Obama Takes It Personally

Jewish Press ^ | 5-21-08

[SJackson]

By any measure, President Bush’s speech to the Knesset last week on the occasion of Israel’s 60th birthday was nothing short of stunning. This paean to the bond between the United States and Israel, while personal in many ways, went beyond anything any U.S. president had previously said and expressed sentiments that all people of good faith and seekers of peace can relate to and embrace.

The president’s message was that when it comes to Israel, the U.S. would never accommodate terrorist pressure or political importuning from any source, and those who think otherwise had better reevaluate their position. He declared before one and all that “the fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time” and that America and Israel face a common enemy and are in this fight together.

“America,” he said, “is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world.” He spoke of Jews as “the chosen people” with a homeland promised by God. He praised Israel’s miraculous achievements in all areas of human endeavor and its leadership in several key ones. He referred to Israel as “Eretz Yisrael.”

The president’s speech was an opportunity for Senator Barack Obama to once and for all dispel the uneasiness in pro-Israel circles with his plans for the Middle East and the concern that his ambiguities will encourage those seeking to harm Israel. The venue of the president’s speech was, after all, the Israeli parliament on the occasion of a landmark anniversary for Israel. Was it too much to expect Sen. Obama to say something positive about the occasion?

Sadly, not only did he avoid any reference to Israel, he focused instead on one small portion of Mr. Bush’s speech. It was as if the president had not delivered the most unique speech of its kind in memory.

In his speech, President Bush, referring to the rants and threats of Hamas, Hizbullah, Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden, said:

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously....

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is–the comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Sen. Obama erupted in a high state of umbrage, saying that the reference to “appeasement” was dishonest and divisive” and “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.” Not a word was uttered about anything else in the president’s speech.

It is ironic that it was Sen. Obama himself who put the issue in play. As we noted last week, when asked in an interview why it was that a high Hamas official publicly welcomed his election, he responded:

It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush. [Emphasis added]

So maybe the terrorists have a point and it is George W. Bush who is the cause of the world’s ills because he won’t listen to their grievances against the U.S. In fact, Sen. Obama recently told New York Times columnist David Brooks that the U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers,” adding that Hizbullah and Hamas need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

President Bush’s speech at the Knesset was repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations. What he said about Israel was given enhanced significance by the dramatic events in Lebanon as Hizbullah was busy demonstrating its effective control of the country. It was unquestionably an opportunity for Sen. Obama to support those parts of Mr. Bush’s comments about Israel with which he agreed.

Unfortunately, it seems he found little if anything in the speech with which he could agree. And maybe that’s the point he inadvertently made.

[livius]

A Black Theology of Liberation, Wright wrote: “There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’”

And the press wonders why whites are not voting for Obama - who got rid of his own whiteness early on as soon as he realized it wouldn't benefit him politically. Too bad about his grandmother, but she was expendable.

[SteamShovel]

After our country was attacked on 9/11 the best candidate the dems could offer us was a terror appeasing fake christian muslim socialist.

I was going to remind you that Kerry came before BO, then I thought...

...Hey you did describe Kerry too (although I don't think he's muslim)

[ncfool]

As a Presidential Canidate he should not take it personally. Look at President Bush. They have slimed him for eight years but GOD BLESS HIM for never wavering or taking it personally.

[SupplySider]

"...adding that Hizbullah and Hamas need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”

Please tell us, Mr. Obama, what do you think are the legitimate claims of Hizbullah and Hamas?

[mrsmel]

It just goes to show that amongst his many other faults, Obama is not ready for prime time. There are important events occurring in the Middle East, the President of the United States makes a well-received speech before the Knesset regarding these events, and all Obama can get out of it is a possible, not even probable, reference to to a statement that he himself made, a word that he himself used. He's a small-time politician from the parochial Chicago machine pretending to be one of the big boys. He's getting by on a veneer of "style", but anyone looking deeper (and not many of his supporters seem to have the intelligence to do so)would see that there's no substance. He's a slick pretender, and in no way ready to be leader of the free world. The Democrats (the supporters and self-important pundits, not the ones with the real power, above Obama's pay grade) think this is a game.

[Cicero]

Well, there’s another difference. As you say, the moonbats are constantly calling President Bush a Nazi, and he ignores it with dignity, standing above the fray.

But the reverse didn’t happen. Bush didn’t say that Obama was a pacifier. He never mentioned any names, and could easily have been talking about Carter or many other prominent liberals. But Obama took it personally, and said, “Don’t call ME a pacifier!” Bush in fact never called him anything.