 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
« A**easing the A**easers |
Blog Home Page
| What Went Wrong With Hillary's Campaign? »
May 16, 2008 Obama Thinks Hamas, Hezb'allah Have Legiimate GrievancesIn an interview with New York Times columnist David Brooks , Barack Obama was asked about the statement he released regarding the situation in Lebanon. Specifically this statement was in issue: all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately. It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. This statement was met with criticism for flying in the face of reality, for having a surreal air about it especially when that air was already filled with smoke from the ravages of Hezbollah attacks against the Lebanese government and the Sunni and Christian communities. His solutions seemed more akin to suggestions offered in civics and good government courses rather than geopolitcal and strategy courses. Brooks gave him an opportunity to undo some of the political damage (amazing how the media always allows Barack Obama to have makeovers when his statements cause him political problems) by expanding on his previously issued statement. He stated that Hezbollah is not a legitimate political party (despite holding seats in the Lebanese Parliament-a fact that he does not acknowledge) and offered further commentary through Brooks: I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services." One wishes that Barack Obama had gone further and articulated what aims he feels Hezbollah and Hamas hold that he considers legitimate? What legitimate goals does Hamas have? They were given Gaza and the chance existed for them to develop the land and help their people. Instead they turned it into a terror base: killing opponents, killing Christians, brainwashign their children to hate, launching thousands of missiles into Israel. Having been given Gaza what additional aims would Senator Obama consider legitimate? The release of terrorists from Israeli jails, the movement of millions of Palestinians into Israel, the destruction of Israel, the killing of Jews and Christians around the world? Both organizations were founded and have as their principal aim the destruction of Israel. Their charters-especially so in the case of Hamas-talk about the killing of Jews and Christians around the world. They are fiercely anti-American and filled with religious extremism. Are those legitimate aims? After all, appeasers in Europe-particularly in England-justified their approaches towards Adolf Hitler by agreeing that he also had legitimate claims (on territorial and World War One reparations). By granting credibility to these terror groups-and to at least some of their aims-does he enhance their status , power and obduracy going forward? Those are questions one wishes David Brooks had asked. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
Comments
I wouldn't vote for Obama to coach little league. This man is dangerous!
Posted by: Bernard Pieper | May 16, 2008 11:48 AM
I don't know what scares me more! The ignorance that Obama shows toward geo-politics, or the people in this great country that would actually vote for him.
Be afraid!! Be very afraid!!!
Posted by: Jimmi Hayden | May 16, 2008 12:27 PM
Obama is dangerous, yes, but examine WHY this is so. It is because he embraces an extremist philosophy, is demonstrably THE most liberal-left member of Congress, and contrary to his false assertions, has an agenda that, if implemented, would set back not only our culture and way of life but advance those of very dangerous groups like La Raza, the ACLU and others like them.
Posted by: Ed Schneider | May 16, 2008 12:44 PM
The downside of his being a "visionary" is that he'll govern ideas rather than people or institutions. People like that don't learn from experience.... e.g. pseudoconservative George Bush!!
Posted by: Bill | May 16, 2008 01:26 PM
The comments are great. I agree Obama is unqualified and a threat to ourcountry.
I remember Chamberlain! M.L.
Posted by: marion lach | May 16, 2008 05:04 PM
I think Jimmi (above post) hit on something very important, maybe without realizing it: That so many would cast a vote for such radical socialists as Barack and Hillary is, I think, the single most important problem facing this country today!
Posted by: Ed Hoppe | May 16, 2008 07:03 PM
I could hardly believe my eyes reading Brooks column. Obama actually suggested arming the Lebanese Army to hold Hezbollah in check. Are they both unaware that half the Lebanese Army IS Hezbollah? Obama is more dangerous than Osama. He advocates fighting a fire by pouring gasoline on it. It would seem Obama is showing his experience - as a community organizer in Chicago. This man is unfit for government, never mind trust the security of this country in his hands. Experimentation is for the college lab - not for the White House and the idiots who endorse him are as dangerous as he is.
Posted by: FRS | May 17, 2008 12:23 AM
Obama refuses to go Fox news ,yet he will set down with the terrorist.
How does this make since ?
Have any of the people who are voting for him ever considered that the terrorist lie?and blend in with everyone else ...did you ever think that maybe obama is not so honest so that he can get into be the president.
Also what is wrong so wrong with our wonderful country that it need to change?there are alot of very bad places and America is not one of them ,
Posted by: Diane | May 17, 2008 03:10 AM
Hitler loved European diplomacy. Winston Churchill, instead of giving back to England a rightful - I told you so - considered himself a failure for not doing more to convince his country of Hitler's ultimate goals. England tried appeasement through diplomacy and all this ended up doing was buying more time for Hitler to build up his forces. Mullah's in Iran are the lead dog in all of this & using the same strategy. Buying time for developing the bomb, therefore letting us repeat the same mistake. What's to "negotiate" with any of these people until they back down from their goal of killing the Jews? - NOTHING!! My prediction - as soon as it's seen by Israel, Obama's got the presidency locked up - boom goes Iran. Democrats demagoguery of how their talk of withdrawing our forces led the Iraqi government to step up will turn out be true towards Israel. They're the country who ultimately can't afford Obama to be elected.
Posted by: Ciscokid | May 17, 2008 09:49 AM
Ed has hit it spot on once again. Behind the facade of charisma and youth is a truly dangerous candidate with dangerous ideas and dangerous friends.
Posted by: Dick Weltz | May 17, 2008 09:52 AM
The popularity of this guy is the result of 30 years of a Socialist pubic education system that doesn't teach true American history or heros. No wonder the electorate can't distinquish ineptness from competence. They've never been taught the great lesson of history and to think for themselves.
Posted by: Sammy | May 17, 2008 09:55 AM
Sammy couldnt have said it better theres nothing worst than a college prof waiting for the gov to give him a raise because he or she knows they are as far as they will go without a gov handout because they choose to be losers
Posted by: paul | May 23, 2008 01:19 AM