<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Two names getting the most discussion are Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and Robert Malley, once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs. These men ring alarm bells for some pro-Israel people who follow Israeli-Palestinian relations. Whether either is anti-Israel as described is a matter of opinion. More important, the Obama campaign claims neither is a formal adviser.</div> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/ He also has other advisers.
Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div> I get it now. "Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place." Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 16 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 17 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.</div> As if that were ever even a remote possibility... And American aid doesn't 'support' Israel, it's the basis of a remarkably lucrative joint program that reaps benefits both in defense and technology. </div> I'm going to choose not to debate Israel anymore. I know that you are Jewish. All I will say is that we have plenty of room in our own country, and that would not have sparked global conflicts otherwise. You can do technology anywhere. Its not like mining for gold. </div> Anti-semitism at the time wasn't restricted to the Nazis. There was plenty to go around here in the good ol' USA. There's no way we'd have taken them in at the time. In fact, we turned 'em away when they came here seeking asylum from the Nazis in the first place. One real choices were to try and do something in Eastern Europe, but there you had the actual holocaust take place. Another was to migrate to Israel/Palestine where there were already hundreds of thousands of Jews and where they were promised a state in the first place (see Balfour Declaration), and where they could govern themselves instead of relying on some government to not turn into something like the Nazi regime. The US barely supported making Israel a state in the first place, and provided little aid until quite recently (last ~25 years, Israel's 60 years old).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div> I get it now. "Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place." Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy. </div> The Obama camp today said they wouldn't talk to Iran without "preparations". It was all over MSNBC. Bush is also the douchebag that made Iran stronger by eliminating their secular Sunni rival. Lol at the tuck comment though, it means nothing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Two names getting the most discussion are Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and Robert Malley, once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs. These men ring alarm bells for some pro-Israel people who follow Israeli-Palestinian relations. Whether either is anti-Israel as described is a matter of opinion. More important, the Obama campaign claims neither is a formal adviser.</div> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/ He also has other advisers. </div> His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 04:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 16 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 17 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.</div> As if that were ever even a remote possibility... And American aid doesn't 'support' Israel, it's the basis of a remarkably lucrative joint program that reaps benefits both in defense and technology. </div> I'm going to choose not to debate Israel anymore. I know that you are Jewish. All I will say is that we have plenty of room in our own country, and that would not have sparked global conflicts otherwise. You can do technology anywhere. Its not like mining for gold. </div> Anti-semitism at the time wasn't restricted to the Nazis. There was plenty to go around here in the good ol' USA. There's no way we'd have taken them in at the time. In fact, we turned 'em away when they came here seeking asylum from the Nazis in the first place. One real choices were to try and do something in Eastern Europe, but there you had the actual holocaust take place. Another was to migrate to Israel/Palestine where there were already hundreds of thousands of Jews and where they were promised a state in the first place (see Balfour Declaration), and where they could govern themselves instead of relying on some government to not turn into something like the Nazi regime. The US barely supported making Israel a state in the first place, and provided little aid until quite recently (last ~25 years, Israel's 60 years old). </div> Truman had to face down a State Department insurrection and the threatened resignation of Marshall to vote for Israel in 1947, and then supported the lopsided embargo that nearly killed Israel before it even arose. Nor was Eastern Europe a real possibility, considering that Jews were still being killed when they were so foolish as to try to get back to their homes...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div> I get it now. "Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place." Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy. </div> The Obama camp today said they wouldn't talk to Iran without "preparations". It was all over MSNBC. Bush is also the douchebag that made Iran stronger by eliminating their secular Sunni rival. Lol at the tuck comment though, it means nothing. </div> Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia was a Sunni-run state.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div> Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific. I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".?</div> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary. While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div> I get it now. "Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place." Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy. </div> The Obama camp today said they wouldn't talk to Iran without "preparations". It was all over MSNBC. Bush is also the douchebag that made Iran stronger by eliminating their secular Sunni rival. Lol at the tuck comment though, it means nothing. </div> Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia was a Sunni-run state. </div> Iran is stronger now because of what happened to Iraq.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div> Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific. I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".�</div> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary. While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html </div> You keep bringing up Brzezinski, not me. And I'm encouraging you to do your own research into the likes of Cirincione. As well, you might want to double check the definition of slanderous before applying it to my comments. I've been extremely careful NOT to detail the substance of my issues with the bulk of Obama's Mid-East advisory team. Nor do I care about those who are or are not his 'advisers on matters nuclear.' That's not what worries me. And Ira Forman is by no means neutral, including in this instance. He's been called to task, in fact, for allegations of 'white-washing' much of Obama's views. The fact that he hasn't jumped on board the Clinton ship is nice though - I'll grant that. I may be very worried by Obama's advisers, but I utterly despise Hillary Clinton - on the basis of her past actions. To put into perspective, had Obama made it clear that someone like Ross was to be his chief adviser (not that I agree entirely with the latter), it would put him light years ahead of Hillary in my book. However, as far as I am aware, Ross does not have a formal title in the Obama campaign. Bringing up Dan Shapiro is interesting. While he's a political wheeler-dealer as much as anyone, Obama's tabbing him was a rather savvy move. In fact, that's the best reason anyone who's pro-Israel has to believe that Obama might not in fact be worse than Hillary "I hugged Suha Arafat after a bombing slaughtered dozens of Jews" Clinton. The funny thing is that a lot of Obama's named foreign policy team are former Bill Clinton people - which is somewhat odd for its own reasons. As far as Israel's location, that's a much more complicated issue than simply saying 'it's in a bad place.' It is where it's always been - and is an issue because there are those in the region who consider any non-Muslim nation there to be a direct affront to their religion. That spans the Sunni/Shia divide, which in turn reflects the old Bedouin saying "I against my brother, My brother and I against my clan, My clan and I against the world" But it's a moot point, even as it was back in the 1940s, when virtually all countries kept their doors closed the the survivors of the Holocaust - not to mention the already-existent Yishuv there already. But there was one good point in the quote you cited. The problem is that there is nothing concrete to go on as far as Obama is concerned - and that makes him open to further question. McCain can point to his voting record, and Hillary can try to point to her occasional pro-Israel speeches to avert people's attention from her decidedly opportunistic anti-Israel pandering whenever that's what suits her needs. But Obama's campaign remains a wild card, with speeches coming from every which way, and a group of advisers that aren't clear in terms of who has his ear. See, what I don't think is clear is the fact that I don't buy into the demonization of Obama that is out there. While some extreme Islamists consider him an apostate to Islam, his early childhood is infinitely less interesting to me than his advisory team. And some of the people doing the pointing are way over the top to begin with. But that doesn't mean that his advisers aren't open to question, especially the likes of Cirincione, Malley (thankfully gone) and so on. While his foreign policy speeches that directly refer to Israel have been much 'better' as of late, they don't always jibe with his overall foreign policy as expounded. If you want a real kicker, if the presidential race had come down between Obama and Huckabee, I wouldn't think twice about voting against Huckabee...
Iran is stronger because all efforts to get them to be good actors on the world stage have been through diplomatic means. But hey, if at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking 'til you do suck seed. Iraq's significance, with respect to Iran, is that if/when Obama orders us to surrender, Iran may well end up being a part of a bloody regional war with Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia getting involved as well. The surrender doesn't seem to be a good way to get leverage, either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div> Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific. I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".�</div> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary. While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html </div> You keep bringing up Brzezinski, not me. And I'm encouraging you to do your own research into the likes of Cirincione. As well, you might want to double check the definition of slanderous before applying it to my comments. I've been extremely careful NOT to detail the substance of my issues with the bulk of Obama's Mid-East advisory team. Nor do I care about those who are or are not his 'advisers on matters nuclear.' That's not what worries me. And Ira Forman is by no means neutral, including in this instance. He's been called to task, in fact, for allegations of 'white-washing' much of Obama's views. The fact that he hasn't jumped on board the Clinton ship is nice though - I'll grant that. I may be very worried by Obama's advisers, but I utterly despise Hillary Clinton - on the basis of her past actions. To put into perspective, had Obama made it clear that someone like Ross was to be his chief adviser (not that I agree entirely with the latter), it would put him light years ahead of Hillary in my book. However, as far as I am aware, Ross does not have a formal title in the Obama campaign. Bringing up Dan Shapiro is interesting. While he's a political wheeler-dealer as much as anyone, Obama's tabbing him was a rather savvy move. In fact, that's the best reason anyone who's pro-Israel has to believe that Obama might not in fact be worse than Hillary "I hugged Suha Arafat after a bombing slaughtered dozens of Jews" Clinton. The funny thing is that a lot of Obama's named foreign policy team are former Bill Clinton people - which is somewhat odd for its own reasons. As far as Israel's location, that's a much more complicated issue than simply saying 'it's in a bad place.' It is where it's always been - and is an issue because there are those in the region who consider any non-Muslim nation there to be a direct affront to their religion. That spans the Sunni/Shia divide, which in turn reflects the old Bedouin saying "I against my brother, My brother and I against my clan, My clan and I against the world" But it's a moot point, even as it was back in the 1940s, when virtually all countries kept their doors closed the the survivors of the Holocaust - not to mention the already-existent Yishuv there already. But there was one good point in the quote you cited. The problem is that there is nothing concrete to go on as far as Obama is concerned - and that makes him open to further question. McCain can point to his voting record, and Hillary can try to point to her occasional pro-Israel speeches to avert people's attention from her decidedly opportunistic anti-Israel pandering whenever that's what suits her needs. But Obama's campaign remains a wild card, with speeches coming from every which way, and a group of advisers that aren't clear in terms of who has his ear. See, what I don't think is clear is the fact that I don't buy into the demonization of Obama that is out there. While some extreme Islamists consider him an apostate to Islam, his early childhood is infinitely less interesting to me than his advisory team. And some of the people doing the pointing are way over the top to begin with. But that doesn't mean that his advisers aren't open to question, especially the likes of Cirincione, Malley (thankfully gone) and so on. While his foreign policy speeches that directly refer to Israel have been much 'better' as of late, they don't always jibe with his overall foreign policy as expounded. If you want a real kicker, if the presidential race had come down between Obama and Huckabee, I wouldn't think twice about voting against Huckabee... </div> Strangely positive of you, seems like I don't have to continue this any longer then. Oregon clinches it for Obama. MVP!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Iran is stronger because all efforts to get them to be good actors on the world stage have been through diplomatic means. But hey, if at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking 'til you do suck seed. Iraq's significance, with respect to Iran, is that if/when Obama orders us to surrender, Iran may well end up being a part of a bloody regional war with Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia getting involved as well. The surrender doesn't seem to be a good way to get leverage, either.</div> IIRC, General Petraeus said the war would take 10-20 years to win, and under some ideal circumstances it sounded. McCain is a terrible panderer on this issue.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div> Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific. I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".�</div> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary. While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html </div> You keep bringing up Brzezinski, not me. And I'm encouraging you to do your own research into the likes of Cirincione. As well, you might want to double check the definition of slanderous before applying it to my comments. I've been extremely careful NOT to detail the substance of my issues with the bulk of Obama's Mid-East advisory team. Nor do I care about those who are or are not his 'advisers on matters nuclear.' That's not what worries me. And Ira Forman is by no means neutral, including in this instance. He's been called to task, in fact, for allegations of 'white-washing' much of Obama's views. The fact that he hasn't jumped on board the Clinton ship is nice though - I'll grant that. I may be very worried by Obama's advisers, but I utterly despise Hillary Clinton - on the basis of her past actions. To put into perspective, had Obama made it clear that someone like Ross was to be his chief adviser (not that I agree entirely with the latter), it would put him light years ahead of Hillary in my book. However, as far as I am aware, Ross does not have a formal title in the Obama campaign. Bringing up Dan Shapiro is interesting. While he's a political wheeler-dealer as much as anyone, Obama's tabbing him was a rather savvy move. In fact, that's the best reason anyone who's pro-Israel has to believe that Obama might not in fact be worse than Hillary "I hugged Suha Arafat after a bombing slaughtered dozens of Jews" Clinton. The funny thing is that a lot of Obama's named foreign policy team are former Bill Clinton people - which is somewhat odd for its own reasons. As far as Israel's location, that's a much more complicated issue than simply saying 'it's in a bad place.' It is where it's always been - and is an issue because there are those in the region who consider any non-Muslim nation there to be a direct affront to their religion. That spans the Sunni/Shia divide, which in turn reflects the old Bedouin saying "I against my brother, My brother and I against my clan, My clan and I against the world" But it's a moot point, even as it was back in the 1940s, when virtually all countries kept their doors closed the the survivors of the Holocaust - not to mention the already-existent Yishuv there already. But there was one good point in the quote you cited. The problem is that there is nothing concrete to go on as far as Obama is concerned - and that makes him open to further question. McCain can point to his voting record, and Hillary can try to point to her occasional pro-Israel speeches to avert people's attention from her decidedly opportunistic anti-Israel pandering whenever that's what suits her needs. But Obama's campaign remains a wild card, with speeches coming from every which way, and a group of advisers that aren't clear in terms of who has his ear. See, what I don't think is clear is the fact that I don't buy into the demonization of Obama that is out there. While some extreme Islamists consider him an apostate to Islam, his early childhood is infinitely less interesting to me than his advisory team. And some of the people doing the pointing are way over the top to begin with. But that doesn't mean that his advisers aren't open to question, especially the likes of Cirincione, Malley (thankfully gone) and so on. While his foreign policy speeches that directly refer to Israel have been much 'better' as of late, they don't always jibe with his overall foreign policy as expounded. If you want a real kicker, if the presidential race had come down between Obama and Huckabee, I wouldn't think twice about voting against Huckabee... </div> Strangely positive of you, seems like I don't have to continue this any longer then. Oregon clinches it for Obama. MVP! </div> I'm neither positive nor negative about any candidate other than Hillary, whom I believe I've established I despise utterly. Otherwise, my analysis gets layered...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div> Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific. I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".�</div> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'> There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary. While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html </div> You keep bringing up Brzezinski, not me. And I'm encouraging you to do your own research into the likes of Cirincione. As well, you might want to double check the definition of slanderous before applying it to my comments. I've been extremely careful NOT to detail the substance of my issues with the bulk of Obama's Mid-East advisory team. Nor do I care about those who are or are not his 'advisers on matters nuclear.' That's not what worries me. And Ira Forman is by no means neutral, including in this instance. He's been called to task, in fact, for allegations of 'white-washing' much of Obama's views. The fact that he hasn't jumped on board the Clinton ship is nice though - I'll grant that. I may be very worried by Obama's advisers, but I utterly despise Hillary Clinton - on the basis of her past actions. To put into perspective, had Obama made it clear that someone like Ross was to be his chief adviser (not that I agree entirely with the latter), it would put him light years ahead of Hillary in my book. However, as far as I am aware, Ross does not have a formal title in the Obama campaign. Bringing up Dan Shapiro is interesting. While he's a political wheeler-dealer as much as anyone, Obama's tabbing him was a rather savvy move. In fact, that's the best reason anyone who's pro-Israel has to believe that Obama might not in fact be worse than Hillary "I hugged Suha Arafat after a bombing slaughtered dozens of Jews" Clinton. The funny thing is that a lot of Obama's named foreign policy team are former Bill Clinton people - which is somewhat odd for its own reasons. As far as Israel's location, that's a much more complicated issue than simply saying 'it's in a bad place.' It is where it's always been - and is an issue because there are those in the region who consider any non-Muslim nation there to be a direct affront to their religion. That spans the Sunni/Shia divide, which in turn reflects the old Bedouin saying "I against my brother, My brother and I against my clan, My clan and I against the world" But it's a moot point, even as it was back in the 1940s, when virtually all countries kept their doors closed the the survivors of the Holocaust - not to mention the already-existent Yishuv there already. But there was one good point in the quote you cited. The problem is that there is nothing concrete to go on as far as Obama is concerned - and that makes him open to further question. McCain can point to his voting record, and Hillary can try to point to her occasional pro-Israel speeches to avert people's attention from her decidedly opportunistic anti-Israel pandering whenever that's what suits her needs. But Obama's campaign remains a wild card, with speeches coming from every which way, and a group of advisers that aren't clear in terms of who has his ear. See, what I don't think is clear is the fact that I don't buy into the demonization of Obama that is out there. While some extreme Islamists consider him an apostate to Islam, his early childhood is infinitely less interesting to me than his advisory team. And some of the people doing the pointing are way over the top to begin with. But that doesn't mean that his advisers aren't open to question, especially the likes of Cirincione, Malley (thankfully gone) and so on. While his foreign policy speeches that directly refer to Israel have been much 'better' as of late, they don't always jibe with his overall foreign policy as expounded. If you want a real kicker, if the presidential race had come down between Obama and Huckabee, I wouldn't think twice about voting against Huckabee... </div> Strangely positive of you, seems like I don't have to continue this any longer then. Oregon clinches it for Obama. MVP! </div> I'm neither positive nor negative about any candidate other than Hillary, whom I believe I've established I despise utterly. Otherwise, my analysis gets layered... </div> Well, a somewhat refreshing statement nonetheless.
^ I believe that the best thing is open, dignified debate and discussion. Though it doesn't appear that the candidates themselves are necessarily able to conduct such...
