convincing yourselves that those of us who don’t live in ObamaWorld are just a bunch of bitter, old, hormonal morons, that right there should have forced you to realize that we haven’t just been talking out of our butts — and that our very real issues with Obama are just that: issues, and not the manifestion of Hillary worship.
| No Hope Today
“Work to remove” telecom immunity should be rewritten to “maybe show up to vote on some amendment that will surely be struck down and then whimper away.” What a colossal failure of leadership.
Obama earns a Wanker of the Day from Atrios. And it’s well-deserved. I thought he’d issue some vague statement of disapproval and then miss the vote. This endorsement of a X’ing out the Fourth Amendment is waaaay out of bounds.
|
You should have known.
Today, at least, you’re not claiming that Obama’s FISA flip-flop is a non-issue, or that the American people are too apathetic — or stupid — to care about it. You’re upset, angry, and disillusioned. As you should be.
What you shouldn’t be is surprised.
Taylor Marsh (whom you Obama supporters love to hate) nails it:
Not Exactly the Change You were Hoping For
Democrats caved. Speaker Pelosi led the cave in, along with Steny Hoyer and so many others.
Including the Democratic nominee for president, with a teaser. About that telecom immunity he supports giving companies like AT&T, Senator Obama “will work… to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.” …
Not that I’m in the least surprised.
Way to go Democrats! You showed them, er… Way to stand up, um… No caving to fear-mongering from you all…eh… #*@$! Spineless, the lot of them who caved on this just to make sure Republicans couldn’t say they were “soft on terrorism.”
As long as Republicans get to lead top Democrats, including our nominee, around by the nose on national security we will forever be taking a back seat to these Spy Now No Consequences Later Republicans. Pathetic in every sense of the word.
Now we wait for Senator Obama to “work” to remove the immunity so Democrats can “seek” accountability. And when he falls short of the votes what then? I suspect he’ll suck it up like all the rest of these pantywaist “war on terror” toadies. Again, not that I expected anything different from him. But I bet his supporters are having a rude awakening of what they got from this guy right now. It’s been quite a week for Senator Obama: walking away from public financing (good move, which I predicted from the start); now a cave in of all cave ins complete with a weasel word fog of monumental proportions.
Not much change so far. Keep hoping!
So, what is there to do about it? Go ahead, write all the letters you want. Obama knows he’s already got your vote. The party is “married to Obama” now, realized one DU poster (grossing me out with the allusion to the idea of “falling in love with” and “coming to” Obama; one blogger even said she feels “a little jilted. Ick.)
As I tried to impress upon vastleft:
If “you go to the polls with the shitty candidates you have, and not the not-so-shitty candidates you wish you had” — and you keeping voting for those shitty candidates, how the hell do you ever expect to get something better than shitty candidates?
As someone once said to me: “How are we going to hold their feet to fire if they know they’re going to get our votes no matter what they do?”
…Or how loudly we bitch — and then vote for them anyway?
So, gnash your teeth and rend your garments all you want — Obama’s still got your vote (if not your money and time), and he knows it.
Me, I don’t know how to change this. I don’t have an answer. He’s your Golden Child. You know his soul, intimately, in some arcane, otherworldly way the rest of us don’t. You figure out what works.
It’s out of my hands — and has been, from the moment I wasn’t given a choice in the matter of who will best lead us.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Democrats,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
George W. Bush,
Hillary Clinton,
Homeland Insecurity,
Israel-Palestine,
Military/DADT,
Privacy
April 17, 2008
Well, now you know why Obama insists on “reaching out” to rabidly homophobic conservative churches, while refusing to grant a real, no-fluff interview with local gay media.
In Obama’s eyes, it all depends on who’s legitimate, and who’s not.
I keep saying there’s a larger pattern to everything Barack Obama says and does, and — while most people out there really don’t give a rip about our piddly little civil rights struggle — we can begin to see where Obama’s bullheadedness and tunnel vision come from, by looking at the big picture, in this case, Obama’s perspective on one of the most volatile, sensitive areas any U.S. president will ever face… and one in which the wrong decision could kill us all.
(Relax, he’s not president, and he hasn’t decided to nuke Iran or invade Pakistan. Yet.)
Let’s review:
• Barack Obama agrees that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a terrorist organization.
• But Barack Obama is willing to meet — “without precondition” — with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran (as well as with the leaders of “Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea”).
• Barack Obama criticizes former President Jimmy Carter — the guy who brokered the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty — for meeting with Hamas, because “Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
In detail:
April 24, 2007
Obama co-sponsors S.970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, Section 16(d) of which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (a branch of the Islamic Republic of Iran military, of which current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a member, during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war) as a terrorist organization:
(d) List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the efforts of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).
July 23, 2007
At the YouTube debate, in answer to the question, “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” Obama replies:
I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
November 11, 2007
Obama reiterates to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press”:
I have said, unlike Senator Clinton, that I would meet directly with the leadership in Iran. I believe that we have not exhausted the diplomatic efforts that could be required to resolve some of these problems — them developing nuclear weapons, them supporting terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. … That has not been tried. Not only has it not been tried, but reports indicate that it has been explicitly rejected by the Bush administration. That is a policy that I intend to change as president of the United States.
March 3, 2008:
Obama supports George W. Bush’s stubborn refusal to so much as talk to Hamas:
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration’s policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.
The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush’s stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel.
April 16, 2008:
Obama jumps on Jimmy Carter for talking to Hamas:
Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter’s overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.
The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from its “bitter enemies.”
“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”
“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.
Ohhhh! I see now! Obama will meet with the leaders of all sorts of states (even rogue states, like North Korea), because they’re states, and Hamas is not a state.
In Obama’s eyes, one is legitimate, and the other is not.
Never mind that Iran’s “Ahmadinejad has clearly stated his intent to annihilate the State of Israel and also provides generous funding, advanced training, equipment, weapons and other support to Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations that attack Israeli citizens daily.”
Don’t even whisper that, or you might send Barry into an unstoppable fit of the ums and uhs and y’knows that always tumble out of his mouth when he’s caught off-guard, and off-script.
Nope, never mind that Iran is a sworn enemy of the State of Israel — one of its “bitter enemies” Obama has an “unshakable commitment” to help protect it from — and yet he wants to have a coffee klatch with that punk Ahmadinejad? But… Never mind that. Right, Barry? Barry…?
And never mind that Obama insisted, while talking to a group of Jewish voters in Pennsylvania:
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”
Barry might go absolutely catatonic if he has to explain why it’s a bad thing to “negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” while it’s a good thing to negotiate with a terrorist state intent on Israel’s destruction.
It’s not a black-and-white issue, not a one’s-a-state-and-the-other’s-not proposition. Unfortunately — and very unfortunately for the rest of us, should he actually get into the White House (shudder) — Barry doesn’t do “shades of gray” very well at all.
As Matt Schofield at the KC Star put it:
But isn’t Obama all about getting to the table with these people [Hamas], no matter how distasteful? We can be as offended as we like by the tactics of Hamas. But they’ve got a very real, and very political backing in the Palestinian territories. True, they are not a state actor. But it is hard to imagine a lasting peace agreement that ignores them. they simply have too much support in the region.
It’s not a one-off situaiton [sic], either: A study out this week notes that Nasrallah, the head of Lebanese Hezbollah, is the most respected Arab leader on Earth at this moment. Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far apart, and are frequently linked, at least by Israel. Can the continuing Israel/Hezbollah animosity be solved without the invovlement of Hezbollah? No.
I’m not saying they’re not both terrorist groups. From our perspective, and Israel’s perspective, certainly they are. Now, does this mean that Obama as a US president should sit down with them? No. Not sure that should be done.
But should he necessarily be critical of a former president who does? …
As Obama has noted, diplomacy can insist on an American leader sitting down with folks seen as strong enemies of the US. That is no reason not to meet with them. In fact, it’s an argument for why we should meet with them. …
[I]n a sense, Carter’s meeting serves this country, and the region. It’s a way to get to the table with people we can’t really otherwise talk with.
But if that’s not the case, if meeting with such folks is simply wrong, bad, and betrayal of trust, then isn’t Obama’s whole view of diplomacy a bit naive?
Easy answer: No — it’s a lot naïve.
I tell you, folks, if Barry — in all his naïveté, in all his black-and-white thinking — ends up being the one with his finger on the button, we’d all better start thinking about building bomb shelters in our backyards.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Asia,
Barack Obama,
George W. Bush,
Iran,
Israel-Palestine
September 22, 2007
Wayne Besen on Crazies For Christ:
The Washington Post had a fascinating series last weekend discussing the rise of a movement representing “nonbelievers.” The trend is worldwide, but is also taking root in America, one of the most religious western nations. As radical fundamentalism has spiraled out of control, many people are standing up and loudly declaring that there is simply too much God permeating our society.
According to the Post, the Atheist Alliance International’s membership has almost doubled in the past year to 5,200. Its membership is mushrooming to the point where its national convention in Crystal City later this month has a 500-person waiting list.
. . .
The surge in political atheism is clearly a reaction to the utter obnoxiousness of today’s fundamentalists. No matter what the religion, these fanatics have made it clear that they have a God-given right to rule the earth and subjugate anyone who does not sing from the same hymn sheet.
The Middle East, of course, is the manifestation of such sectarian madness. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks God wants his country to have a nuclear bomb. This may lead to George W. Bush, who has his own messiah complex, to bomb Tehran. In Saudi Arabia, the government lops off peoples’ heads if they are deemed to have pissed off Allah (homosexuals make the list). In Iraq, it seems everyone is tuned into the God channel and speaks on his behalf. In Israel, meanwhile, ultra-orthodox Jews believe that God has given the “chosen people” all of the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. But, Palestinian fanatics swear that Allah intends for Muslims to eradicate Israel. With so much God, peace doesn’t stand a prayer.
. . .
This week, our homegrown fundamentalists took center stage with two creepy events in Florida, an important swing state. On Tuesday, they hosted the “Values Voter Presidential Debate,” where lunatics were allowed 24-hour leave from the asylum to ask presidential also-rans their plans to bring our nation back to the Stone Age. …
. . .
The second event is the Family Impact Summit, a three-day hate-a-palooza in a Tampa suburb where a throng of right wing ideologues will mix with “ex-gay” leaders to plot how to take control of America. To counter the event, Equality Florida will hold a press conference and a rally outside the church where the Summit is being held. …
While the fundamentalists fulminate in Tampa, the Post article mentioned one statistic that should worry them. While six percent of people over sixty have no faith in God, one in four adults ages 18-22 have no such faith. I believe this number will only grow as long as “Crazies for Christ” whose main value is vindictiveness represent”God’s people.”
With lots of reader comments at the link.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Atheism/Agnosticism,
Florida,
George W. Bush,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel-Palestine,
Middle East,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality,
Saudi Arabia
September 11, 2007
Despite intense pressure from ultra-Orthodox religious parties Israel’s Justice Minister has backed down on a plan to define common-law marriage as between “a man and a woman” in a new bill on inheritance rights.
Earlier this month it was disclosed that Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann had revised the draft bill to specifically exclude gay and lesbian couples.
The original draft was gender neutral and approved by the cabinet. Friedman changed it following a meeting with the ultra-Orthodox Shas party.
Marriage under Israeli law is the monopoly of rabbis. There is no civil marriage in Israel. But cohabitating opposite-sex couples are regarded as in a common-law marriage with many of the rights of married couples.
Friedman’s revision ignored the recommendations of a government commission that recommended partners in same-sex relationships have the same rights to inheritance as married couples when one partner dies without a will.
The change in the wording of the bill angered LGBT civil rights groups fighting for recognition in Israel.
See also:
AG: State will back gays’ rights to property even if Knesset won’t
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Israel-Palestine,
Judaism,
Marriage Equality,
Radical Religious Right
September 9, 2007
If they’re so strong in their convictions, why are they hiding their faces?
From AFP:
JERUSALEM - Israeli police announced on Sunday the arrest of a gang of alleged neo-Nazis, all immigrants from the former Soviet Union, accused of waging attacks on foreigners and religious Jews, in a case that has deeply shocked the Jewish state.
The eight men, aged 16 to 21 and including the suspected leader of the group, were arrested after a year-long investigation, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP.
. . .
The youths are suspected of carrying out “attacks on religious Jews, Asians and foreigners” and having contacts with neo-Nazi groups abroad, Rosenfeld said.
. . .
The arrests deeply shocked the Jewish state, where memory of the World War II Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis runs deep.
. . .
Some members of parliament called for amendments to Israel’s Law of Return under which the youths immigrated, while Trade and Industry Minister Eli Yishai said convicted neo-Nazis should be stripped of their citizenship and deported.
“We have to rid ourselves of this Satan who lives in the heart of Israel,” he told public radio.
Discuss this story
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Hate Crimes,
Israel-Palestine
April 17, 2003
For proof of what I was saying about having to speak in “hushed tones”…
14 April 2003
State Department Daily Briefing Transcript
(Iraq, Syria, United Nations, Venezuela, North Korea, NATO) (8880)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
BRIEFER: Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
QUESTION: So the question back in the Middle East raised by the people, naïve as it may sound, is that while Syria is being now demanded to stop developing weapons of mass destruction, the Israelis do stockpile weapons of mass destruction. It’s no secret. The administration is silent on that. How can you address that point?
MR. REEKER: I just don’t want to go down again one of these back and forth things. We have addressed the issues that we have about Syria, the concerns we have. As I said, much of this is stuff that is longstanding. And if you go back and look at the things we have said in reports, the things we have said in briefings, the things we said during travel, these are issues of concern to us and we will continue to address those with Syria.
It’s obviously high on our list of bilateral issues, and there are other countries that would be concerned about this, too. So the Secretary has been quite clear and the President has too, that this is an opportunity for Syria to think seriously about how it wants to relate with the region, with the United States, and with others in the international community, and where they want to direct their resources and their own aspirations for the region and for their own country. And that’s what we will continue to do in terms of that regard.
Yes.
QUESTION: Are you not concerned about Israel’s nuclear weapons?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have anything today for you, Jonathan, about alleged nuclear weapons –
QUESTION: You just don’t want to say anything about it? Is that right?
MR. REEKER: - or anything else.
QUESTION: Okay. Why are you not concerned by Israel’s nuclear weapons?
MR. REEKER: Jonathan, this is just not a discussion about Israel. You are asking me questions about Syria –
QUESTION: We’re talking about the Middle East.
MR. REEKER: And then you can –
QUESTION: Israel is a neighbor of Syria. They are enemies. Do you understand that? I mean, of course it’s relevant.
MR. REEKER: Jonathan, do you want to come do a briefing?
QUESTION: It’s relevant. I mean, do you think it’s irrelevant? Okay. Do you think it’s relevant to the –
MR. REEKER: Jonathan.
QUESTION: - to the case of Syria, that one of its neighbors has nuclear weapons or not?
MR. REEKER: I have been asked about our discussions and concerns with Syria. That’s what we have been addressing. You have turned this, you know, all the way around about something about, you know, what have we raised with Syria.
And I have directed you to what the Secretary has said, what the President has said, and what we we’ll continue to discuss in our relationship with Syria. That is separate from any other discussions about other countries or any other topics. That is what we will continue to look at with regard to Syria, and you can laugh and grin all you want. That’s the issue here. And does anybody else have a question on the same subject, or shall we move on?
http://usinfo.state.gov/…
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Israel-Palestine
April 16, 2003
I didn’t think I could find any humor in the tragedy of Iraqi looting — I’ve been in deep mourning for the loss of the Code of Hammurabi, among countless other treasures — and then out comes this little gem of comic relief: Those nasty looters may have burned up all the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Looks to me like Koach Karl sent in Condi “Let’s Play Dumb” Rice to set up the shot, so Ari Fleischer (one anagram of which is “A Rich Serf Lie” — or “Re: Chief’s Liar,” if you prefer) can spike it into next week.
Meanwhile, it was easier finding Laci Petersen than it’s going to be, in Tommy Franks’ estimation, to find the very WMD we sold Iraq in the first place.
Gee, ya think Iraq might’ve actually been cooperating with U.N. inspectors? No? Oh, then, obviously, they hid everything in Syria, which is why we’re going to go after them next (in spite of the fact that Syria is inarguably a more formidable adversary than Iraq).
Well, if that’s true, then how come those silly Syrians have just proposed the complete elimination of all WMD throughout the entire Middle East?
I’ll tell you why (you knew I would): On the surface, a person might think it’s because Syria’s got nothing to hide. And until somebody with a modicum of credibility can prove they do or not, we’re not going to concern ourselves just yet with the “Do they or don’t they?” question. (The short answer: Most likely, they do.)
The real reason, in my not-so-humble opinion, is that Syria just delivered a good, hard whack the Bush administration didn’t see coming. And it was a clever move indeed.
This comes on the heels of Israel suddenly chiming in on the Syria situation. At the request of the U.S., Israel sat back and said nothing (and, presumably, did nothing) during the Iraq invasion. But now, with Bush & Co. ramping up the threat-o-meter on its next pre-emptive target, the time is ripe for Israel to make its own demands on Syria, in spades — and it’s going to use its old ally, the U.S., to deliver the list.
I can hear the conversation: “Just hold your horses ’til we’re done with Iraq, Ariel — I promise, it’ll be worth it.” “Very well — I’ll bide my time… but I’ll get those Syrians — and the Hezbollah, too!”
And then Syria throws a monkey wrench in the works.
Don’tcha see? If Syria gets the rest of its neighbors to agree to give up or destroy any existing WMD, then how could the U.S. possibly justify the exemption of Syria’s old nemesis — and the U.S.’s old buddy — Israel from such a treaty?
Israel is the one Middle East nation the U.S. stands by, do or die, no matter what they’ve got, or how they use it. The U.S. has a long history of overlooking any naughtiness on Israel’s part, and Dubya fawns over that scary Ariel Sharon like a bobby-soxer at a Frank Sinatra concert.
I have a few of my own ideas about the reasons the U.S. damns Palestinian suicide bombers while continuing to overlook Israel’s actions against Palestinians, but I’m not going to touch on any of them. Israel is, for lack of a better term, a sacred cow. Say one word against it, and suddenly everybody’s branding you an anti-Semite. Which is a pile of reactionary crap; untold millions of people disagree with the cowboy tactics of one George W. Bush, but are no more anti-American than Audie Murphy.
I don’t expect my ultra-conservative, right-wing Christian readers to be able to digest that; maybe it will help if I draw this example: I love Canadians, I’ve always loved Canadians, and I always will love Canadians. But that doesn’t change the fact that I couldn’t find one damned thing to like about Brian Mulroney. And just because I didn’t like Brian Mulroney doesn’t change the fact that I love Canadians. Make more sense? No? I didn’t think so.
How’s this: I think revisionism is as great an evil as the Holocaust itself. But centuries-long persecution of any people is no reason to excuse the current policies of any group — or government — so closely identified with that people. (Or, for another example: I can recite a litany of the most horrific crimes against gay people, but I’ll go to my grave believing Rich Tafel is a traitor — and a misguided idiot. And that doesn’t exactly make me a homophobe. You still don’t get it, do you? Oh, well, I give up. Let the name-calling begin.)
Anyway, back to Israel: Americans must speak in hushed tones about the potential threat of Israel’s “alleged” nuclear arsenal. You see, if Israel admits it has nukes, then the U.S. has to impose sanctions on them. And if they don’t admit it, then they should have no problem allowing U.N. inspectors in to confirm that Israel is a nuke-free zone.
Problem is, the evidence of Israel’s nuclear capability is overwhelming — or at least a far cry better than the “evidence” against Iraq.
But we’re not supposed to talk about that. Consider it the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of international relations.
Or, as Voice of America put it a few years ago: “Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability is such a sensitive issue that the Clinton Administration doesn’t want to talk about it — at least not on the record. But privately, one official agreed with the Egyptian view, saying it’s going to be very hard down the road to overlook Israel’s nuclear potential if the world wants to keep countries like Iraq under sanctions for trying to go nuclear as well.”
So what happens if everybody in the Mideast agrees to give up their nukes and mustard gas and all those other nasty WMD? Will Israel be the lone hold-out? Probably. So where will that leave the U.S.?
I’ll tell you where (you knew I would): in one hell of an uncomfortable position indeed. If the U.S.’s justification of the day for the war of the week is the elimination of WMD, then the U.S. has got to come down as hard on Israel as it has Iraq, and now Syria (and tomorrow, Iran).
Do you think we’ll do it? Me neither.
In any case, it was sure a cagey move by Syria.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Condoleezza Rice,
George W. Bush,
Iraq,
Israel-Palestine,
Karl Rove,
Middle East,
Misc. Bush Lackeys
