One might point out that there may be a difference between having someone's back and supporting a "preemptive" military strike.
Such nuances may not have occurred to you, but should be considered. Just a thought. Judah On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Michael Dinowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:354415 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
