Thursday, June 19, 2008

Little Ricky The Elephant Poops On The “Schvartze”

The Philadelphia Inquirer continues to give column space to this propagandist, with predictable results (here)…

The day after securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama addressed the preeminent pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This mostly Jewish organization, which is largely liberal and Democratic, would seem to be the perfect pushover crowd to launch his fall campaign.
This is gross hypocrisy even for Santorum; AIPAC is “largely liberal and Democratic,” huh? Then how come, according to SourceWatch here…

"In 2002, the pro-Israel lobby successfully targeted African-American representatives Earl Hilliard (D-AL) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) for defeat in Democratic primaries. Hilliard and McKinney were both vulnerable for reasons unrelated to Israel. McKinney, for instance, was defeated in part because the open primary allowed Republicans angered over her comments about the September 11 attacks to cross over and vote against her in the Democratic primary. Nonetheless, their defeat enhanced the impression that the pro-Israel lobby wields great power in electoral politics," Beinin wrote.

In 2004 CBS News reported that an FBI investigation had gained evidence that a senior Pentagon analyst with close ties to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith had provided a draft presidential directive on Iran to AIPAC that was then passed to the Israeli government.[3][4]

In March 2005 the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that Pentagon analyst on the Iran desk Larry Franklin, who had been suspended from the Defence Department while the FBI investigation proceeded, had returned to work. The report suggested that a plea bargain was being discussed under which Franklin and AIPAC would not be sanctioned but focus on "two AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman." Both Rosen and Weissman are on leave from AIPAC. [5] On May 28, 2005, Ha'aretz reported that Rosen will be indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917. [6]
Oh, and speaking of Rosen and Weissman, methinks Our Gal Condi has something to answer for here.

More from Ricky…

By all accounts, (Obama) wowed the crowd with rhetorical flares, saying he "had grown up without a sense of roots" and consequently had always "understood the Zionist idea, that there is always a homeland at the center of our story." But behind the dozen standing ovations is the seldom-told story that Obama throughout the primaries has had a problem with Jewish voters.
Yep, Obama has a problem with Jewish voters – sure he does.

Former Senator Man-On-Dog continues…

In September, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution, by a vote of 76-22, that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama didn't make the vote, but he trashed the resolution and used Clinton's support of it to drive a wedge between her and the antiwar crowd. At the same time, Obama famously announced that he would meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without precondition" and declared that Iran was merely a "tiny threat."
This Crooks and Liars link takes you to information on what Obama actually said, and that was that Iran was a “tiny threat compared to Russia” (take that, Dmitry and Vlad! – Obama is right, IMHO).

And if Little Ricky doesn’t want to believe Obama or me, fine. Believe Fareed Zakaria then, who said (in the Crooks and Liars post)…

“Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century…. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
And by the way, do you have any doubt whatsoever that Little Ricky managed to work in references to a certain African-American preacher? (please).

Little Ricky also throws around all kinds of other allegations about Obama favoring Palestine over Israel (particularly funny when you read this) and Obama’s stated (and praiseworthy, I think) desire “not to weaponize space,” as well as more imagined linkages to Jimmy Carter through Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake (Ricky also labels Carter as “pro-Palestine,” which may have some weight in Carter’s post presidency, but the last time I checked, the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt took place during the Carter term; the only way Dubya will manage a peace treaty with anybody is if someone does it for him – paging Condi Rice again).

But this is typical for Santorum’s lockstep complicity with anything pertaining to the state of Israel; as noted here, he and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback tried to add an amendment to Title VI of the Higher Education Act arguing that “any action or statement critical of Israel is perforce anti-Semitic.”

And by the way, here is a perspective on Santorum from a Jewish politician that you may find to be enlightening (from the 2006 campaign)…

A couple of my Jewish friends have flirted with supporting Mr. Santorum because he is "good on Israel." I respectfully disagree with them. Mr. Santorum's biblically based view of the world says that Israel must exist for Jesus to return to earth. That is why certain evangelicals are "pro-Israel," but read the end of the story. What must happen to Jews under this belief system in order to have Jesus return? Let's just say it isn't pretty. People who support the existence of Israel for that reason are, in my view, no friends of Israel or the Jewish people.
Way to go, Daylin!

No comments: