-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In his speech before AIPAC this morning, President Obama spent a lot of time asserting that he’s always had Israel’s back, ignoring the past three years of friction with the Israeli government with Orwellian brazenness. On Iran, the issue on everyone’s mind, Obama insisted that he is committed to stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons:
I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.
Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.
This is explicit, but not specific — he still hasn’t quite done what Israel and many of her supporters want and say exactly what actions by Iran would trigger a strike. Notably, he says he won’t tolerate Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but stops short of saying he won’t tolerate Iran having the capability to build a weapon — a hint that he might be okay with letting them get awfully close to becoming a nuclear power. Will that be enough to calm Israeli nerves? Keep an eye on public statements following tomorrow’s meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu for clues.
Dan Phillips| 3.4.12 @ 12:03PM
"Ignoring the past three years of friction with the Israeli government with Orwellian brazenness."
So John, are you suggesting that there should be an exact 1 to 1 correspondence between the interests of the US and the interests of Israel. So no "friction," none at all, should be tolerated?
DRed| 3.4.12 @ 12:21PM
I found this interesting:
In our recent poll, Israelis were asked whom they referred in a paired competition between Obama and each remaining GOP candidate. Not surprisingly, a significant minority of Israelis expressed no opinion or chose none of the candidates. Though the results were sometimes close — within the margin of error — Obama was the preferred candidate over every potential Republican rival among Jewish-Israelis, and ahead of all among a combined sample of Arab- and Jewish-Israelis, except for tying Mitt Romney.
Overall, Obama led Santorum 33 percent to 18 percent; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 32 percent to 25 percent; Ron Paul 32 percent to 21 percent; and tied Romney at 29 percent
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z1oAZxfBBi
Drek| 3.4.12 @ 12:20PM
But on the issue of Iran, the interests of our two countries fully coincide, that is of course the real interests and not the bizarre take of the situation by the present administration.
Conservative Not Republican| 3.4.12 @ 1:13PM
I am sick of American Foreign Policy being decided by whacko Evangelicals and The Rapture Factor. 'Evangelicals support Israel because of biblical prophecy, including passages that tie the survival of Israel to the Second Coming of Jesus.'
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faith.....z1oAn2yFWL
Dan Phillips| 3.4.12 @ 3:52PM
CNR, Evangelicals are not whacko and that language is not helpful. As a conservative Christian who happens to be skeptical of dipensational pre-Mil theology, I think they are theologically wrong, and I don't concede that an excessively deferential to Israel policy necessarily follows even if they are right. But while dispy pre-Mil theology plays a role in conservative Christian support for Israel, it doesn't explain it all. Catholics such as Santorum support the same policies even though Catholicism explicitly rejects dispy pre-Mil theology. Reformed believers such as Erick Erickson (Red State) also reject pre-Mil theology but yet are no less deferential to Israel. On the other hand, some dispy pre-Mils such as Chuck Baldwin are Ron Paul style non-interventionists. Excessive deference to Israel simply pervades the conservative milieu. Better to make the case that excessive deference to Israel doesn't necessarily follow even if the dispy pre-Mils are right than to call names.
Conservative Not Republican| 3.4.12 @ 7:03PM
Agreed, doesn't explain it ALL. But it explains too much. We are not a theocracy...yet. Our foreign policy should not be determined by the craziest most outlandish evangelical beliefs. Not an ounce of it.
Conservative Not Republican| 3.4.12 @ 7:11PM
Also, DP, I think you underestimate how large a role dispy pre-Mil theology plays in conservative Christian support for Israel. In my city, we only get 24 channels on TV, and one of those is devoted entirely to dispy pre-Mil pro-Israel televangelists 24-hours a day.
Dan Phillips| 3.4.12 @ 9:59PM
Trust me CNR, I grew up in this milieu and remain a part of it even though I have grown skeptical of dispensationalism with time and study. The Israel stuff is seldom spoken outright and is mostly just taken for granted. But it's taken for granted among conservative Reformed believers and conservative Catholics as well. Like I said, fidelity to Israel is part of the overall conservative milieu. A Reformed believer who knows his theological stuff might object if he heard an evangelical's theological justifications for supporting Israel, but is unlikely to be less supportive. Michelle Bachmann, a Lutheran, used the "bless Israel" "curse Israel" verse to justify support for Israel even though her Church explicitly rejects that reading of it.
Dan Phillips| 3.4.12 @ 9:47PM
"should not be determined by the craziest most outlandish evangelical beliefs."
Again CNR, this is not helpful. There are a lot of sincere, well-meaning, Bible-believing Christians who believe dispensationalism to be true. Dispensationalism is either good theology or it is bad theology based on whether or not it is a correct or incorrect interpretation of Scripture. I not sure how premillennialism is any more "crazy" or "outlandish" on its face than is postmillennialism which posits that a gradual Christianization of the world will usher in the millennium. What is certainly true is that dispensational premillennialism is a novel theological concept and largely confined to US evangelicals and their satellites that they have established through missionary activity. Novelty argues against it being the correct interpretation, but it doesn't preclude it.
BD57| 3.4.12 @ 4:59PM
I'm sick of people who think their opinions are worthy of consideration and others should be marginalized or ignored.
Israel is the only true democracy in the region and isn't dominated by a religious/political program which would slit our throats if given the opportunity. That some evangelicals embrace Israel for religious reasons puts them on the "right side" - I'm glad they're there & don't care how they got there.
Conservative Not Republican| 3.4.12 @ 7:06PM
You support Israel because it is a democracy? What about Turkey. It is a democracy. I'll bet you hate Turks...because they are Muslim. Racist, much?
C Bowen | 3.4.12 @ 7:45PM
BD57,
How do you position Israel's miscegenation laws, in light of flowery democracy/in your words 'not dominated by a religious/political program' talk?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.4.12 @ 3:25PM
If Obama has your back, it's so he can leave your front wide open.
Paul McGrath| 3.4.12 @ 8:20PM
When one considers that the only words that come out of Obama's mouth are politically motivated, then one must realize that anything he says about Israel or Iran is worthless.
He is saying that he will prevent Iran from getting nukes because at the moment it is politically expedient. Nothing more.
John Bibb| 3.4.12 @ 9:47PM
***
Ambassador John Bolton gave a clear short comment on President Obama's "support" for Israel. He pointed out that the Iranians just want to stall for more time to complete their nukes and delivery systems. And that they (correctly!) see Comrade Obama as a talk loudly and do nothing clown who can be ignored at their will. They know that no effective action will ever be taken against them by the U.S.A.
***
John Bolton also pointed out that Israel has 2 main points in their defense strategy. One--Israel can never trust any other country to defend them--they know that they must do it themselves or die. Two--that they will die if Iran acquires the nukes and the ways to deliver them. They will not accept any Holocaust II enabling Munich style "peace" agreements brokered by the U.S.A.
***
Israel will strike when their excellent intelligence reports that the Iranian nukes are about to be produced. No U.S. help wanted or needed.
***
John Bibb
***
Conservative Not Republican| 3.4.12 @ 10:56PM
Bolton: "first and foremost we must make the world safe for ourselves."
Hold onto your wallets, folks. Send your sons and daughters to Canada.
Bolton is warmongering, Wilsonian NeoCon tool job.
Leon| 3.4.12 @ 9:53PM
After three years of inaction (or worse) on Iran, it's a bit late for The One to be talking tough.
Bob Grant | 3.4.12 @ 11:04PM
A weak leader attempting to act and talk tough will only lead to disaster.
This guy's inconsistent and incoherent foreign policy draws suspicion from our "friends" and disrespect from our enemies.
Further, the state department is a toothless joke. God help us all in the next few years because he's liable to send us down a dark path, intended or otherwise.