Obama as Mitzvah

"Now, here's a change we can believe in.

A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.

He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused."

How could they be confused? As a pandering performance, it was the full Monty by a candidate who, during the primary, had positioned himself to Hillary Clinton's left on matters such as Iran. Yesterday, Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American-flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a Hebrew phrase on the crowd."  Dana Milbank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Now, here's a change we can believe in."

A politician like all others, he came to make his kowtow before the most powerful lobby in Washington.

Hilary Clinton probably lost the election before the primary process started, not because she is a woman, but because of her vote to enable Bush to intervene in Iraq.  That vote cost it her the support of the anti-war forces in her party and she never recovered from that.  Her vote to label the Quds forces of the IRGC as a terrorist organization and therefore the Iranian government as terrorist only reinforced her alienation from the "progressives."

Some of the people who advised her to make those votes were probably sitting in the audience at the AIPAC convention yesterday.

Two of AIPAC's former "staffers" are under indictment and awaiting prosecution in federal court for espionage on behalf of Israel.  Their lawyers are playing a most skillful game of "greymail" with the prosecutors.  Will these two men ever be tried?  Maybe...

McCain's world view is clear.  The forces of darkness are arrayed against the forces of light.  The forces of darkness gathering behind the Dark Lord, Sauron will march forth from the Iron (or maybe Iran) Gates of Mordor.  They must be stopped, somehow, by a gathering of the knights.  He has seen these dark forces before.  So have I.

Obama said to the AIPAC  devoted that he would do "anything in his power to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, anything."  Anything is a lot for an American president.  Under the authorities still in force an American president has complete operational control of the strategic nuclear force.  A launch order from him will be obeyed.  Why?  Easy.  It would be a lawful order.  An American president would not do that?  How sure are you?

In the light of the McBush world view and their designation of Iran as a threat equivalent to a super-power, I question anyone's sureties about such a possibility.

If Cockburn has the story right on the SOFA negotiations in Iraq, one must ask why it is that we want all those bases and control of Iraqi airspace.

This fellow Milbank must have what the WASPs used to call "private means."  He is destined to find a home other than the Washington Post.  Perhaps he could start a blog of his own.  pl

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990490.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403508.html

Download Revealed.doc

Comments

[Robert Colbert]

Col.,

Senator Obama's speech to AIPAC was disgraceful. Within minutes hearing the speech I went from a probable donor to a questionable supporter. He may have lost my vote.
His speech was almost belligerant.

It is amazing how the pro-Israel/hawk/Military industrial complex/ MSM/ corporate nexus controls what we hear and think. The debate is NOT about wether Iran is a military threat to the US or Isreal. This debate never happened. Iran is a de facto threat...a "grave" threat. Yet we never hear that they have no navy or air force to speak of, are surrounded by the US Military, and are a second world country. To hear people speak (neocons etc) one would think they are a superpower.

And Isreal's security is "sacrosanct"? The US lived with MAD for decades, detante. But, Isreal cannnot? Why is that country so special.

Sadly, with the power of the AIPAC/military industrial complex/MSM/corporate nexus when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy it is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

[JT Davis]

Colonel,

Today I was rereading what Keiran wrote about his visit with the Assads:

The best case scenario was a US president committed to seeking peace accords with Syria and the Palestinians ("a genuine commitment, not like Annapolis"). I got the impression from this (and later from a sly 'yes we can' from his wife) that they saw a significant difference between Obama and McCain. Nonetheless, when explicitly asked about this, he replied that his country had learned to be skeptical of US campaign rhetoric.

Lately I am tuning campaign rhetoric out almost completely. Differences in policy are crucial but more and more I tend to view the pre-election game as the requisite feints, parries and thrusts of a fencing match. Turning Clausewitz on his head, politics is war carried on by other means and the goal is to deny McCain a victory in November. We can't really be sure what is in Obama's head or heart but he is no more in the bag than Hillary was and probably a bit less than McCain. A shrewd politician will now be walking that fine line between sensible statecraft (otherwise known as "appeasement") and strength (punch them in the mouth and then see if they can or will talk to you). He's got to please as many people as possible to deny McCain that victory. I could be wrong.

[jr786]

I'm terribly disappointed in this, even if I'm not surprised - the power of this infernal Aipac is something to behold.

It'll get lots of play in Northern Virginia where the Muslim-American vote might have made a difference for him. He doesn't deserve it.

[Jose]

Far less than the nuclear exchange HRC promised in the Philadelphia debate but Obama needs New Jersey because Florida is gone.

Sadly, any American Presidential-candidate must placate certain (Jewish, Cuban et all) domestic foreign-policy interest above America's general interest in order to get elected but it is the reality we live under.

Good thing that it was a political show because no other President or Presidential candidate has ever carried out anything promised at AIPAC other than "Dumbya".

By the way, in LOTR, Tolkien defines evil as imposing your will against people who wish to be left alone and live in their own ways and beliefs.

Maybe we should apply that view to Arabs, Muslims and Persian instead of Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits by focusing to deliver the Ring (AQ) to Mount Doom. lol
.

[Montag]

What got me was Hillary's vote to continue to allow the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas by U.S. forces. Obama voted to discontinue the policy of using them anywhere. Hillary was demagogueing not against the "Mad Mullahs," but against innocent, helpless people whom she'd never met. Does she even THINK before she casts these votes? Oh yes, gotta look tough.

We're constantly told that the U.S. and Israel have "shared values," yet they regard our principle of Separation of Church and State with contempt--disparaging the concept as "uniquely Franco-American." They lump us in with the French? Perhaps we should start behaving like them then and never pass up an opportunity to spit in the soup.

[JBV]

One can argue persuasively that Israel is far more unsafe due to Ziocon madness (with ample assistance from christian evangelicals and big spender cold warrior types.)

Has anybody even heard a peep about a Palestinian State lately?

Many innocent Palestinians die daily due to present blockade. It is a disgrace by any definition and USA should be condemning it with enthusiasm.

One word aptly describes obama's hollow supplication - oi.

[Lewis]

You act as if he's won the presidency. He's not president yet.

There's also a lot that's wrong with Bush, that makes it hard to believe Obama is merely a few steps away from being a Bush clone in terms of foreign policy. Bush's administration made several blunders, in addition to getting all the details wrong as well. It's the details that will make the difference.

Bush is an idiot. That was the overriding factor in his presidency.

[K Kramer]

Does someone understand why he did this? He has plenty of campaign money, certainly more than McCain. The Jewish vote is complicated and not that large. Christians who are hardline for Israel are going to vote for McCain no matter what. Is he worried about what AIPAC will do to him in the press? Is congress worried about losing their AIPAC money? Does he really think that an undivided Jerusalem is something he believes in?

[zanzibar]

I agree with Pat that Obama was able to win the nomination in large part because of Hillary's Iraq vote and her refusal to walk that back. For the Democratic party base the judgment on Iraq has been a central issue and Obama has taken advantage of that in this campaign using his opposition as a key test.

In his triangulation of the Jewish vote he has taken a position on Iran not very different from the neo-cons. So if he believes what he said yesterday at the AIPAC conference how would it be possible for him play an even-handed role in trying settle the Israel-Palestine conflict and surrounding conflicts? It seems he can't.

Obama's speech to AIPAC, IMO, gives Bush and Cheney the cover to attack Iran. He is boxed in now and will be unable to oppose it. Such an attack will split the Democratic party and would lead to a McCain presidency.

As Kieran gathered from the Levant that the parties all prepared for a major escalation it seems the powder keg is ready for ignition. Bush and Cheney will I'm sure be happy to oblige the neo-cons one last conflagration.

[Cloned_Poster]

Magis idem eadem idem.

For that is the US corporate policy, Coca-Cola, has aircraft-carriers.

[lina]

Just because the mainstream media positioned Barack Obama to the left of Hillary Clinton, it did not make it true. Sen. Obama's stance on Israel has been available on his web site for a year:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf

Furthermore, here's what he said to AIPAC in March:

“Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. . That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.” [Speech at AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago, 3/2/07]

Obama opposed Kyl-Lieberman because it opened the door to another Bush-Cheney war.

There's nothing new, different or changed with Barack Obama's point of view on Israel or foreign policy in general.

Read "Dreams From My Father" if you want to know who Obama is and how his world view was forged.

[JT Davis]

Colonel,

BREAKING NEWS
Air Force Chief Moseley Resigns; Wynne May be Next
DefenseAlert, June 5, 2008 -- Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley has resigned, Inside the Air Force has learned.
Top-level Pentagon officials gave Moseley the option to resign or be fired during a meeting this morning, according to a military official. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne also could resign later today, this official said.

http://www.insidedefense.com/

Any thoughts on what this may be about would be welcome.

[William R. Cumming]

Given that neither McCain nor Obama is likely to break th 50% mark in popular vote, every vote counts. Wilson and FDR promised peace in 1916 and 1940 and Obama promises war in 2008, but so does McCain. So go figure that who ever gets 45% of the vote probably the winner. Then time will tell real policies.

[JohnH]

We're definitely well past the point where we can believe anything Obama or McCain say. Pandering 24/7.

Realistically, the choices come Jan. 2009 are stark. 1) Continue funding the bloated, profligate defense budget along with the adventure in Iraq at the expense of the economy, healthcare reform and social security, or 2)
Fight a tough political battle to prioritize defense spending, cut waste in order to make some progress on domestic priorities.

If Obama is going to win the election and show any results on the domestic front, he needs to begin lulling his potential enemies now.

All we can do now is see what the candidates do, not what they say.

[b]

A completely unneeded sell-out by Obama.

Especially on Jerusalem. He exceeded the official position of the U.S. by a large marging and defied international law.

Bush III.

[Mike]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.....

[arbogast]

Obama realizes one thing more clearly than perhaps anyone else.

If he doesn't sound, right now, before the election, like a lunatic Likudnic, well...well, what do you think happens?

Cheney goes around to Henry Kissinger and Elliott Abrams and says, "We've got to do something before this jerk gets elected."

Give Obama credit for brains. He's doing the best he can to prevent an airstrike against Iran right now. He's trying to chip away at the constituency for that strike. God bless him.

[Cieran]

I'd classify Obama's AIPAC speech as some very smart politics. He used the opportunity to weaken one of McCain's criticisms of him (namely, the idea of being soft on protecting Israel), while stealing one of HRC's signature issues, and thus he worked to inoculate himself against a potential political vulnerability in the general election.

But he did something much more interesting in his speech, and the news media buried that aspect of the story, even though I'd suggest it's the most important part of his message. Obama spoke of the need to revitalize the relationship between the Jewish-American and African-American communities, and this passage of his speech is what I found especially important:

They took buses down South together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man -- James Chaney -- on behalf of freedom of equality

That's the money quote from Obama's AIPAC appearance. Yes, he gave the obligatory AIPAC pandering speech, but he also brought up memories of when these two important minority communities worked together to build a better America. Nice move, that...

And I find the subtext of his example even more interesting, because those brave young men were murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town of little worth remembering save for two events, namely:

(1) that loathsome murder in 1964, and
(2) it's where Ronald Reagan declared his candidacy in 1980, and thus where the GOP finally came out of the closet as a fundamentally racist and even anti-semitic party.

Obama's choice of AIPAC speech content is a lot more interesting than Milbank noticed. He not only told the AIPAC crowd what they wanted to hear, but he reminded the rest of us that there is a stark difference between the political parties, and that he's someone who can undermine the GOP's southern strategy by reminding us (among other things) that the GOP's beloved Gipper chose to use a murder site for his party's political gain.

Too bad Milbank missed that part...

[Trent]

Sad. Why are self-professed American Christians so intent on keeping Jewish and Israeli control of Palestinian Christian Jerusalem? Are they all drunk with Revelation?

[Walrus]

Col. Lang,

Ever done a course on neurolinguistics? I have.

One of the things they teach you is called "Framing", which is about thinking of the context of what you are saying as you say it.

This skill I found very valuable in business, for example it saved my bacon at a meeting about some venture capital funding with a pack of Six Investement/Merchant Bankers and five lawyers.

They asked me "Don't you trust us?" Because of my training, I was able to immediately answer with a dead straight face, from the bottom of my heart, "Of course I trust you". Thank God for neurolinguistics.

I have read Obama's remarks to AIPAC and it is quite obvious to me that he has been to the same course.

To put it another way, when Obama says he will do "Anything" to protect Israel, you interpret that as a reference to military action. With my neurolinguistic hat on I see negotiations with Iran, treaties, pacts, developmental aid and perhaps even "appeasement".

Furthermore, even this goy knows that his AIPAC hosts know the same thing, since when it comes to verbal gymnastics and splitting hairs, they wrote the book.

[FB Ali]

Is this speech a sign of Obama's "pandering", or a reflection of the stranglehold that the AIPAC lobby has on US policy and the US political process? If the latter, as is likely, it shows that Obama also understands practical politics.

The sad fact seems to be that no politician (or senior official) can win, or survive in, office in the USA if he or she is (or is perceived to be) anything but a 100%+ supporter of Israel and its policies. And those policies, unfortunately for us all, are formed and executed by the religious and extremist right-wingers in that country.

[Anon]

Mr. Lang:

How much of this do suspect is kowtowing to a powerful lobby per se, versus simply appealing to a demographic that is disproportionately concentrated in key states?

Anon

[srv]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24988491/

Navy and Air Force are now onboard over Iran.

[jr786]

I think you were a bit unfair here Colonel. The transcript reads:

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do
everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That
starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating
preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.

[mike]

Will Samantha Power now call Obama a "monster"? Or will she remain in hiding and be meekly quiet on his pandering and his put-down of the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinians. What intrepid journalist would ask her that question.

I suspect her public flame-out and falling on her sword several months back was because she saw Obama's right turn towards Israel coming.