Student Union opens ‘hasbara’ room in effort to fill public diplomacy vacuum.
Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama wants the best of both political worlds, claiming to disagree with while refusing to sever ties to his pastor and (as Obama calls him) “uncle” – the unrepentant anti-U.S., anti-Israel, anti-white Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Such maneuvering, of course, conflicts with Obama’s claim of being a “unifier.” But there are many other reasons to call out Obama for not practicing the progressive ideology he claims to champion.
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) defines “progressive” as “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are; making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas.” Similar meanings abound, but you get the picture.
The Obama campaign mantra, “Our time for change has come,” rings hollow on a number of issues. Here are four examples:
Iraq: Obama’s opposition to President Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein would seem to contradict the aforementioned definition of “making progress toward better conditions,” because permitting Saddam to continue his destructive behavior would not – by anyone’s measure – have led to the fulfillment of “enlightened or liberal ideas.”
If Obama had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering countless innocents in his own country and scores of others – via funding of terrorist operations, among other methods – outside of Iraq.
Human Rights: At an antiwar rally in Chicago on October 26, 2002, Obama said his opposition to America’s involvement in Iraq (the U.S. invasion was still months away) was because it is “a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”
While he’s entitled to his view, Obama’s next few remarks actually make the case for toppling Saddam:
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. [Emphasis added]
Like his far-left brethren, Obama would have allowed this “man who butchers his own people” to persist in doing so rather than end this clear violation of the Iraqi people’s human rights.
War on Terror: In an August 1, 2007 address on national security at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, Obama declared, “When I am president we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements.” Among those elements were “developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons” and “engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism.”
But on November 10 of last year, speaking in Des Moines, Iowa, Obama said, “When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say … that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don’t like.”
Even if one were willing to foolishly tolerate Obama’s naiveté regarding any realistic possibility of improving the behavior of “leaders that we don’t like” through dialogue, is the hypocrisy of those latter statements not crystal clear?
These proclamations raise the following question: Since “leaders that we don’t like” presumably include among them terrorists or terrorist supporters (i.e. Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Hamas’s Meshaal and Haniyeh, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, etc.), how can Obama credibly talk to them at the same time he is looking to “take” them “out,” develop “the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the … world’s most deadly weapons” and make an attempt “to dry up support for terror and extremism?”
Will Obama take out these terrorists and dry up their support during or after his negotiations with them?
Political Establishment Support: Obama, like any candidate for elective office on any governmental level, has every right to accept the endorsement of anyone he believes will enhance his prospects for victory. That being said, how can Obama claim to be the “agent for change” when a number of his Senate Democrat supporters – among numerous other Beltway mainstays – have served in that body during scores of congressional terms dominated by status quo gridlock?
About the Author: Eli Chomsky is a copy editor and staff writer for The Jewish Press. He can be reached at email@example.com.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
The residents of Gaza were not occupied by the Hamas; they voted for the terror organization in democratic elections, by a huge majority, by virtue of its uncompromising struggle against Israel. For this reason, the separation between the armed Hamas terrorists and those ‘not involved’ or ‘innocents’ is false. The Gazans are now paying for […]
As Peres retires, Israel fights sour legacy: Insistence on setting policy in line with hopes, rather than with reality.
Our capital was not arbitrarily chosen, as capitals of some other nations were.
Rabbi Kahane spoke of transfer, because it was what the Torah spoke of.
There is much I can write you about what is going here, but I am wondering what I should not write. I will start by imagining that I am you, sitting at home in the Los Angeles area and flipping back and forth between the weather, traffic reports, the Ukraine, Mexican illegals and Gaza. No […]
Should Jews in Europe take more responsibility in self-defense of community and property?
Germany’s The Jewish Faith newspaper ominously noted, “We Jews are in for a war after the war.”
The truth is we seldom explore with kids what prayer is supposed to be about.
Almost as one, Jews around the world are acknowledging the day-to-day peril facing ordinary Jews in Israel and the extraordinary service of the IDF in protecting them.
So on the one hand Secretary Kerry makes no bones about who is at fault for the current hostilities: he clearly blames Hamas.
King Solomon said it long ago: “Cast your bread upon the waters” because you don’t know when you’ll hit something. Our job is to do.
The anti-Israel camp does not need to win America fully to its side. Merely to neutralize it would radically alter the balance of power and put Israel in great jeopardy.
Do Israelis believe it’s OK for political aspirants to say whatever they feel is necessary to gain power?
Yeshiva University men’s basketball coach Jonathan Halpert now has his signature on the school’s men’s basketball court. The Coach Jonathan Halpert Scholarship Fund, an endowment to be awarded annually to children of YU alumni living in Israel wishing to study at the university, now bears his name. Later this year Halpert, who earned his high […]
Regarding the positive Torah commandment to pray, Rambam writes, “This commandment obligates each person to offer supplication and prayer every day and utter praises of the Holy One, blessed be He; then petition for all his needs with requests and supplications; and finally, give praise and thanks to God for the goodness that He has bestowed upon him – each one according to his own ability” (Mishneh Torah 1:2).
President Obama would have better reflected American values in Cairo recently had he spoken with blunt honesty regarding recent Middle East history. Here’s the speech he might have delivered:
“People need money in their pockets to spend. That’ll get our economy going again.” — David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama
Drastic situations require drastic measures. Thus, to reach Axelrod’s necessary goal, we need to end Social Security as we know it.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/obamas-words-rarely-match-his-actions/2008/04/09/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: