Generally Speaking - Obama Supporters Fudge the Truth

You just can't trust these lefties to tell the truth. Having watched the technically well made video, one is left with the impression that all security and military people in the Israeli military and intelligence have strong positive feelings for Obama. While some actually do, others do not. Not one contrary voice is heard on this video. Indeed some of them seem to have a positive impression of Obama, basically because Obama endorses no pre-condition talks with Iran.

Yossi Alpher, appearing in the video and tagged as a "former Mossad senior officer" (but the Jewish Council for Education & Research failed to associate Alpher with one of his other jobs, that of Senior Advisor to Ehud Barak at Camp David [where Barak tried to give away most of Yosh to Arafat who chose not to end the conflict]) appears in the video endorsing Obama as a negotiator and reinforces one of the themes of the video that Sen. McCain is essentially a second President Bush and that would no longer be helpful.

More interesting is the assertion by Ret. Brig. Gen. Shaul Arieli in the video that the "Bush Doctrine" has intensified the fundamentalist Islamic threat and has strengthened Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Arieli is interviewed in the JPOST article and endorses Obama. Arieli is a member of the "Council for Peace and Security" which includes in its Guiding Principles these gems:

PEACE IS ACHIEVED BY COMPROMISE Peace and a strong army are the essential ingredients for Israel’s security. The army must at all cost retain its deterrent ability. It should however be borne in mind that peace is not achievable without compromise and willingness to make sacrifices.

THE OCCUPATION IS CAUSING DAMAGE Continued occupation of the Territories and control over the Palestinians is damaging the democratic character of the State of Israel. It is weakening the army, undermining its ability and its preparedness to respond to military threats.

A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT The establishment of a Palestinian State in the major part of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip – with necessary security provisions – does not constitute a threat to Israel. On the contrary, it is essential in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. A realistic permanent boundary between Israel and a Palestinian State should be that of the Green Line (Israel’s provisional border before the Six Day War in 1967), with certain adjustments in Jerusalem and in other places. The large Jewish settled domains on the eastern side of the Green Line should be annexed to Israel.

I suppose giving away Gaza and offering to give away Yosh has had nothing to do with strengthening the more visible anti-Israel forces amongst the Pali population vis a vis the terrorists in suits. It is much easier to blame the American president than take responsibility for advocating failed policies which have brought increased bloodshed and rocket attacks. More of the same policies will leave a devastated Israel in its wake. A PA terrorist state will certainly NOT enhance Israel's security in any way.

Essentially, this video was constructed to be an Obama outreach to Jews and people close to Israel, made by lefties advocating the Obama way as the most effective method to preserve Israel's security. To what extent the Obama campaign assisted in its creation or advised the producers remains to be seen. That misleading and deceptive editing was needed to sell the message is something well worth noting. I wonder though if any of those appearing in the video actually are thinking that an inexperienced and naive Obama will be easier to manage from Jerusalem than someone else?

I also wonder what some of the desire for "change" in US policy is all about. The Bush administration has, more than any previous Presidency supported the Palis politically all the while, not backing down in support for Israel in the issues that matter. The Bush administration has publically called for a Pali state which was a game changing event. At the same time, the pretense of having free elections and at least some lip service to a commitment to "living in peace" with Israel by the PA has insulated the Bush team and prevented the forcing of any significant concessions. Bush even sat quietly while watching Arafat rot in the Muqata. The Bush policy has certainly helped reveal a pali population that actually is more concerned with bringing on Jewish suffering than they are establishing a civil government by giving them a vote. Sen. 'say it ain't so' Joe Biden, speaking for the Obama camp during his VP debate with Governor Palin believed removing the veil of concealment covering the true intentions of the Pali population to be a negative.

---

Ex-generals misled by pro-Obama video - Jpost
Ex-generals misled by pro-Obama video

Oct. 6, 2008
Matt Zalen and Shani Rosenfelder , THE JERUSALEM POST
A video released by the Jewish Council for Education & Research, which appeared to show several retired senior IDF and Mossad officials supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has proven to be misleading, with a number of officials who appeared in the video saying on Monday that their words were taken out of context.

The film's producers have stressed in response that the Obama campaign was not involved during any stage of the production.

"It's not only misleading, it was an interview about what the next president was going to have to deal with," former deputy chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan told The Jerusalem Post. "And to know that they used this interview and took five seconds, and put me in a list of people praising Barack Obama…

"It wasn't about the campaign, it was about the political and security issues of the Middle East that the next president should be involved in," he continued. "Nothing was said about Obama or [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain."

"I don't want other people to interfere in my elections, and I must not interfere with the elections in the United States," he said, adding that to do so would be neither "ethical nor smart."

In the video, the senior Israeli officials appear to support Obama's stated policy that dialogue with Iran would be the best way of confronting the current nuclear crisis. Dayan said that his position is just the opposite.

"I don't think that we - either the United States or Israel - should be engaged with Iran, because the Iranians will take advantage of that," the former deputy chief of staff said. "Our issue is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability."

"We need more powerful, effective sanctions to delegitimize [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," he continued. "A military option should be prepared, but used only as a last resort."

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who appeared in the video praising the Democratic candidate, also said that he was misled.

"I was interviewed for a documentary dealing with what issues the new American president must deal with regarding the Middle East," Halevy told the Post. "I was asked about the candidates, and was complimentary to both."

But when asked about his opinion on who was more qualified to be president, Halevy said that he had rejected the question.

"I said that I thought it was inappropriate for an Israeli to advise Americans on who they should vote for, as it would be for them to advise Israelis on who they should vote for prime minister," he said.

Halevy added that it would be irresponsible to comment on the positions of any US presidential candidates before an election, as those positions may change once the new president takes office.

Both Halevy and Dayan said that representatives of the Jewish Council for Education & Research had been in contact with them, and promised to deal with the matter.

According to Israel Radio, Maj.-Gen. (Ret.) Amram Mitzna and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Giora Inbar, a former IDF commander in south Lebanon, both said that they were also unaware of the true nature of the video. However, Inbar said he did not have a problem with the clip because it represents his views.

In the video, Mitzna had said that another four years of indecision, stagnancy and a lack of intense US involvement in the Middle East peace process would be bad for Israel. He claimed Obama would achieve a greater involvement and that he "brings many hopes."

For his part, Inbar was filmed saying that he would personally vote for Obama to help Israel. Inbar said he was not convinced that the Bush method was the right way to deal with the axis of evil and that he would welcome anyone who chose to handle it differently.

Revised Films, the independent film company that produced the clip, issued the following response:

"Our firm is an independent company that created a clip that was composed of interviews with senior Israeli security officials, and whose subject was the American policy regarding Israel, in light of the upcoming elections in the United States, while focusing on the two central candidates for president, and Barack Obama.

"The Obama campaign was not involved during any stage of the production, or [the film's] distribution. After the film was completed, the Jewish Council for Education & Research, took charge of the film and used it."

A response by The Jewish Council for Education & Research has yet to be obtained due to the time difference between Israel and the US.


Retired Generals of the Israeli Defense Forces and high-ranking Mossad officials on Barack Obama... from www.JCER.info on Vimeo.

Ahmadenijad, Hillary and Democrats

It seems according to this story running on Arutz Sheva, that silly politics has become more important than defending Israel.

Since the anti-Ahmadinejad at the UN rally has become a political affair, it should be cancelled. If Jews cannot even get together and use what ever means possible to protest the terrorist from Teheran, and in Elul nonetheless, it is better not to even try.

This failure to even schedule speakers, (yes all who can help should come, Hillary as well as Gov. Palin) is embarrasing. Iran and all islamic facist terrorists are strengthened by our divisions and dis-unity.

And, thanks democrat-liberal Jews for finally admitting that your political agenda comes before the well-being of your brethren in Israel. And to the democrats in general, thanks for your whole hearted support of the Jewish people. The parted curtains reveal a petty political organization of easily offended operatives who hold by “my way or the highway”. I call upon the democrat party to send a high level representative to NY, (if the event is not cancelled) possibly even one of the two candidates on their presidential ticket and I call upon the organizers to re-invite Sarah Palin. Don’t force the conclusion upon the world that you only care about Israel and the Jews when it is politically convenient to do so.

Iran and the madman must be stopped but more importantly, the unification of the Jews must begin. The first goal cannot be met until the second goal is achieved.

I remember attending the big Soviet Jewry rally in DC in the late 80's. Politicians from across the spectrum spoke and to my knowledge, no one was axed due to party affiliation. HaShem should have mercy on his people.

The Israeli - US Attack on Iran

Officials: Israeli jets flying over Iraqi territory in preparation for strike on Iran - Ynet

Sources in Iraq's Defense Ministry say for past month Israel using American bases to conduct overflights as part of rehearsal for possible bombing or Iranian nuclear facilities

Roee Nahmias Published: 07.11.08, 11:54 / Israel News

Israeli fighter jets have been flying over Iraqi territory for over a month in preparation for potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network Friday, adding that the aircraft have been landing in American bases following the overflights.

Word of Israel's alleged Air Force maneuvers in Iraq has reached Iran. The sources said the US has boosted security in and around the bases used by Israel during the exercises.

According to the Defense Ministry officials, retired Iraqi army officers in the Al Anbar district reported that fighter jets have been regularly entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan and landing at the airport near Haditha.

The sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases it would take them no more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr.

American officials said recently that more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.

---

The IAF using American airbases in Iraq to prepare for an attack on Iran? For anyone who doubts that the relationship between Israel and the US is strong, this story should put an end to such doubt. Given the combination of a strategic relationship with a common threat, the report appears highly credible. Why would the US allow an IAF attack to originate from bases in Iraq, a country which still is not very fond of Israelis and will be placed in harm's way during an Iranian retaliation to occur unless the need is great and the relationship tight? The clear advantage for Israel in the closer range is sortie time and turn around time taking considerable pressure of the pilots.

The likely results of an Israeli attack on Iran would be a missile strike response on American positions in Iraq along with a medium range missile attack on Israel. How effective the missile defense systems will be in limiting the damage remains an uncertainty. While I am not an expert in missile systems, I would welcome feedback from readers to the question, would US anti-missile systems be capable of launching against Iranian missiles targeted against Israel (presumably over-flying Iraqi airspace? I might speculate yes. And, moving the launch point to Iraq possibly draws fire away from Israel, a calculation most likely responded to by the Iranians this week with their declaration that an Israeli attack will be met with missiles fired at Tel Aviv.

Most telling though, is the strategic calculation that the US and Israel have made. Israel is counting on Iran directing counter attacks against US positions in the region. But what if, Iran only counter-attacks specifically against Israel? Thus, we have the Condi Rice quotes from this week saying the US will defend her allies in the region. Israel is counting upon an Iranian strike on US targets in order to draw the US (with a US wink and nod approval) into the conflict, giving George W. Bush Jr. every opportunity to fire back without appearing to have started shooting first. This sort of attack needs sustained bombing possibly up to a couple of weeks worth, not only to inflict significant damage to the Iranian nuclear (nuklar) program but to knock out Iran's ability to defend her airspace, launch missiles, maintain effective communication, command and control, political targets, etc., and generally keep Iran from sustaining an organized and meaningful counter attack based upon full tactical capacity.

Such a sustained offensive cannot be managed by an IAF with other responsibilities (northern border for instance) and a limitation of aircraft and manpower. It requires the hundreds of combat aircraft and personnel available only to the USAF and USN. The IAF only holds approximately 127 of the most advanced variants of the F-16i and F-15i (pictured below) although there are reportedly approximately 230 older model F-16s available and maybe 65 older variants of F-15 available Global Security - IAF inventory. APRPEH has speculated for some time that the Israeli Navy's submarine launched cruise missile capability may make the difference in the expected attack, taking a lead role in fact. If Iran does counter attack with medium range missiles, don't be surprised if Israel launches Jericho missiles in response. The advantage of the cruise missile strike is that it keeps pilots fresh for when you need them and the missiles are of course highly accurate. They would, however, only be useful as penetration support, IE, knocking out radars, anti-aircraft systems, command and control, etc, where the targets are not hardened or buried.

However, it is the unexpected which, as in all military operations, is scary. Iranian blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, preventing access from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and disrupting the free flow of oil is now a well known expected response from Iran, one for which the US Navy has certainly (we hope) prepared a plan to prevent. At the very least half sinking a couple of oil filled supertankers and igniting them would most certainly cause a huge spike in world wide oil prices and delay enough of a percentage in the total supply of world oil to cause a panic and result in international pressure to condemn Israel and force the US to back off. What else may Iran have planned? Terrorist dooms day cell activated? Hezbollah attack? More northern kidnappings? Unexpected sympathy move by Hamas? Iranian F-14 loaded with bombs on a suicide flight against US targets? What, if any of the Iranian air force will fly against the US and Israeli aircraft is also an unknown.

All such calculations those that can be presumed have certainly been presumed. The question returns to the cost of not acting in the future to the short term cost of acting to stop Iran today. Bush will act. McCain probably would act. Obama, probably not. For this reason, Israel must plan her strike now and execute it before November 4th and at the very latest before the official hand off of the US Presidency at noon (EST), January 20, 2009.

Having just engaged in a very physical world discussion, I would like to end by bringing this around the other way, to the true strength of the Jewish people. It is our prayer and faith which obliges HaShem to remember us in the good times and the bad. It is our eyes and voices lifted up, unified, and directed in prayer and purpose which characterizes the Jewish way. It is HaShem in charge of all events, no less now than in the past and all events have a purpose. Should the events described above take place it is important to focus on the understanding for which we are required to strive, the achdus we are required to build, and the emuna in our Creator we must hold above us, no matter what the results.

It is my concern that in these times of such division amongst the Jewish people that HaShem could judge us for a significant dose of onesh intent on driving us back together and bringing us closer to our mission, not a mission demonstrating military capability but to make this world a dwelling place for Him. If removing the Iranian threat is a function of that mission, Israel will certainly prevail, if not, who knows.

Since I am no navi and I am not in the business of prophecy, such words are mere speculation. It is however, my prayer that the Jewish people rally around our calling, to open our hearts to his Torah and raise our voices in prayer and learning to make this world a dwelling place for HaShem. When we do so, the threats that currently face us will vanish.




Sufa - F-16 on steriods

Ra'am F-15

Barry and Frank - Embarrassing

Jewish Reps Bash McCain- Forward

By Nathan Guttman, Thu. Jun 26, 2008

Washington - Jewish Democrats are ratcheting up criticism against Republican candidate John McCain by attempting to focus attention on a 2005 vote in which McCain opposed toughening restrictions on business ties with Iran.

In a June 26 press conference on Capitol Hill, organized by the National Jewish Democratic Council, Democratic lawmakers praised the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, and attacked the presumptive Republican nominee for what they characterized as his refusal to close loopholes that allow firms like Halliburton to continue doing business with the regime in Tehran.

“Obama has already shown that he will fight against Iran, while McCain tries to give the impression that he is tough on Iran,” said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, “but when it comes to facing Halliburton and big oil industry, he does not stand up.”

The McCain campaign has argued that McCain did vote in favor of a similar amendment proposed by Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. The Collins amendment was adopted by both parties as an acceptable compromise and was approved in a 97-0 vote.

Lautenberg proposed the 2005 amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill, with a declared aim “to stop corporations from financing terrorism.”

The amendment sought to repair what Democratic lawmakers saw as the existing legislation’s loophole, which allowed American firms and individuals to bypass sanctions against Iran by conducting their business through offshore subsidiaries.

When the amendment came to the Senate floor, it was voted down with a 51-47 count, roughly split along party lines. McCain and most other Republican senators voted against the amendment, while almost all Democrats, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, voted to approve it.

According to press reports, Halliburton, which was headed in the past by Vice President Dick Cheney, was among the American firms that benefited from the arrangement.

Democratic sources said they saw importance in raising the issue, since McCain claimed that his Democratic rival is soft on the matter of Iran and does not support tough measures against the regime.

The attendees of the press conference were Senators Lautenberg and Ben Cardin, and Reps. Russ Carnahan, Sander Levin, Steve Rothman, Jan Schakowsky and Brad Sherman.

---

Leave it to the Forward. Is this the best the Obama at any price crowd can do? Wave a Senate vote in which the entire Republican caucas voted no along with McCain to a sanctions amendment as a way to "obfuscate" (see Barack Obama - Myths, Facts, and Obfuscating. At least the Forward had the decency to point out that a similar competing amendment was supported by a 97-0 vote (including McCain). Well, since the amendment that passed did so missing 3 possible Senate votes, did Obama support the compromise? (see how easy this is).

And Lautenberg, time to hang it up.

“Obama has already shown that he will fight against Iran, while McCain tries to give the impression that he is tough on Iran,” said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, “but when it comes to facing Halliburton and big oil industry, he does not stand up.”

First, it is Obama, as we all know who wishes to begin no pre-condition negotiations with Iran as soon as he becomes president(G-d forbid) along with other nations who call the US their enemy. One could call this policy theory, "Peace through Kowtow".

It would be comedy indeed, if not the words of a US Senator, that Lautenberg by juxtaposing Halliburton to Iran, seems to believe that Halliburton is as much a threat to the US as Iran. I haven't heard Halliburton threaten do blow any other country off the face of earth recently, and certainly I doubt the corporation is either harboring or sponsoring Islamo-terrorism. If this is the best the Obamaniacs can do, the November 2008 election may become quite the classic.

Visions of Obama Negotiating with Ahmadinejad

(Islamo Facism week sponsored by TerrorismAwareness.org, David Horowitz)

US Democrat Obama Urges Talks With Iran To Stabilize Iraq-AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP)--Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called Tuesday for a "diplomatic surge" including U.S. talks with Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stablize the situation without that."

---

There is no better evidence that Barry H.O. is not ready for prime time than his desire to negotiate with Iran. The future of Iran does not lie with the leadership but with people of Iran. Instead of offering negotiations which protect and strengthen this madman, call for his overthrow. Why here Barry, why Iran?

Fred Thompson's Israel Position

Fred Thompson's Position on Israel

Israel

The United States is committed to the security of Israel and the safety of the Israeli people. The historical, familial and cultural ties of our peoples are the basis of this commitment. It is strengthened by the shared values and shared interests of our nations. Our mutual goal is an economically and militarily strong Israel at peace with its neighbors. We must exercise our traditional leadership role in the region and continue our longstanding support to Israel to achieve this vision.

Key Issues

Security Cooperation. Security assistance to Israel is a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy and provides a cost-effective way to ensure the security of one of America's closest allies. The new U.S.-Israel security agreement forms the basis of this relationship and will help both the United States and Israel counter common threats in the Middle East and advance mutual goals. Meanwhile, we must also continue comprehensive strategic dialogues, joint military training, and cooperation on development programs such as missile defense.

Iran. Iran remains the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism, has attempted to undermine regional stability, and has repeatedly threatened Israel. Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, longer-range missiles, and modern conventional forces. And it is led by a tyrant who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Iran also supports terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, such as Hamas and Hizballah, and is responsible for supplying weapons to extremists who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. Its sponsorship of terrorism must end as well. We must work with the oppressed people of Iran to bring about regime change, while also working with other responsible democracies to isolate the regime and stop its illicit activities.

Syria. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and is determined to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction and advanced ballistic missiles as it builds up its military forces. Its active meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs, and its support of Hezbollah, are destabilizing and must also end. Belligerent public statements by Syrian officials toward Israel and the military build-up along the Golan Heights continue to undermine the possibility of peace talks between Syria and Israel. Serious and sustained international pressure is integral to bringing about change in Damascus.

Hizballah. As Iran's proxy against Israel and the West, Hizballah remains a terror network that poses a direct threat to Israel and U.S. interests in the region. Hizballah has continued to rearm in preparation for another fight with Israel despite its obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. The group's stranglehold over Southern Lebanon has increased and continues undermine Lebanese sovereignty. Hizballah is a terror organization that must be disarmed and disbanded.

Hamas. Hamas is another terrorist organization that must also be disarmed and disbanded. The United States should not recognize any Palestinian government run by Hamas, nor provide it financial assistance until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces violence and terrorism, and adheres to all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel. The continued build-up of advanced weaponry by Hamas is a sign that the group does not desire peace and, though Israel should demonstrate restraint, it may be forced to take action against this growing threat.

Peace Process. Achieving the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security is the surest way to bring about an end to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is also essential to advancing the prosperity and security of both peoples. But to achieve this goal, Israel must have a reliable and credible partner in peace who will take serious steps to build trust and confidence, to include disbanding militias, ending terrorism, and cracking down on extremists. This will require the active support of other states in the region. Israel retains the right to take measures to defend itself, such as conducting counter-terrorist operations and completing its security barrier.

A Solid Record of Support
Fred Thompson's statements and Senate record demonstrate strong and clear support for Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Speaking Out Against Iran and Syria. "The terror masters in Tehran and Damascus make only the most minor distinction between America and Israel. They say that America is the Great Satan, and Israel is the Little Satan, and both must be destroyed. The US must make it clear that we will not allow Iran to become a nuclear threat….In addition to pursuing sanctions and other traditional means, we need to take other steps to reach out to the Iranian people and help them get rid of their hated regime. Our goal is peace and freedom. The US must willingly accept its accustomed role of leadership in this effort." (Thompson Statement Before the Republican Jewish Coalition on 10/16/07)

Affirming U.S. Support of Israel. "During last night's debate in New Hampshire, I was appalled that none of the leading Democrats would stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against Iran--a country intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and whose leader has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. A Thompson Administration would stand by Israel and all of our friends in the region. We would not wait for U.N. permission to support an ally or defend our interests abroad. The U.N. has not shown sufficient resolve toward stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions." (Thompson Press Release, 9/27/07)

Defending Israel's Reaction To Missile Launches From Gaza. In defending Israel's military response to these attacks he stated, "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, NY? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war." (Haaretz, 9/12/07)

Senate Record. Fred Thompson supports legislation that advances the United States' and Israel's security and interests. During his time in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted for a number of measures important to both countries, including-

• A Senate Resolution in 2002 Expressing Solidarity With Israel And Reaffirming
• Commitment To Israel's Right To Self-Defense


• The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act Extension of 2001


• A Senate Resolution in 2001 Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Common Struggle Against Terrorism


• The China Nonproliferation Act he authored, which imposed sanctions on proliferators of WMD.


• The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000


• A Senate Resolution in 1999 Expressing Opposition To Unilateral Declaration Of Palestinian State


• The Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act Of 1998


• The Jerusalem Embassy Act Of 1995

---

Rudys FoPo

Back in August, I reviewed Rudy's foreign policy piece that appeared in Foreign Affairs. I pointed out there that Rudy's position on the Palis and negotiations with Israel was really no different than the Bush position. Annapolis may alter that opinion, only time will tell. Well, now an official Fred position on the Israel has been published on the Fred'08 website. Fred's position also echoes the Bush position. Again, we see the terms: mutual respect, trust, respect, credible peace partner, disbanding militias, and ending terrorism, mostly the same catch words.

Fred is strong on Hezbollah and Hamas, while labeling Syria and Iran, state sponsors of terrorism, which is fightin' words. Overall a pretty good statement but nothing revolutionary. Fred's record though, unlike Rudy who has no "official" record, is there for the world to see in the official record of the US Senate.

Biting the Worm in the Big Apple

Ambush flattens Ahmadinejad

David Nason, New York correspondent | September 26, 2007

A WEEK ago, Lee Bollinger was dismissed as a terrorist-coddling liberal egghead whose invitation for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University was a monument to everything wrong in American academia.

Today, after his brutal and unexpected denunciation of Ahmadinejad as a cruel and ridiculous tyrant, the Columbia president has suddenly gone from a leftie pariah to a rolled-gold American hero.

Carried live on cable TV around the world, Bollinger's Charles Spencer moment was not just a surprise, it was also one of the great political ambushes of modern times.

Sitting alone under a spotlight on the darkened stage, Ahmadinejad looked silly, vulnerable and under arrest as Bollinger coldly and methodically demanded the Iranian leader explain his Holocaust denial, his support for terrorism, his crackdown on academic dissent and his threats against Israel, the country he wants "wiped off the map".

As much accusation as inquiry, the questions seemed to go on forever, before ending with a putdown that was the verbal equivalent of being beaten with a baseball bat.

"Frankly, and in all candour, Mr President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions," Bollinger said.

"But your avoiding them will itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterises so much of what you say and do.

"I feel all the weight of the modern civilised world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better."

Bollinger had promised to open Ahmadinejad's appearance with "a series of sharp challenges" and had been adamant that a critical premise of free speech was that the dishonourable could not be made honourable simply by allowing it to be heard.

But nobody had expected Bollinger to pre-empt Ahmadinejad with such venomous language and in universities across the US, questions are being asked: Did the attack go too far? Was it so personal that it became culturally insensitive? Did it compromise the academic search for greater knowledge and understanding?

The concerns resonated within Columbia's own academic staff, with Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies, describing Bollinger's comments as "very harsh".

"Inviting him (Ahmadinejad) and then turning around and alienating and insulting an entire nation whose representative this man happens to be is simply inappropriate," he was reported as saying.

Not surprisingly, this was also the view of Ahmadinejad himself.

"In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment," he said. "We don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty."

The debate lit up the blogosphere, where opinion was divided between those applauding Bollinger for his courage in confronting Ahmadinejad, and those scornful of strong-arm tactics that have no place in academe.

"Was it rude? Can the truth be rude?" one asked. "He IS a petty dictator. He DOES deny the Holocaust, ridiculously. He DOES imprison dissidents, journalists and scientists. Bollinger's speech proved to me that the freedom of speech is alive and well in America's universities."

Others were not so kind. "Afraid of losing contributions and of being denounced from all sides as 'soft on terrorism', he (Bollinger) blinked as soon as the first shot was fired," one wrote.

"Even if he believed what he was saying, his ad hominem displayed a gross indifference to the principle of academic freedom. Bollinger has disgraced Columbia."

Another accused Bollinger of a disgraceful "bait and switch" exercise aimed at appeasing US Islamophobes.

"Ahmadinejad reminded me of the Saddam execution, when he was the only one to keep his dignity, while surrounded by a pack of rabid dogs," he said.

But dignity is an elusive concept and any claim Ahmadinejad had was probably lost amid the laughter that accompanied his claim that Iran did not have any homosexuals. "I don't know who's told you that we have this," he said.

---

Today, the madman of Iran heads to the UN to register his world view adding his name to the long list of tyrants who stood at the raised podium in the General Assembly in the building that will someday (with G-d's help) make a great real estate development in midtown. Undoubtedly, he has prepared a sermon to absolve the Persian Islamic movement while vilifying the west and Israel.

Yesterday, Imanutjob did not leave Columbia unscathed. According to the reports in the media, Columbia, former home to Edward Said, (y'mach shmo) an early author of the palestinian myth, did not receive a warm and fuzzy welcome. The Jimmy Carter-like bashing American hegemony, pro-enemy soap box that was expected was not to be found.

Then again, if I were Mahmoud, I would have expected such a verbal assault from "heathens". His comments seem to imply that he wasn't surprised:

"...when we invite a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment"
"We don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty."

Uh, since when does Islamic fascism permit a person to "..make their own judgment"? Vaccination? You mean like killing and torturing people who speak words or espouse ideas which might represent a threat to the regime? See the links at the bottom of this article at Gatewaypundit and wonder why Imanutjob thinks the world is vaccinated from events in Iran. It is not so startling that a ruthless dictator would lie, but that he would do so when everyone with a computer has the evidence to disprove the lie a mere click away!

This event gives the US a glimpse into the psychiatric condition of the madman or the nature of his state. It is further proof that he and Iran must be dealt with as soon as possible. Who can believe any threats to destroy Israel or the west are rhetorical when the villain so easily dismisses reality, dispite the revisionist interpretations?

And, even though Bollinger did his best to save face, lets look at the invitation and the very idea of freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Columbia University can ask whomever it wishes to speak to any assortment of it's constituents. The general argument for no restrictions is based upon the belief that through intelligent free debate, the decent will surface and the bad will be scorned. It is a nice idea. Unfortunately, it is not reality.

It is proven by history that bad ideas and visions can be infectious, impervious to the vaccines mentioned by Imanutjob. Without too much of a stretch, the best evidence of this danger is the Torah's call for judges to distance themselves from bribery, not to recognize one over another, etc.

Ex 23:8 Do not accept bribery. Bribery blinds the clear-sighted and twists the words of the just.
Mishpatim

Deut. 16:19 Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone]. Do not take bribes, since bribery makes the wise blind and perverts the words of the righteous.
Shoftim

But why bribery? Columbia was bribed to recognize the face of a tyrant for publicity. To uninvite the President of Iran would look shameful, weak and bring charges of kowtowing to the shouters. Columbia, you should know, doesn't have to answer to anyone. Those who choose to blind themselves and take at face value the words of a maniac are bribed by their yetzer hara.

Now please recognize, I am in no way what so ever being critical of free speech. However, free speech does indeed require a playing field which sorts the chicken salad from the, well you know what. The problem with bringing disingenuous ideas or those so laced with sympathetic sophistry into a legitimate debate is that the genuine discussion which is intended is stymied, and the exchange of ideas in the laboratory of collegial give and take is suppressed.

In short, have you ever tried to debate with a conspiracy nut. You know the type. Everything that happens has more to it than YOU really know but the "true believer" has access to information that no one else has or has dismissed as phony. The theory can be simple or convoluted but is un-debatable because it takes an exceptional person to argue against a myth.

Iranian Islamo Fascism is itself no myth - a very real danger, but is held together by a myth. Only those who want to see the "truth" Imanutjob espouses will listen and believe, all others will toss it in the trash where it belongs. Ahmadinejad is the kind of guy who speaks to the "true believers".

Columbia and Bollinger did not score points for the free speech argument, 220 years of the Constitution speaks for itself.

When you need a victim to hang your failure upon, find a conspiracy. When you need a victim to express your outrage, find a Jew. Ahmadinejad can rationalize both "victims".

Hitler vs. Satan

Ahmadinejad: Israel is bearer of Satan
from AP (hat tip to FreeRepublic)

TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Israel was the standard bearer of Satan and the Jewish state would soon fall apart, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The agency quoted Ahmadinejad as he spoke at a religious conference and did not elaborate on what he meant by Satan. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, however, Iran has regularly referred to the United States as "the Great Satan."

"The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan," he said, predicting Israel's eventual demise. "When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."

Israel condemned Ahmadinejad's statements as harmful to international peace and stability.

"The Iranian president's comments are typical of his vociferous animosity towards Israel," said David Baker, an Israeli government spokesman. "He threatens not only Israel but poses a clear and present danger to the international community as well."

Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past. In October 2005, he caused outrage in the West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."

His supporters have argued that Ahmadinejad's words were mistranslated and should have been better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would vanish on its own rather be destroyed.

---

In the politically correct world of the AP's journalistic impartiality, Ahmadinejad, the "president" of Iran represents a "hard-line" position. If the AP sought journalistic accuracy the label "islamo-facist" might be employed as an alternative.

Everyone by now has heard of the twelfth Imam fantasies spiraling in the warped mind of Ahmadinejad. There is almost nothing of value in him and his beliefs, representing therefore a tempting target, no deposit no refill.

However, in the words quoted by the AP article something struck me. I found myself wondering, how interesting it is that the madman of Teheran recognizes the general flaws in Israel's make up? Now, it is nothing new that the greatest enemies of the Jews have studied Judaism and/or Israel carefully, examining the people, the law, the medina rigorously, extracting their flawed and biased observations for the purpose of exploding them out of proportion or context in order to liable the am segula.

"When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."

On the surface, there is nothing particularly unique or revealing in these words. They are, rather, conventional wisdom. It is true that societies which lose touch with their founding values and ideals often wither away or morph into some hybrid creature retaining merely the trappings of it's original self. And, it is also true that on occasion, the times render those founding ideals obsolete. In America, we still read de Tocqueville, The Federalist Papers, Paine, and Jefferson, etc.? Why? Because the values and beliefs of the Founders are preserved in the fabric of America.

Could it be that Ahmadinejad observes the scene in Israel today and believes it is a sign of his ultimate victory? After all, Jews expelling Jews from their homes, Israeli Jews claiming no affiliation with Judaism in some weird, nay traitorous mentality, liberal/socialist Israelis favoring right to return for Arabians who fled the land in 1949, who can call these events a sign of cultural or social strength? What do outsiders who are friends of Israel think of these policies, let alone the enemies of the Jews?

The political polls in Israel demonstrate a significant dislike of the major candidates running as the heads of their respective factions. Bibi and Barak have huge negatives. Why? Could it be a perceived lack of honesty, a fair conclusion based upon past performance? Could it be there is an impression that the philosophic distance between the factions is far less than the current need calls for?

And, here we re-turn to the article. The quote which demonstrates this surrealistic Israeli experience is not from the madman but from spokesman David Baker:

"The Iranian president's comments are typical of his vociferous animosity towards Israel," said David Baker, an Israeli government spokesman. "He threatens not only Israel but poses a clear and present danger to the international community as well."

David Baker was one of Ariel Sharon's "shills" to the Diaspora, selling the US Jewish community on the idea that retreat from Gaza served Israel's national and security interest. I had the opportunity to attend one of these pompously delivered policy talks and left with a sick feeling and very bad taste for railroad Israeli politics. One must wonder how Baker's and Sharon's lack of concern for the expelled families from Gush Katif in retrospect and Baker's "animosity towards Israel" comments above can be juxtaposed? Who more directly threatened Israel exactly? As of now, Iran has not initiated any conventional active hostilities against Israelis, (Hezbollah not withstanding and not conventional). Baker on the other hand has justified to thousands and conceivably to himself, what could only be considered a hostile act against Israelis. That is, evicting them from their homes and rendering Gaza judenrein.

Emuna teaches us that through the agency of HaShem, Ahmadenijad will be dealt with one way or another. Fortunately for the Jews, HaShem is patient and kind, extending blessings on top of blessings. Maybe some of his mercy is especially set aside for David Baker and his comrades.

Fred Thompson's Hypothetical Question

Terrorized

By Fred Thompson

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego — and bragged about it?

I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel’s restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war. There would likely be numerous casualties on our enemy’s side, but we would rightfully hold those who attacked us responsible.

More than 1,300 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since Palestinians were given control two years ago. Israelis, however, have gone to incredible lengths to stop the war against them without harming Palestinian non-combatants. But make no mistake, Israel is at war. The elected Hamas government regularly repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas openly took credit for killing one woman and wounding dozens more last week alone.

The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians. Then, when Israel goes after those launching the attacks, Palestinians claim to be the victims. If Palestinian civilians aren’t hurt in the Israeli attacks, they stage injuries and deaths.

Too often, they garner sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media in the international community.

Israelis, themselves, are often incapable of facing the damage they inflict in self-defense. Knowing this, Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields.

I’m beginning to wonder how much longer this vicious plot will work though. International sympathy for Palestinians has diminished as the same Islamofascist extremists have brought havoc to Madrid, Bali, Somalia, London and elsewhere. More importantly, Israelis themselves are suffering so badly, they may be on the verge of losing their sympathy for the people who have sworn to kill them.

Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions.

The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven’t used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict.

That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel “wiped off the map.” Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too.

If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

{listen to FDT deliver this talk}

Well, what else is there to say except that someone please hand carry a copy of this commentary to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and to Foggy Bottom.

Ahmadinejad: the Jews Are Like Animals

(IsraelNN.com) Iranian President Ahmadinejad Friday launched one of his most malevolent tirades against the Jewish people to date.

"There is a group that holds the Palestinians under occupation as they protect their mothers and fathers, and presents them as terrorists," Ahmadinejad said. "Do these criminals believe in G-d and the Bible of Moses? They are like animals, they have no belief in G-d. We oppose the criminals who make bad use of Judaism."

Well Imanutjob speaks again. His word's above soooo echo the Midrash's account of Haman's letter to the provinces under Achashveiros. Such polemics are often found in the words of the great anti-Jews of history.

Animals is being kind, its usually the descendants of pigs and monkeys. I do not dare speak for Jewry but I think it is fair to say that Judaism doesn't need Imanutjob's help. We mess things up pretty well ourselves.

Those of us, who in the mind of the President of Iran 'make bad use of Judaism' apparently do not include his Neturai Karta friends who joined him for a Holocaust denial conference last winter. If he really wants to help Jews, and be useful, he can offer the NK crowd sanctuary. It seems that Imanutjob seems to like those type Jews (Neturai Karta) better than the rest of us "animals". In that way even Imanutjob can find a purpose in the world besides as target practice for smart bombs.

For a little background on the most current Haman (and his Lebanese comrade) try The Islamic Mein Kampf put together by David Horowitz.