The 70 million was for the iron dome anti-missile system which really stops Israel from invading Gaza to take out the rocket squads that keep attacking. The 70 million can be seen as a "keep Israel/Gaza quiet to avoid giving Egypt a reason to get involved". As for the timing, it was signed in May and released in July. Right before Romney's trip to Israel. Some see that as a power play to undercut Romney.
As for the pure falsehood that Israel has more support under Obama than any other president, it can easily be shown how much of his 'support' was not of his initiative. He didn't build that. But rather than attack me by saying I've fallen prey to "Republican lies" or the dreaded "Murdoch media", how about you look at the claims of support yourself rather than blindly trust whoever you follow. And while you're at it, look at the claims against Obama as well. Lets take a simple one. Obama said that he has Israel's back when it comes to Iran. His top military officer then says that he does not have Israel's back. It is then announced that a message was sent to Iran saying that if Israel attacks, the US will not take part and Iran should not target US assets because of such an attack. Republican lie or something that can be researched and shown to be fact? I'm discounting all of the 'unintentional' security leaks of Israel's plans that came from the US's side. The case against Obama is rather solid but you wouldn't believe it unless it came from your news source of choice or your own research. Believe blindly or look for yourself. The choice is yours as the choice is mine and everyone heres. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > Obama distrusts Israel so much he's announced an increase of 70 > million on top of all the other aid its currently sending. > > > http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-announces-70-million-in-new-military-aid-for-israel/ > > The frustrating thing about this is that in Israel has never had the > degree of support that it has received during the 4 years of the Obama > administration. And there is this right wing Republican meme that > Obama hates Israel. Again part of the lies of the republicans again. > You really need to stop reading Murdoch media and expand to more > politically objective news sources. > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Michael Dinowitz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama > > The U.S. is harder on its ally than on Iran's nuclear program. . > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577623504274512294.html > > > > Barack Obama is fond of insisting that he "has Israel's back." Maybe he > > should mention that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. > > > > In remarks to journalists in London quoted by the Guardian, General > Martin > > Dempsey warned that any Israeli attack on Iran would "clearly delay but > > probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programs." He also said economic > > sanctions on Iran were having an effect and needed more time to work, but > > that the good they were doing "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked > > prematurely." > > > > And to underscore the firmness of his opposition to an Israeli strike, > the > > Chairman added that "I don't want to be complicit if they choose to do > it." > > > > We don't know what exactly Gen. Dempsey thinks American non-complicity > might > > entail in the event of a strike. Should the Administration refuse to > > resupply Israel with jets and bombs, or condemn an Israeli strike at the > > U.N.? Nor do we know if the General was conducting freelance diplomacy or > > sending a signal from an Administration that feels the same way but > doesn't > > want to say so during a political season. > > > > Whatever the case, the remarks were counterproductive and oddly timed, > with > > this week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's > > nuclear programs haven't been slowed in the least by U.S. or > international > > sanctions. In fact, they are accelerating. > > > > Iran has now installed 2,140 centrifuges at its underground Fordo > facility > > near the city of Qom. Its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%çr 87% of > the > > enrichment needed to reach bomb-grade levelsæºas grown from effectively > zero > > to some 200 kilograms in a year. Only 50 more kilograms of 20% uranium > are > > needed to produce a bomb, and that's saying nothing of Iran's additional > > large stockpiles of reactor-grade uranium that can also be enriched to > > higher levels of purity. > > > > Administration officials have also repeatedly told the media that they > > aren't entirely sure if Iran really intends to build a bomb. We'll grant > > that ultimate intentions are usually unknowable, especially in closed > > societies such as Iran's. > > > > Yet as the IAEA noted, "the Agency has become increasingly concerned > about > > the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities > > related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." These > > activities, by the way, "continued after 2003," according to the report. > > This puts paid for the umpteenth time the 2007 National Intelligence > > Estimate that misleadingly claimed the contrary. > > > > No wonder the Israelis are upseté t the U.S. Administration. It's one > thing > > to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: > At > > least it has the ring of honesty. It's quite another to hear from > President > > Obama that he has your back, even as his Administration tries to sell to > the > > public a make-believe world in which Iran's nuclear intentions are > > potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn't failed > > after three and half years. > > > > The irony for the Administration is that its head-in-the-sand > performance is > > why many Israeli decision-makers believe they had better strike sooner > than > > later. Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to > > take military action on his own, but there's also a fear that a > re-elected > > President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than > he > > would before the first Tuesday in November. > > > > If Gen. Dempsey or Administration officials really wanted to avert an > > Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem that the U.S. is > under > > no illusions about the mullahs' nuclear goalsçr about their proximity to > > achieving them. They're doing the opposite. > > > > Since coming to office, Obama Administration policy toward Israel has > > alternated between animus and incompetence. We don't know what motivated > > Gen. Dempsey's outburst, but a President who really had Israel's back > would > > publicly contradict it. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:354413 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
