I have to agree with Thomas Friedman, Obama's approach with Iran is nuanced and
careful. By contrast, Romney's is like trying to use a shovel for surgery. That
is why I also must agree with Thomas Sowell, that Newt Gingrich is the only GoP
candidate with the ability to debate Obama successfully.
DC..Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I will continue to protest lies.
Protest..sounds to me like you are warmongerring, and that is being a good man?
By the way what proof is there that Iran has weponized their nuclear program, or
are just going to George Bush it?
Obama will happily throw Israel under a bus to win the election. He will lose
Keep it up DC, and you are providing a path for a clear schilacking of the
republican nominee in November. Six months ago the Presidents re-election was
doubtful,now...with attitudes like yours (a mirror of Romneys)..his re-election
is not only possible but probable, and you opened the door for a big, big
democratic win. Your attitudes just don't reflect reality. Your obsession with
Gitmo, 8% unemployment rate, and support for a weak ineffectual public uprising
are absolutely meaningless..meaningless.
Commentary on the Friedman article (like so much on politics or religion) always
reminds me of the adage that people mostly believe what they want to believe and
find what they look for. Such commentary is every bit as revealing of
the reader as of the writer.Having said that, I personally greatly
appreciate President Obama's perspective in a very difficult situation, an
opinion that is at least unfettered by ideology.
Obama framed Israel-Iran conflict in a way that removes politics. The Obama
administration has told Palestinian leaders to expect little help with their
statehood bid during the U.S. presidential campaign. According to Pentagon
directives, military personnel in uniform can't sponsor a political club
participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or
against a political party, candidate or cause or speak at any event promoting a
political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words
against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president. The
Pentagon policy is necessary in preventing political and religious debates that
could divide a unit and disrupt the strong working relationship that is needed
to carry out missions. There are plenty of examples in the world of militaries
heavily involved in influencing political events that have shown that is not
conducive to civilian rule of law. I see by these postings today no one has
served in the Military and knows this.
This is one of the biggest drinks of Kool-Aid I have ever seen. O'bama's
policies are vague, reactionary, lack vision and continue to display a lack of
understanding of the mideast people and culture. We are as close to the blind
leading the blind in our foreign policy as we can get.
Pragmatist,You are perfectly fine being fed lies as long as they support
your boy? Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I will continue to protest
lies.He has been giving Russia reason and opportunity to change
their policy while groveling before them for 3 years. How long does he give
them? Until after the mullahs have nuked Israel and us?Requiring
indefensible borders secures IsraelÂs safety? Really?He has a
resume that says if he says he will do something he will do it? Since when?
HeÂs said for a couple years all options are on the table. Maybe they are,
but being on the table and being used are two different things.BO
does what he says? Really!?!?!?!?!?! Then why is Gitmo still open? Why have health care costs not declined by $2500 per family? Why does
he have former lobbyists in his administration?Why is legislation not
posted on the web for 48 hours before passage?Why did the unemployment
rate exceed 8 percent (for the longest period since the great depression)?Why has the deficit tripled rather than been cut in half? etc ad
Obama has arrived late at the party. He had a chance to take decisive action
during Iran's democratic uprising in 2009, and blew it. Now, in an election
year, he's finally saying what everyone else knew all along.Thomas
Friedman is okay with Obama standing up to Iran, as long as it can be framed as
defense of globalism, instead of defense of Israel. Why does anyone listen to a
word Friedman says?
This has got to be the dumbest and most ridiculous stories this year. Obama pro
Israel? I don't think so! Demanding Israel return to the "indefensible 1967
borders? Snubbing the prime minister time and time again? Are these the actions
of a pro Israel president? And as far as Iran goes, does ANYONE really think
Obama who consistently leads from behind has ANY intention of knocking out
Iran's nuclear bunkers by force? This is the same president who wouldn't even
pay lip service to the Iranian people who were protesting in the streets and
crying for our support 2 years ago. This is the same president who likes to
stand and watch and then send his defense secretary out to proclaim that the US
must seek UN approval before ANY military campaign is started. Yes approval of
the UN. Since when has the US EVER had to bow before the UN to get some sort of
PHONY legal authorial? NEVER! Geez, we need a Ronald Reagan about now who not
only understands a real threat but also has the backbone and resolve to act. By
the way, OBama has already announced he intends on dismantling our nuclear
arsenal. Go figure.
So "Lost" no one except yourself is going to lose any sleep pondering
whether Obama is going to be crowned the "most" Pro Israeli Prsident.
What is important is that he is pursuing a policy that not only includes the
safety of Israel but the saftey of the rest of the world. He is giving Russia
etc. a reason to change it's policy. Imagine how great it is to have
a President who's first instinct isn't to start a world war yet who has a resume
in the region that says..if I tell you I'm going to do it, I will do it.
Let this debate begin.What about omens having to do with Sycamore
and Erez Trees, proclamations of judgment by people in power, and the
"second shaking" of America - its economic collapse. Isaiah 9:10. The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is
whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the
most.Why? Because the question of whether Israel has the need and
the right to pre-emptively attack Iran as it develops a nuclear potential is one
of the most hotly contested issues on the world stage today. It is also an issue
fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be
accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an
already frail world economy.I'm ready.
After BO basically blames Israel for the conflict and tells them they need to
retreat to the indefensible 1967 borders, snubs their leaders and cozies up to
their enemies, Freidman says BO is the most pro-Israeli president? Really? One
speech before a Jewish convention does NOT undo the damage BO has done to the
This is a difficult issue and the President is handling it in a mature, rational
way. Now if we can get Romney and the Republicans to do the same. The drumbeat
for another war should send the American voter a warning sign.