Barack and Hillary’s Hope for Terrorists and Change for Israel
By: Jim Byrd
If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle—Sun Tzu
Barack Obama, during his speech in Cairo, never once mentioned the term terrorism–even though he was, geographically speaking, in the epicenter of Islamic terrorism. His oratory resources were spent on the historical misrepresentation of the Muslim world and fawning over Islam, while apologizing for American exceptionalism and misrepresenting the dominance of Christianity in America. Yet, just prior to his trip to the Middle East, he did exercise the term terrorist.
Considering that Obama and the Department of Homeland Security has rejected the term terrorist, but rather, in its stead, the term “man-made disaster” will be applied when referring to death and destruction wreaked by Islamic disaster makers. But the term terrorist must, within the confines of the Obama administration, be reserved for the worst of the worst.
In an email exchange between the Treasury Department and Chrysler, Thomas Lauria, attorney for Chrysler’s secured lenders, was called a terrorist for trying to secure the lawful rights of secured bondholders of Chrysler during bankruptcy. The terrorist reference in an email written by Mathew Feldman, a Treasury task force member: “President doesn’t negotiate second rounds…We’ve protected your management and board. And now you’re telling me to bend over to a terrorist like Lauria? That’s BS.” (source)
Neither Barack Obama, nor his administration, have a clear understanding of whom America’s enemy is.
Hillary Clinton has, once again, validated the fact that the principles of the left still remain in a state of fluidity for an as-needed directional change. This past week she strongly alluded that Israel would be on its own if attacked by Iran. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos regarding Israel and Iran, Clinton made clear America’s new position on Israel. Note the Clintonesque and nuanced use of the word “retaliation”:
CLINTON: â€œI would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.â€
STEPHANOPOULOS:â€ Is it U.S. policy now?â€
CLINTON: â€œI think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal, as it is with NATO, but I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.â€
STEPHANOPOULOS: â€œBy the United States?â€
CLINTON: â€œWell, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a — a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East, and we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.â€
U. S. foreign policy, in the event our staunchest ally in the Middle East is attacked by a nuclear Iran, has de-evolved into a wink and a nod contingency plan with unnamed nations.
This statement, especially from Clinton, who had to beg and grovel for the Jewish vote in New York to garner enough support to be elected to the Senate; this after calling for an independent Palestinian state during her husband’s presidency, and the outward adoration and very public embracing of Yasser Arafat’s wife, Suha Arafat. To get elected, Clinton conveniently became Israel’s biggest supporter. During her presidential campaign, she became the champion of the state of Israel. She emphatically stated that Iran “will not be permitted to have nuclear weapons.”
After being chosen as Obama’s Secretary of State, Clinton, using the same strategy that helped elect her to the Senate, started performing her canned pro-Israel speeches, declaring that Obama would be a good friend of Israel, and Obama would exhaust all measures to prevent Iran from going nuclear; same speeches she gave in 2000 during her Senate campaign, she just substituted I for Obama.
Obama has since announced that it would be acceptable for Iran to have “legitimate aspirations” for nuclear technology, this being an abrupt reversal of previous U.S. policy of absolute unacceptability of Iran having even remote access to nuclear technology.
Obama’s dereliction and affection for Iran appears to be boundless–as demonstrated during Ahmadinejad’s straightforward election fraud, and its ensuing chaos and mayhem in the streets of Iran–by calling the chaos during the election a “robust debate”, and refusing to denounce Ahmadinejad and his fraudulent election. There does not exist a diplomatic excuse for Obama’s apparent support of this terrorist regime, and for Obama to refer to his lack of denouncement as “meddling”–while “meddling in Israel’s affairs–is unacceptable in the civilized part of the world. But, rest assured, Obama’s response will likely change and will replicate and undulate according to the mood of the polls, and his financial donors.
If the current malignant state of Iran had a face, it would be Jimmy Carter, who is in the Middle East–yet again–being the apologist for state supported terrorism, and calling for, this time, Obama to remove Hamas from the terrorist list. Given Obama’s tender feelings for a Hamas controlled Palestine, he may just well side with Jimmy Carter on this issue.
So between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, it means a little bit of Hope for terrorists and a whole lot of Change for Israel.
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.