It was just yesterday that I noted Obama’s silence on the Gaza conflict left questions as to what his admin’s stance would be towards Israel – a longtime US ally – and Hamas, a US designated terror group. His refusal to make a public comment – supporting our current POTUS’s official statements [or not] – save thru mouthpiece David Axelrod on the Sunday morning talking head shows, could indicate to Israel that US support was not so forthcoming in the future.
In the past 24 hours, more are noticing Obama’s silence of convenience… including Paul Thompston in the UK’s Daily Mail today.
Barack Obama has risked alienating Muslims by choosing to sit on the sidelines as Israel continued its air attacks on Gaza over the weekend, Washington analysts warned today.
Many people within the Muslim world were looking to the American president-elect to offer a fresh view on the Middle East and the cycle of violence.
But three days after the Israeli assault began, he has remained silent.
~~~
When asked if the president-elect would be just as supportive of Israel as the Bush administration has been, Mr Axelrod said that Obama ‘recognises the special relationship between the United States and Israel.’
He said the president-elect would work closely with the Israelis ‘in a way that will promote the cause of peace’.
Well now… that’s a bumble of words that says nothing. Certainly there is nothing there to give Israel a sense of assurance that the US support will remain strong.
Instead, senior advisors are touting the “one President at a time” excuse on Obama’s behalf: saying “‘He wants to get a handle on the situation so that, when he becomes president on 20 January, he has the advantage of all the facts and information leading up to that point.’
This strikes me as cherry picking the phrase for political convenience. He has no problems speaking out on his administration’s plans for the economy via tax cuts. Nor does he shy away from announcing his policy change for Cuba, relaxing travel rules to the country.
He has not held back in lecturing the auto industry to “not squander this chance to reform bad management practices” on the heels of the Bush admin $17.4 bill short term loan in exchange for restructuring…. a stop gap measure to bridge into the new administration.
Evidently Iran doesn’t fall into that “one President at a time” off limits arena either, when he announced the creation of a new position to coordinate outreach to, and relations with Iran… a policy in direct conflict with the current administration’s.
When Obama was nothing more than a mere candidate for POTUS… and a sitting and occasionally serving Senator… he never had a problem with public statements about everything from Iraq and Afghanistan, or Russian and Georgia, to the subprime crisis.
As a matter of fact, with the exception of the traditionally conservative policy of tax cuts, pretty much everything out of Obama’s mouth as a candidate, a nominee and PEBO, has been in direct conflict with the Bush administration policies.
So why the coy “only one President at a time” dodge now?
As one can read into Axelrod’s carefully worded statements, Obama plans to seek middle ground for peace by backing off the historic and unmitigated support for Israel, and not riling the Muslim leadership by condeming actions like the Hamas bombing. Or, more simply put… pull back a little support for the ally, and ease up on criticizing the enemy.
When the going gets tough, we may well find ourselves under a President who responds as he has done too many times before – a leader who does not make clear, decisive decisions, but instead votes “present”.
Under this, and prior Presidents, we let the world know who our ally was. We chose sides… part of the difficult position a leader must do. Obama is instead effectively backing himself into a diplomatic corner with both sides eyeing him warily.
His attempt to straddle the fence will accomplish nothing. The Muslim leaders who support Hamas, Hezbollah and other entrenched terror groups will demand more positive lip service from the new US President who promised “change”. Our Israeli ally will become less influenced by a US President who refuses to go out on a limb with public support.
Obama had planned to deliver a major speech from an Islamic country within the first 100 days of his administration.
He had previously said that mediating in the conflict from ‘day one’ of his administration was his main target. But with the death toll now rising above 300, and a ground invasion by Israeli troops increasingly likely, that aim appears all but lost.
Aaron David Miller, a veteran US peace negotiator, said the fighting made ‘a difficult situation even tougher’ and reduced the likelihood that Obama could create an impact. He said the violence would speak louder to many Muslims about the United states ‘than any words Obama could utter’.
Mr Miller added that the US government’s condemnation of Hamas for provoking the air raids would also do little to signal to the Arab world that Obama offers an alternative to the hard line adopted by the Bush administration.
Wonder which Islamic country he was planning on picking?
Dang that Hamas… ruining a good PR moment for “that one” to speak from a Muslim nation. All staged as a lifting visual moment to encourage peace between states and ideology that, thru time, have never had a peaceful co-existance. Nor is it likely they will in the future. Not unless you can eradicate any and every global jihad movement hiding out in caves and universities.
If Aaron Miller thinks that the current violence “speaks louder” than Obama’s utterings, how far across the world does he believe Obama’s silence will echo?
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Just give a straight “yes”/”no” answer, dammit.
What is Obama afraid of now, anyway? He’s not campaigning for ’08. No more voting present and stuttering, “uh…uh….uh…”.
The way to promote the cause of peace is to stand with Israel.
Further proof Obama and his people are idiots.
And, yet, here we are. Somehow, I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot of that in the next four years. Hopefully, four years will be all there is of that from President Obama.
even this pee brained hair dresser has an opinion/stance on this issue. how can obama, the president elect, not have a freakin stance on this? i mean isn’t he supposed to be so freakin awesome that he is going to save the world? he is a retard and he certainly sucked alot of something to get where he is, he sure didn’t get there on merit and that will be becoming more evident as his term as president is served. i would bet my kids have a better idea of how to handle this than obama does.
I doubt Obama looked past his life-long desire to become president. That was the goal and what he would do once he won probably never crossed his mind. His whole house of cards are falling to pieces. All these dang countries are failing to get in linefor the messiah’s hetoric.. Here in the US Fitzgerald is causing havoc with his cabinet and his home town crooks are running for cover like roaches when the lights are turned on. He will be cominginto the presidency with lots of black clouds.
Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. He won’t side with no one. He is afraid (because he has no guts) to make one of them mad. He is too dumb to realize that by doing so, he will end up with two enemies instead of one. Boy this guy is an idiot.
Obama is permitted to stick to his “one president at a time” meme– after all, it’s wise here and it’s a nuclear Middle East mess; further, he’s justified to stay with it, and politically correct to: He can keep the light on Bush to shoulder the matter, as Bush as been remarkable silent–and is still the president.
Further, from a political vantage point Obama could use the press to further this meme:
Consider Gordon Brown’s comments and his demand for both a ceasefire and access for humanitarian aid to Gaza; imagine Obama planting a question leading from that:
Obama: “Prime Minister Brown has my greatest respect, he’s a strong ally and thoughtful man. However, the US only has “one President at a time” so I can only urge you to ask President Bush his thoughts, as Brown has expressed his.”
“… as Bush as been remarkable silent–and is still the president.” (Simple done)
“The White House, calling Monday for a lasting cease-fire in the Mideast, backed Israel’s deadly air attacks on the Gaza Strip and said the Islamic militant group ruling there had shown its “true colors as a terrorist organization.”
When the White House speaks it is in accordance with the President (Bush).
First off, simple…. Bush has not been “silent”. And in one way, he is far more politically correct than Obama as an outgoing POTUS and not being stronger in his own, very direct words (so as not to saddle Obama with too much “cowboy” in the final months). He has issued his official statements via Condie – as appropriate at this moment in time for his term – condemning Hamas, and telling Israel to be ever vigilient on civilian casualties.
In other words, Israel? Defend your arse, and watch the collateral damage. And oh, BTW… it’s Hamas who started it all.
INRE your “…permitted to stick to his meme… afterall it’s wise here and it’s a nuclear Middle East mess. further he’s justified to stay with it and remarkably politically correct to… BS.
All I can say is you are the quintessential example of the over-benevolent gullible fool. You’d never be that cavalier with an incoming John McCain/Sarah Palin admin. Do not let your euphoria with “that one” overwhelm a healthy distrust for government.
To pass off this “silence of convenience” merely because he hasn’t had his coronation… when he has been posing for the cameras and back seat governing for everything from his damn WH token dog, to Cuba or the auto bailout… is unbelievably naive. Hang.. the guy was more vocal and proactive as a damn candidate and do-nothing Senator! This event shows he’s is stymied by the immense implications of the POTUS power and decisions.
The only two reasons for silence is:
1: He disagrees with the Bush admin statement, and doesn’t dare completely alienate our Israel ally when he’s not yet President by chastising them publicly for self-defense…. or
2: He agrees with the current admin, but doesn’t want to blow his plans for int’l Muslim grandeur and adoration by publicly standing by our Israel ally and the current administration.
This means that – at this moment – I see Obama in one of two ways: either completely inept and inexperienced to handle this world and series of relentless events; or he’s nothing more than a political coward and self-absorbed opportunist who’s readying to abandon Israel.
Give him the honeymoon if you want, simple. But come less than a month, the man will have to draw a line in the sand and pick a side. It’s part of being President… You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be the United States and be “Switzerland neutral”.
But evidently even you think he’s incapable of being adept at this moment with your “give him a break” ‘tude.
“When the White House speaks it is in accordance with the President (Bush).”
So when the W.H. administration speaks it can be conflated to mean Bush has spoken publicly on the matter …so now we know why he’s a silent president.
simply, stop being a simpleton. If this were Bush mid term, he would be there publicly. It is inappropriate for him to go out and say the US will back our allies, including Israel, with what is needed when he’s only President for another few weeks.
It is politically correct for him to issue his statements that are tempered … (if you call condemning Hamas and telling [paraphrased] Israel “go ahead, but careful of the civilians”] tempered) … via the Secy of state in this stage of his last term in office.
Obama’s not polictically correct. He is either frozen in decision making for wanting to have it all, or he’s hiding the fact that he’s going to abandon Israel.
Truth is Bush is a lame duck president and any public statement is practically ineffective.
…. which only goes to show, simple, that Bush’s statement of continued support for Israel at this time warrants an additional formal comment from the incoming POTUS. A statement that Obama is either unwilling, or unable, to give.
…or unnecessary, unprofitable, and untimely to give.
… meaning that it’s “unnecessary, unprofitable or untimely” for Obama *personally* to give. For there is no moment in time where it is okay for the US to demonstrate a void in leadership simply because one admin is ending, and another is beginning. That’s what “transition” is all about.
And yet… that is what we have. A void in incoming leadership, and a demonstration of leadership via formal statements from the outgoing POTUS.
…Or there is a moment in time for all things, in their own order as they are considered.
oh puleeeze… stupidity using zen type language? Desperate excuses
What part of *the US cannot afford to demonstrate a void in leadership* did you not get?
You speak of “void” and accuse me of ‘zen’ language!!
… even more desperate. “void” is devoid, destitute, such as a life “void” of meaning. Hardly zen. Simple English, simple.
A “void” in leadership is not zen. It is reality.
a few more alternatives… meaningless, without content, ineffectual, vain. Frankly the last seems most apropos
It’s may be desperation to you, but I had already made my points and left for good humor.
… as in for ice cream? LOL
It’s really patently obvious…The Chosen One is staying true to form and voting PRESENT already. There was some pundit on TV tonight defending him, saying Zero would step aside and let Hillary handle it, after all, it’s her job and I almost threw the remote at the set!
Leadership? Going to be non-existent if this is any indication. I don’t buy the “one President at a time” blather. As was pointed out by Mata, he sure as hell had no problem criticizing anything he could before.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mata, he is attempting to straddle the fence while he is “on vacation” and can still very much so pass the buck. There is going to be an enormous void in leadership if this is the substance that we can expect from the resident-to-be in our house.
Simply done or Simple minded?
http://www.metimes.com/Editorial/2008/12/29/gaza_in_the_danger_zone/7090/
Yes… Today one senior Bush administration official told the Washington Post that he thinks the Israelis acted in Gaza “because they want it to be over before the next administration comes in” and because “they can’t predict how the next administration will handle it.”
Indeed, good humor.
Hellooooo… does reality reach your neck of the woods, simple??
The Israeli’s “acted in Gaza” as a R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E to Hamas missiles over weeks and months. Perhaps you’d like to rethink your absorption of media bytes with a tad of reality mixed in now?
And the Israeli’s would respond no matter who the US President was. Nor will it be “over before the next administration comes in”…. This is a generations old battle, that will continue to have flare ups for generations to come.
Israel “acted,”of course, due to rockets being fired at them, but they “acted” also with the use of disproportionate force. It’s this type of force that was employed before a new questionable administration that is at issue, and not a force of equal response.
@simply done:
What exactly is a “force of equal response” supposed to accomplish?
I do not understand this “disproportionate force” line of argument.
Beats the tar outta me, Word. That kind of mentality strikes me as disingenuous at best.
If Canada or Mexico were lobbing rockets at US towns for weeks and months, and no amount of diplomacy would return their actions to the truce, I wonder just what “simple” would advocate.
Personally, as POTUS, I’d lob US rockets and air power at every rocket launch site, ammo stash, and enemy stronghold that housed those doing the launching.
Oh! That’s what Israel’s doing. doh!
Disproportionate my ass. The only thing disproportionate is the efficiency of Israel over Hamas.
Word,
Israel blames Hamas for rocket attacks in Sederot. Over the years 2001-2008 these rockets killed around 15 and injured over 400 Israelis, and they have damaged property. In the same period, Gazan mortar attacks on Israel killed under a dozen.
Since the Second Intifada in 2000, Israelis have killed nearly 5000 Palestinians, a fifth children.
The Israelis over the weekend killed about 5% of all the Palestinians they have killed since the beginning of 2001! 230 people were killed on Saturday, at least 50 civilians and a more than a dozen minors.
In contrast, from the Hamas June ceasefire of 2008, until Saturday, no Israelis were killed by Hamas.
That is what is a disproportionate response. It’s a response of “finality” as the next administration is a question mark, and, hence, may not permit such a response of disproportion.
I see… it’s all about proportionate body count in your view? That Hamas fired over 60 rockets on Christmas Eve alone is okay because they were so danged inefficient as to not kill anyone?
Or you believe they lobbed all those rockets with no intent to kill??
Desperate still…
Don’t waste your time on the simple minded one, Mata. She cannot understand anything. She doesn’t even understand how wars are won. Hey Simple… get this: The stronger one is the one that wins the war. Can you figure this one out? Or is this to complicated for you?
You don’t provide your sources, simple. But before you start taking a single source body count for your morality thermometer, you might want to read the account of the IDF’s precision attacks by the London Times as well as their broadcast warnings to civilians, the reason for the timing, etal.
Then when you’re done comparing what Israel does to attempt to minimize collateral deaths in warfare to the random rockets fired by the scum buckets, Hamas … get back to me.
What’s *really* disproportionate is the care Israel takes in warfare compared to Hamas…. not to mention the blind eye you want to turn to their actions.
BTW… inre:
Excuse me, but “may not permit”?? You’re telling me that if Obama tells Israel *not* to do something… especially after he refuses to give them allied support against aggression… that they’ll be say “yup… okie doke, Mr. Obama”
Mazel tov, simple. Meaning, of course, “good luck” with that pipe dream.
You’ll notice that the point of this entire lack of support *by* Obama for Israel endangers any meaningful influence he will have with them… and is also likely to do the same for the Muslims. Wishy washy they do not admire… either side.
MH’s reasoning:
“Jones” was intent was to kill the Klien family when he threw the stone threw the window. And even if no one in the Klien family was killed by “Jones”, he had a “weapon”, “known” “intent” and deserves death.
Yes… If someone tries to kill my family, I will not be pulling any punches to let them try it again. I don’t shoot to wound those that assail me or mine – especially those that attack not only once, but continually for weeks and months.
I’d say Word’s Bruce Lee quote has it right. Tell me, is your Code Pink card membership up to date?
There is no such thing as “disproportionate force” in warfare. It is the desired response.
Wars aren’t won by tallying up what the other side has done, then giving an equal, proportionate response.
The reason America is the greatest military power on earth is because of our disproportionate force.
The reason why Israel still exists is because of it’s disproportionate military power.
This isn’t a game, where you fight with “fair play” in mind. In warfare, your objective is to overwhelm the enemy with superior and sustained firepower, in the hopes of bringing the conflict to a quick and decisive resolution, with minimal casualties to your side.
I’ve heard some ridiculous charges by some people who call the U.S. a cowardly bully for attacking a “weak” foe like Saddam’s regime, and not go after a North Korea or China who have a “fighting chance” against our military might. These same people wonder why we’re allowed to have nuclear weapons while others are not.
@MataHarley:
I think it’s the very act of over-restraint and “playing nice” and the pressure of appeasing “world opinion” that perpetuates the “cycle of violence”.
Thomas Sowell:
@simply done:
The response isn’t about “punishment” so much as it is about preventing future attacks.
Your reasoning amounts to:
“Jones” intent was to kill the Klien family, but he failed; so we’ll allow him the ability to continue with his intent until he finally succeeds.
Bruce Lee???
Who is next, Bat man?
Of course there is such a thing as disproportionate response:
you’re being a simpleton again, simple. INRE Bush’s warning to Russia. They attacked Georgia on their sovereign territory in a supposed “rescue” mission. Georgie was not assaulting Russia, and the “rescue” mission – which was really about the oil pipeline – was overblown.
There is no comparison with the volume of rockets Hamas fires at Israel whenever they get a whim with the Russia/Georgia incident, nor Bush’s comment.
MH presumes:
“Jones” intent was to kill the Klien family, but he failed; so we’ll allow him the ability to continue with his intent until he finally succeeds.
Wrong.
My reasoning is proportionate response, not “allow him the ability….”
INRE your “MH presumes…”, Get your commenters straight, simple… it was not I who said that, but Wordsmith. My answer was very direct, and quite simple to understand. Attack my family.. once, or many times… you die at my hand if I am capable.
My Code Pink comment wasn’t desperation in the least. Just wondered if you kept company with like minded utopians. Most are quite proud to proclaim their membership.
Code Pink, so now who has moved on to desperation in argumentation?
@simply done:
Nice retort. Way to sidestep the point in favor of being the Joker.
@simply done:
Then you’d be in agreement with Israel’s response in defending itself.
I don’t know if it would be useful for Obama to go balls out on making some harsh statement at this point. The Israelis are going to whip some ass for a while and silence or lack of “asking for restraint” from Bush and Obama is one way for them to wipe out a whole lotta Hammas. In the 20ish days until the inauguration quite a lot of Hammas will be joining Allah. Then Israel will probably be ready for a cease fire and Obama will have clean hands to help broker one.
ahhh… a fresh voice. How are you this eve, blast? Was just getting ready to sign off when I saw your comment come in.
I’m not betting Obama’s going to be a broker choice. As Israel is doing with Syria, they will probably opt for someone else. Obama’s silence is not garnishing him any points with either side. Israel is already unsure about him. Muslims are getting royally PO’d because he’s not giving them any positive lip service. By refusing to pick a side, you end up with an ally who doesn’t trust you, and an enemy who believes you to be a liar and a wimp.
But I’ll go for that happy thought of killing a lotta hamas types until inauguration.
Bush and his code pink card:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keN12U2coK8
start at the 2 min. mark.
what is your point, simple? There is no relationship between Russia needlessly and “disproportionately” attacking Georgia over an oil pipeline, and Hamas making regular warfare on Israel in yet another attempt to destroy them… as they have promised over and over.
Diplomatic attempts with Russia and Georgia… both of whom we have relations with… is not unusual nor out of order. Altho it’s still a pretty testy time with them even now.
But diplomatic relations with Hamas ( a designated terror organization) as they attack Israel is *not* in order. Hamas isn’t acting on the part of the PA. Abbas has no power over these thugs. They are just another stateless thug who seized control of the Gaza Strip and are running amok.
Finally… because dealing with you is losing any charm, and I’m going to veg in front of a good movie… just because Bush uses the words “disproportionate response” does not mean it applies to Hamas and Israel. Nor is it related to equal body counts, equal mortars, equal days of shooting, equal anything. When a known enemy, who has historically declared to destroy you, rains rockets and mortars on your soil for weeks on end, you fight for your life. There is no “proportionate” about it…. except to lost causes like you. But then, you’re lucky your butt is protected by others.
*pours Mata a drink* yep. I just think it is fair if they want to go to Allah to help them. On Obama, pretty much all this will be mute after the 20th and we have him as our one president at a time. Until then I am not all that caught up in my underwear over it. We will see how he responds when he owns it… and then I can’t wait to see the comments fly. This is gonna be interesting time we live in.
*takes a slurp…*… LOL Yup. interesting times for sure. But on this one, it’s the perception by others that’s going to take it’s toll. The buyer remorse is setting in faster for the int’l community (most especially the Arab/Muslim world) than it has here.
Simple,
Get a political strategy 101 course before posting here. Or go and watch the video that I have linked in Curt’s last thread. You are wasting your and our time with empty useless debates here.
mata, he could always say the lights were out on Hawaii and he missed the news? *pours more, two glasses*
We will see how the international community responds to Obama. I really doubt the radical elements really care who is president as they will try to kill us anyway. I hope the new congress gets to work fast and gets the national security team approved, especially former Marine Corps General Jim Jones.
I think the low profile is really to give Israel time to flush the toilet in Gaza without political pressure. Hopefully the IDF will get it done fast. I tend to think they are not looking to get bogged down for long and these strikes are to kill off the leaders and decapitate Hammas. We can only hope and pray for that!
Absolutely that no matter who the western POTUS is, the rads are still on the quest for eradication of we infidels and zionists. As I’ve said before… out with the old Great Satan, and in with the new Great Satan. Only I believe they’ve slammed him lower by calling PEBO the “house negro”.
So…. you’re subscribing to the ol “flush the toilet” theory, eh Blast? Well… I’ll drink to that, and raise you a couple of tequila shots on that wish for success. And at that, I’m going to stumble off line before I start looking for a chandelier to swing from. LOL
Wow, Blast! You are with the Iraelis? I am impressed here. By reading your usual posts I though for sure you would be with the Palestinians. You have climb one degree in my estime.
Hey, Hey!
Pro-Palestinian Protesters at Obama’s Hawaii House
December 31, 2008
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Middle_East/10271409.html
Oh well things might change
–Mat Harley
Of course, timing really is everything, especially if you are going to start a war. To say and then even believe that that the ‘new administration’ didn’t factor it into the decision to wage war amounts to not only ignoring the all of the ‘soft’ evidence, but casts those that do believe it to be very politically naive.
That you can derive a comment on “timing” from my statement indicates a serious flaw in your reading comprehension, simple’ton. You aren’t any brighter than when you were calling yourself Jan or Sanjay, are you?
What my statement explicitly says is that Israel will act to defend herself with, or without the blessings of any US POTUS. If you think anything Obama could say to Israel will prevent them from exercising self-defense, you *are* the poster child for “politically naive”.
That said, using the NYTs theory… which you apparently need to bolster or form your own… Israel has been under Hamas rocket bombardment since before the POTUS election in Nov. So perhaps you and your pet media pundits would like to expound on the reason for the delay, if this timing were all about Obama becoming the new POTUS?
Or didn’t that occur to you? Obviously, for the predictably poorly researched NYTs staff, it didn’t. But sure sounds good to people like you, yes?
It just *might* have had to do with the increased rocket capability (holiday gifts from Iran) and volume that started coming around Christmas. naw… couldn’t be it
Frankly, I wish they had started the day after the election. They’d have more time to clean out the scum.
Gee thanks for the info simply done/sanjay/Jan.
“Many Middle East experts say Israel timed its move against Hamas, which began with airstrikes on Dec. 27, 24 days before Mr. Bush leaves office, with the expectation of such backing in Washington. Israeli officials could not be certain that President-elect Barack Obama, despite past statements of sympathy for Israel’s right of self-defense, would match the Bush administration’s unconditional endorsement. ”
Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if Obama would open his mouth and make a statement one way or another about this major event. At least the “Many Middle East experts” would have facts to base their opinions on. Instead they fire up the libby’s with suppose this, suppose that–not really knowing what the heck is going on because “the one” is clammed up. Kind of serious stuff to be speculating on.