Skip to comments.Obama to AIPAC: I make no apologies for pursuing peace
Posted on 03/04/2012 9:54:57 AM PST by Nachum
US President Obama reaffirms commitment to Israel, calls the Jewish State's security sacrosanct and non-negotiable; announces he will present Shimon Peres with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
US President Barack Obama said Sunday that he "make[s] no apologies for pursuing peace" between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's own leaders, he said, understand the importance of peace.
Speaking at the AIPAC Conference in Washington, the US president said he believes "peace is profoundly in Israel's security interests." Various issues from shifting demographics to emerging technologies "demand a resolution to this issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Did he bow first?
He makes no apologies for pursuing the policies of Islamic Jihad. Honestly, I can’t understand the depravity of these MSM and Democrat sychopants that think this Halfrican Muslim is going to do them any good. He wants to convert them to Islam or enslave/kill them.
Peace and safety !shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachWhile people are saying, Peace and safety1 Thessalonians 5:3
destruction will come on them suddenly,
as labor pains on a pregnant woman,
and they will not escape.
I was there about 25% of us were not too taken by his words. He put a lot of red meat out there. But the winds will change next week after AIPAC.
He’s running for re-election, so he’s pretending to care about Israel.
Israel, that knife in your back is a gesture of peace, Allahu Akbar.
0bama is one evil creature.
May God have mercy on the United States.
The jews are falling for his line of sh##. Such a man of dignity and honor.....not
He can’t apologize for something he hasn’t done or doesn’t feel.
The only thing the constant campaigner has pursued is the destruction of America.
“no apologies for pursuing peace” between Israelis and Palestinians. Israel’s own leaders, he said, understand the importance of peace.”
The time approaches. Not saying he is this guy but this is coming.
Daniel 8:23-25 King James Version (KJV)
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, ***and by peace shall destroy many***: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
His State Department had a POW named Gaddafi whacked and he claims he promotes peace.
Speaking at the AIPAC Conference in Washington, the US president said he believes "peace is profoundly in Israel's security interests."
"I have kept my commitments to the State of Israel," he said. "At every crucial juncture, at every fork in the road, we have been there for Israel every single time."
Again the word “peace” is substituted for “surrender”.
As the saying goes, you cant un-ring a bell. One suspects that Mister Obamas true feelings about Israel have been aptly demonstrated by the actions of his and also his buddies.
Can we forget that Prime Minister Netanyahu was snubbed by Mister Obama's childish and undignified behavior? At least it apparently illustrated his true feelings toward Israel.
But wait, theres more. How about Obamas (alleged) BFF Bill Ayers association with the Free Gaza Movement?
I suspect that Mister Obama fools few with the gratuitous overture, and what precisely does he mean by "peace"?
Shimon Peres is first cousin to actress Lauren Bacall (nee Betty Perske)......a consumate leftist, pacifist, anti-McCarthyite, speech giver for Adlai Stevenson and later, Robert Kennedy.
In 2005 she described herself as "anti-Republican" and went on to say, "the best thing on earth is being a liberal. You do not have a small mind."
That would be fine if he wasn't so ardently pursuing surrender.
2008 videotape of Obama at Muslim dinner: Have we forgotten that controversial videotape of Obama at a Muslim dinner that was talked about during the 2008 presidential campaign and that the LA Times has in its possession but won't release to the public?
1. As I understand it, some of Obama's speech at the Muslim dinner leaked out, and Obama supposedly said some questionable things against Jews and Israel.
2. But at the time, LA Times officials---under tremendous pressure from the public---said that they would not release it to the public, because they said that they promised the owner that they would not release the videotape or his name unless the owner said it was alright.
3. As I recall, the owner supposedly told the LA Times that he would not let them see it unless they promised not to release it to the public.
4. To this day, it seems that the owner has not given his permission to LA Times to release the damaging videotape of Obama at the Muslim dinner.
5. My question is this: What right did LA Times have to make such a terrible promise in the first place?
6. I thought that newspaper people were morally obliged to seek the truth wherever the trail might lead, good or bad.
7. My point is this: LA Times officials had no right to promise the owner that it would not release the videotape if he would let them look at it.
8. I say this: We the public should put continuous tremendous pressure on LA Times officials until they see the error of their ways and release the videotape.
9. As I recall, LA Times gave a bizarre reason why they were not releasing the videotape to the public that went something like this: The release of the videotape of Obama talking about Jews and Israel at the Muslim dinner might influence the presidential elections in an unwanted negative way, and by negative way, the LA Times was referring to possibly affecting Obama's campaign in a negative way.
10. Again, I say that LA Times officials abandoned their moral duty as newspaper people when they refused to release the videotape of Obama speaking at the Muslim dinner.
11. Who do LA Times officials think they are when they suddenly take the high moral road and dare to tell us the public what is good or bad for us to read or see?
12. The LA Times should stop trying to play God, and they should release the Obama videotape so that we the public can decide for ourselves if we approve or disapprove of what is on the Obama Muslim dinner videotape.
13. LA Times: Stick to reporting the news and stay out of the area of what is moral or not moral.
14. If Obama said something at the Muslim dinner that might cause him to lose votes and the support of the Jewish community, then so be it. Obama will have only himself to blame for what happens, because nobody forced him to say critical things about Jews and Israel at that Muslim dinner.