Category Archives: Barack Obama

UPDATE II: What Would The Sainted ‘W’ Do About Israel?

Barack Obama, Bush, Democracy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA IS DOING. To listen to “conservatives,” one would think George Bush and his murderous band of neoconservatives held a vastly different position to Obama’s on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process farce. Nothing of the sort. First, the Arab Spring is as much Bush’s wet dream as it is Obama’s. To wit, necons have not stopped gushing about the “virtual reality of the ‘Arab Spring,'” “in spite of the [Arabs’] 1,400 year old systemic track record of tyranny, terror, political violence, uncertainty, volatility and treachery.”

Who other than the “Skeeza who is a Condoleeza” and her boss Bush pushed for “democratic” elections in the PA? Having superimposed their phantasmagoric narrative about Iraq on the world, Bush and Rice set about validating the Palestinian parallel universe. They forced Israel to let Hamas, whose plank includes the destruction of Israel, to campaign openly in East Jerusalem. The Bush-supported free elections in the territories saw the “Palestinian People” vote overwhelmingly for the “Islamic Resistance Movement” (Hamas). When that transpired, George Bush deceived the American people. He told them that Palestinians want peace and that their “yes” to Hamas was merely a yen for healthcare and other welfare.

The following are excerpts from a statement George W. Bush’s gave in January 10, 2008, during a visit to the “Holy Land”:

“The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. … I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.”

W’s Solomonic wisdom extended to an assertion about the sanctity of Jerusalem to Palestinians. Another lie. Jerusalem was sacred to Jews for nearly two thousand years before Muhammad and is not once mentioned in the Koran.

BHO may be doing one better than Bush, but Bush led the way; he’s the original flea bag.

UPDATE I: I was forced to post the hereunder post on facebook, since the overall reaction to this post was to exculpate Bush as the better bastard. In truth Bush is a worse traitor than Barry, who tends not to conceal his perverse proclivities. On the border, Barry is even better than that bastard Bush. You need to dig into my archive. Search under Bush, here: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_search.php?Search+by+Category=Search+by+Category.

Here are two cases that ought to engender a bit of balance among defenders of the odious Bush. José Medellín any one? Read and puke: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=346. Ramos and Compean anyone? Read this and atone for defending the creep Bush: http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=477

No offense to drag queens, but “Republicans are the drag queens of politics. Peel away the pules for family, faith and fetuses and one discovers either ‘neoconservative welfare-warfare statists or global social democrats,’ or national socialists of sorts, who fuse economic protectionism, populism and a support for the very welfare infrastructure that is at the root of the social rot they decry” (November 06, 2002).

UPDATE II: Is Netanyahu asleep at the switch? Here is the substance of a statement released by Bibi and the Hildebeest on Novermber 11, 2010:

“The US believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict … based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps….”

UPDATE III: Obama Out Of The Closet On Israel (Cavuto & The Prince)

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Law, Nationhood

On November 20, 2008, I wrote a column titled “Obama’s And Abdullah’s Plans for Israel.” The column pretty much outlined what has come to pass today. Here’s the lead and a little more:

Barack Obama has decided to revive a plot the Saudi Crown Prince hatched in 2002. Abdullah bin Abdulaziz had suggested Israel beat a retreat to the pre-1967 borders, in return for the recognition, whatever that means, of the Arab world.
Back then, Time magazine made the mustachioed monarch its “Man of the Week,” for what it termed his “peace plan.” [Their enthusiasm today is a little more muted.] The Sunday Times now reports that:
“Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.”
A loose paraphrasing of U.N. resolution 242, this “peace initiative” requires Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria, which is tantamount to returning land to the aggressors, and “allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.” For its concessions, the Arab League will doff a collective kafia to Israel. As will Israel be given “an effective veto” on the national suicide pact known as the right of return—the imperative to absorb millions of self-styled Palestinian “refugees” into Israel proper.

Understandably, it’s a little tough locating in US media the precise wording of the president’s plan for Israel. But Ha’aretz has it:

U.S. President Barack Obama said Thursday that the U.S. endorses the Palestinians’ demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” Obama stressed during a major Mideast policy speech at the State Department.

If it continues to return land to the aggressors, Israel will be in violation of Nullum crimen sine poena, the imperative in international law to punish the aggressor (one that seems to comport quite well with the natural law). Israel has already breached this principle—and its own national self-preservation—by signing and honoring agreements (Oslo I and II) with a terrorist organization (the PLO). Israel has also flouted the “rights of necessity,” as explained by Professor of International Law, Louis Rene Beres:

“[T]his norm was explained with particular lucidity by none other than Thomas Jefferson. In his ‘Opinion on the French Treaties,’ written on April 28, 1793, Jefferson wrote: ‘The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations.’”

What will Bibi Netanyahu’s do? That’s the question.

UPDATE I: Bibi has booed Obama’s latest decree. The Israeli Prime Minister, however, still used dhimi-like tones, which can only be ditched once Israel cuts the Gordian Knot that ties it to the US (foreign aid).

“Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to “indefensible” borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.”

MORE.

UPDATE II: GANGSTA DIPLOMACY. George Will: “Obama’s dilation on the 1967 borders makes matters worse: Borders are what negotiations are supposed to be about, not what is to be stipulated before negotiations.”

Remember Netanyahu’s last visited to the White House? The boorish Obama practically confined the Israeli Prime Minister and his party to the basement. Once again Obama has exhibited contempt for Netanyahu by making this Middle-East statement on the eve of the PM’s visit to the White House. Bibi can hardly bail on the bastard, and so is destined to be diplomatically humiliated again.

UPDATE III (May 20): I’ve just heard Fox News’ Neil Cavuto complaining about Bibi Netanyahu, while reverentially referening to The Saudi Prince, to whom he had just been making overtures. It was quite bizarre. Cavuto had suddenly turned into a defender of the Leader of the Free World (who presides over the largest welfare-warfare state in this “free” world), against the onslaught of the Israeli PM, who dared to lecture the venerable leader (BHO), as follows:

“For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities,” Netanyahu said, sitting beside Obama at an appearance with reporters. “The first is that, while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to 1967 lines.”
In his speech about Middle East issues Thursday, Obama had reiterated U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, suggesting that Israel revert to the territory it held prior to its gains in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, while allowing for swaps of land between the two future states.
“These were not the boundaries of peace,” Netanyahu said at the White House. “They were the boundaries of repeated wars.”

Netanyahu ought to have given Obama a taste of his own boorishness and canceled his visit to the White House. Instead, he firmly but politely told the president what was what.

Bush Would Have Used The BLU-82

Barack Obama, Bush, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Republicans, Terrorism, War

Incredibly, some Republican Party media megaphones have been making the case that Bush deserves credit for the actions of Obama in eliminating Osama bin Laden. There is something particularity rank about this tack. It is one thing to credit the operatives in the field, but quite another to commend a far-removed gas bag like Genghis Bush with the kill. That is if you support what some are calling an extra-judicial killing. A Gallup survey indicates that “More than 9 in 10 Americans approve of the U.S. military action that killed Osama bin Laden on Sunday.”

What will it take for certain Republicans to give credit where credit is due? Would BHO need to switch parties (a minor ideological conversion, really).

The same Gallup poll shows, however, that, “Thirty-five percent say he deserves a great deal of credit and another 36% say he deserves ‘a moderate amount’ of credit. More than a quarter say he does not deserve much or any credit at all.”

This is probably a function of the general antipathy toward Obama’s policies, and not an objective assessment of the operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Rest assured that if something had gone wrong, the sitting president would have been blamed. “Former President Jimmy Carter knows about that,” notes the Huffington Post. “In 1980, Carter approved a plan to rescue the American hostages in Iran that ended in failure and left eight American servicemen dead. The botched mission was cited as one factor in Carter’s defeat when he ran for re-election.”

The attempt to drag Bush into this says something about the convergence of the two parties on matters of foreign policy. Obama has “embraced his inner neocon.” As a consequence, Republicans have few bones to pick with the president on the foreign policy front. What remains in their bag of political tricks is to make hay of his exotic origins (birth certificate), or to claim that his predecessor paved the way for (what they perceive to be) his recent success.

In any event, Bush’s military signature is the Daisy Cutter.

This Is Who We Are

Barack Obama, Education, Homeland Security, Jihad, Middle East, Military, Nationhood, Political Philosophy, Terrorism, War

The following is from this week’s WND.COM column, “This Is Who We Are”:

“… By the estimate of “Yahoo! Search Trends,” teens ages 13-17 … made up 66 percent of searches for ‘who is osama bin laden?’” “The figures give a revealing insight into the lack of current affairs and general knowledge among teenagers,” quipped the Daily Mail’s correspondent.

The twits were indeed atwitter:

Tara: I’m probably retarded for asking this, but who is Osama and why is it good that he died?
Cory: Who is Osama and why is it important we killed him?
Shawn: who is Osama Bin Laden? Is he in the band as well?

Reptilian brains like these took their spring-break behavior to the streets when the news about bin Laden’s demise broke. They too are who we are.

Why not own our atavism? There will always be a marginalized, underbelly of genius and ingenuity in America. But for the rest, we have morphed into a militant, mindless people.

In its clodhopper’s traipse around the world, our military has caused the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, squandered trillions of our debased dollars, destroyed at least two countries, and crippled the American economy. Had the ‘Pac Men Of The Universe’ undertaken and achieved a precision operation after 9/11—it would be worth celebrating. But not now.

Conga lines of jubilant Americans must, by sad necessity, give way to welfare lines. If recent news reports are to be believed, one in seven Americans stands in-line for food stamps from the government.

That is now the alpha and omega of American life. …”

Read the complete column, “This Is Who We Are is,” now on WND.COM.