Obama’s reasoning for a “clear strong commitment to security of Israel” stems from his belief that it is necessary when “confronting strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, a resurgence of al Qaeda, and reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah.” With all do respect Mr. Obama, I don’t think propping up Israel will solve any of these conflicts with Iran, Iraq, al-Qaeda, or especially Hamas and Hezbollah. Unless you plan on nuking them off the face of the Earth, please do us all a favor and elaborate on how propping up Israel solves the conflict. Essentially, what you are advocating would breed terrorism. But terrorism may be what you need for your policy to thrive because terrorism will provide tactical target for you to carry out your foreign policy strategy of increasing Israel’s security.
For those skeptical that Obama really will do for the Israelis what they want and do for the Palestinians what Israel wants, just look at what Obama said about securing a lasting settlement with the two states. Obama wants America to “help Israel identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict/instability.” Through isolation, meaning killing, bombing, arresting and other horrific things, those who do not wish to do as Israel tells them to do will submit to the rule of Israel. And Israel will thank America for what it did and agree to police the region for us. And Muslim extremism will continue.
After laying down the policy, Obama details how it would be implemented. For one, he states that we “must not rule out using military force.” Of course not! Heaven forbid we keep our nuclear weapons to ourselves. No, as Obama went on to say, America must use its instruments of power---political, economic, and military---to support tough-minded diplomacy. I guess one must remind Obama that it was John F. Kennedy, whom he cited previously, that said, “Let us not negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.” Obama’s policy seems to be far from what Kennedy promised as his policy plans for American diplomats to come to the table with tools of aggression ready to be used at any given moment.
Obama on Revitalizing Our Military
The presidential candidate wastes no time cutting to the chase here and states, “Strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” Barack Obama continues saying, “I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or threatened.”
Again, I refer to the Bush Doctrine. From goal three, which is, “Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends”, Bush states, “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.” Both Obama’s policy and Bush’s policy were waged to sustain peace. Both used peace as a cover for their primary objective, which is to spread American rule to more nations and convince more nations through instruments of power to listen to what we say or else.
Obama on Halting Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Obama opens saying:
“To renew American leadership in the world, we must confront the most urgent threat to the security of America and the world---the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology and the risk that nuclear device will fall into the hands of terrorists.”
Oh, so you support the bill that is currently circulating which would work towards the abolition of all nuclear weapons? Nope, while a bill calling for abolition of nuclear weapons was drafted in the House in 2006 and had 11 cosponsors, you did not sponsor it in the Senate or cosponsor it. Therefore, that leaves me no choice but to presume that you wish to allow America to hold on to its nuclear weapons while at the same time telling other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons. Hmm....does the insanity ever end?
It might a make a few of you feel better to know that Obama supports his call by mentioning that George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn. George Shultz lied about Iran arms shipments in the Iraq Contra scandal, William Perry previously suggested launching a high-explosive cruise missile from a submarine to destroy the Taepodong on its launch pad in North Korea, Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, and Sam Nunn . In fact, this excerpt from Information Clearing House should help you understand how dangerous this group of advisors to Obama are:
“This time the media completely ignored---or should we say censored—Kissinger’s trip to Russia and his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, apart from a few short blurps in the Moscow Times and one measly article in the UK Guardian, no major news organization even covered the story. There hasn’t been as much as a peep out of anyone in the American media.
Nothing. That means the meetings were probably arranged by Dick Cheney. The secretive Veep doesn’t like anyone knowing what he’s up to.
Kissinger was accompanied on his junket by a delegation of high-powered political and corporate big-wigs including former Secretary of State George Schultz, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Special Representative for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., former Senator Sam Nunn and Chevron Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David O'Reilly.
Wow. Now, there’s an impressive line up.
The group was (presumably) sent to carry out official government business as discreetly as possible. The media obviously complied with White House requests and kept their mouths shut.”
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
