http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203589810710&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

This is not good.....

HOw about you start caring about internal problems. If your country is Israel before USA then go live in Israel. For all i know i live in USA and i want good life in USA rather than a country a thousand miles away. Dont get me wrong, im on Israel's side in its struggle with the muslims, and i do support our coutry's aiding the Israelis, but i believe there should be a limit and first and foremost priority should be the wellbeing of our own country of which we are CITIZENS-the US of A.

And why do i sense propaganda nonsense on behalf of jewish newspaper? If you listen to them Obama is a twin of Osama with a bunch of terrorists in his team. Come on now!!!!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203589810710&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Common, in general USA will always have close contacts with Israel. It will always take pro-Israeli stance. American people are simply more sympathetic to Israelis and there is more in common with them than with Palestinians

This is another example that Republican "slime machine" is now in motion.
If Obama had promulgated Palestinian state with the same vigor as Bush does, Obama would have been vilified by Jews.
If Obama had insisted on free elections in Palestinian territories (as Bush did) and Hamas would have won those elections, Obama would have been criticized by Jews.
If Obama had promised to move US Consulate to Jerusalem (as Bush did) and then did not keep his promise, Obama would have been condemned by Jews.

However, Jews are in love with Bush's Middle East policies even though he is a complete HYPOCRITE! (and a moron)

Obviously, grandpa McCain will make it look like he is pro-Israel and then after elections if he wins, (although it is doubtful) things will get back to normal - "freeze settlements" "surrender Palestinian prisoners" "give away more land".

Common, in general USA will always have close contacts with Israel. It will always take pro-Israeli stance. American people are simply more sympathetic to Israelis and there is more in common with them than with Palestinians

This is another example that Republican "slime machine" is now in motion.
If Obama had promulgated Palestinian state with the same vigor as Bush does, Obama would have been vilified by Jews.
If Obama had insisted on free elections in Palestinian territories (as Bush did) and Hamas would have won those elections, Obama would have been criticized by Jews.
If Obama had promised to move US Consulate to Jerusalem (as Bush did) and then did not keep his promise, Obama would have been condemned by Jews.

However, Jews are in love with Bush's Middle East policies even though he is a complete HYPOCRITE! (and a moron)

Obviously, grandpa McCain will make it look like he is pro-Israel and then after elections if he wins, (although it is doubtful) things will get back to normal - "freeze settlements" "surrender Palestinian prisoners" "give away more land".

who did u vote for in 2004? Kerry?
Dont forget that Bush removed Sadam Hussein (the guy who was giving money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers).
I support his war against islamo fashists.
I dont think if a democrat was in power they would do anything about terrorists after 9/11.
I think if McCain wins we will see another war against Iran. It will be a different war no ground troops just bombing some nuclear facilities.

Here is another article released today at Ynetnews. It's touches some facts from the article that Jewishguy has posted.

Check it out here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3511195,00.html

"Meanwhile Sunday, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that Obama was the "hope of the entire world" that the US would change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed the presidential candidate but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.


"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

FYI, Farrakhan is a well known Anti-Semite.

who did u vote for in 2004? Kerry?
Dont forget that Bush removed Sadam Hussein (the guy who was giving money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers).
I support his war against islamo fashists.
I dont think if a democrat was in power they would do anything about terrorists after 9/11.
I think if McCain wins we will see another war against Iran. It will be a different war no ground troops just bombing some nuclear facilities.


No, I did not vote for sKerry, I voted for Bush. But, that was before Katrina, Harriet Mayer, Dubai Ports, and tax-breaks for oil companies. Besides, in 2004 there were horrible choices between a moron and a complete idiot. lol

I am tired of a stupid president. It is long overdue that we have brains in the White House.

Does Bush have analytical thinking? You be the judge:
ak21vYh0g6Y


OK, Bush removed Saddam from power and now we have religious fanatics running that country. Thanks Mr Bush. Two most powerful Islamic gangs in Iraq - Mehdi Army and BADR Association are both closely associated with Iran. Who benefitted the most from Saddam's removal? Islamic Republic of Iran. Bush didn't learn from history. Napoleon attacked Russia without finishing resistance in Spain. That hurt him in the long run. Hitler attacked USSR without defeating Britain. Big mistake. Bush attacked Iraq without wiping out enemy #1 - Osama Bin Laden. Simply stupid. I'm telling you if Democrats would have run this war against Islamo-fashists, republicans would have crucified them. Now, everyone supports war against Islamo-faschists. But, there will be no war against Iran. US Army is overextended and exhausted - thank you Republican warriors. The air war is complete nonsense. You have got to be delirious. lol Air war can never be won.

No, I did not vote for sKerry, I voted for Bush. But, that was before Katrina, Harriet Mayer, Dubai Ports, and tax-breaks for oil companies. Besides, in 2004 there were horrible choices between a moron and a complete idiot. lol

I am tired of a stupid president. It is long overdue that we have brains in the White House.

Does Bush have analytical thinking? You be the judge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak21vYh0g6Y

OK, Bush removed Saddam from power and now we have religious fanatics running that country. Thanks Mr Bush. Two most powerful Islamic gangs in Iraq - Mehdi Army and BADR Association are both closely associated with Iran. Who benefitted the most from Saddam's removal? Islamic Republic of Iran. Bush didn't learn from history. Napoleon attacked Russia without finishing resistance in Spain. That hurt him in the long run. Hitler attacked USSR without defeating Britain. Big mistake. Bush attacked Iraq without wiping out enemy #1 - Osama Bin Laden. Simply stupid. I'm telling you if Democrats would have run this war against Islamo-fashists, republicans would have crucified them. Now, everyone supports war against Islamo-faschists. But, there will be no war against Iran. US Army is overextended and exhausted - thank you Republican warriors. The air war is complete nonsense. You have got to be delirious. lol Air war can never be won.

i am not arguing that Bush has no analytical thinking but Kerry was not a better option also. WHen in power u can't please everybody. Thats how it is.
There will be always people who agree and disagree with the policies of the administration. Removing Sadam Husein forced Muadar Kadafi to give up his weapons program. It also showed Muslim world that the USA is not gonna tolerate barbarian behavior of the Muslim world who want to conquer the whole world and dictate their violent views to the rest of the civilized world.
Bill Clinton did not do anything when Osaba Bin Ladin did the bombings in Kenia and in Tanzania in 98. He just bombed some innocent people in Afganistan. He was very busy with Monica at that time:)
Dont forget the USA got most of the terorists in Afganistan and Iraq.
Thanks to Bush we dont see more attacks in the USA.

G-d bless our troops and the USA.

Here is another article released today at Ynetnews. It's touches some facts from the article that Jewishguy has posted.

Check it out here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3511195,00.html

"Meanwhile Sunday, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that Obama was the "hope of the entire world" that the US would change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed the presidential candidate but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.


"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

FYI, Farrakhan is a well known Anti-Semite.


During last night's debate in Cleveland, Ohio, Barak Obama "denounced and rejected" Farrakan's endorsement. He praised and thanks Jewish pioneers in civil rights movement and stated that without them he could not have been running for president. He also mentioned special relationship between USA and Israel that will never cease to exist.

us4jbRlrAaA

Analyze This: Obama finally starts making his own 'straight talk' on Israel


Calev Ben-David , THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 26, 2008


His father and stepfather were Muslims. His middle name is Hussein. He attends a church whose pastor has been critical of Israel and Zionism. He once sat alongside Edward Said at an Arab-American community event in Chicago.

And, as we now know, thanks to the most recent e-mail smear campaign against the Democratic front-runner for president, he looks darn good in a turban.

None of the above, though, will likely make the slightest difference in the support Sen. Barack Obama will - or won't - receive from American Jewish voters either in the remaining Democratic primaries, or, if should emerge as his party's standard-bearer, in November's general election. Jewish voters who wouldn't vote for a candidate based on those factors were certainly never going to vote for Obama - or for any other Democratic presidential candidate - in the first place.

The questions surrounding Obama among his real potential Jewish constituency - or more specifically, among those who place a high priority on a candidate's support for Israel - are not concerned with what is already generally known about his personal and political background. Rather, they are focused on what is unknown about how he would respond to events in this region from the perspective of the Oval Office.

One way to make that assessment is to look at Obama's record on Israel, in votes cast and speeches given. Based on this evidence, he stands firmly in the mainstream of his party's platform positions on US-Israel relations, and also well within the overall American political consensus on the issue.

The problem is, with less then one term in national office and a career focused until now on domestic matters, the actual record of the junior senator from Illinois in this area is pretty scanty. And support for Israel is much more comfortably measured by those who care most about it by a record of consistency built over decades, rather than in a scant few years.

It is this circumstance that has created uncertainty among some sectors of American Jewry (and in official Israeli circles as well) regarding Obama - not an imaginary past that supposedly had him trained in an Indonesian madrassa to be an Islamic Manchurian candidate, but the lack of a real past when it comes to Middle East affairs, at least in comparison to the likes of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Filling in that blanks space requires more than the de rigueur AIPAC speech of the type Obama delivered a year ago, in which he professed "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel." This is especially so since any real discussion of the issue beyond that has been largely absent from the primary campaign.

It is not surprising then that Obama's talk in a Cleveland synagogue on Sunday, in which he appeared to speak more frankly and with greater detail regarding Israel than in the past, has generated considerable reaction.

This is especially so regarding his comment that "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

Obama went further in seeming to criticize the discourse in the American-Jewish community by saying: "If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress… Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation."

A more seasoned politician speaking on Israel would surely know better than to refer specifically to the Likud - just as an Israeli leader would not speak publicly of certain US policy positions as being "Republican" or "Democratic."

As for the US pro-Israel community being "protective," this is a charge that will likely sound a little off-key coming so soon after the Jimmy Carter and Walt-Mearsheimer controversies.

But there is little in Obama's comments that counts as either surprising or any real deviation from his previous stands. What's more, he took pains to distance himself from views on Israel expressed by some of his associates deemed less acceptable to the Jewish community, including his occasional foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, and his Chicago pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The news here is not so much what Obama said, but the fact he said it, finally starting his own "straight talk" dialogue with American Jewry. Perhaps this can be taken as another sign that he is now looking beyond the primaries to a campaign against McCain, where US policy on Israel will surely be more of a factor than it has been in his battle against Clinton.

Will any of this make much real difference at the polls next autumn? Not likely. McCain may well do better among American-Jewish voters than most past GOP presidential candidates. But the Jewish vote, for all the disproportionate media attention it receives, is not much of a factor nowadays in potential "swing" states on which presidential elections turn, with the possible exception of Florida.

What's more, it is probably not how Obama will deal with the Israeli-Arab peace process that will influence Jewish voters, since nothing he has said or done indicates he will follow a policy in this regard different than the one now being pursued by the Bush administration.

It is rather a final judgment on how he, or whoever is on the ballot, will contend with the nuclear ambitions of Iran; the stalemated situation in Iraq; the faltering war in Afghanistan; the instability of Pakistan; and the global challenge of radical Islam - that is far more likely to be more on the minds of those Jewish voters who have not yet decided how to cast their votes in November.

I must post this because it's an article which DIRECTLY contradicts the article posted previous. Where is the truth? No one knows.


Obama is a strong friend of Israel
By ROBERT WEXLER


If you're Jewish and spend any time on the Internet, you've read some outlandish things about the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. But the facts are clear: Senator Obama is a strong friend of the American Jewish Community and Israel, and will make ensuring Israel's security a high priority of his presidency.

Barack Obama's record speaks for itself. He has longstanding support among the Jewish community in Illinois, who know first hand his unshakable commitment to Israel's security. In the US Senate, he has established himself as a strong friend of Israel. As a candidate, he has made clear his commitment to deepen the US-Israel relationship and to defend Israel's security as a Jewish state.

Yet Senator Obama is still the target of poorly sourced smears and innuendo, often anonymously circulated in mass e-mails. Sadly, these baseless attacks have been transformed into official Republican talking points. In his February 21, 2008 JPost.com op-ed ("Obama and the Jews") Marc Zell, the Co-Chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel, compiled a greatest hits of fiction and distortion about Barack Obama culled from one false email after another. To begin with, Zell abandons the tradition of bipartisan support for Israel, and completely ignores Senator Obama's strong record of support for Israel:

Iran divestment: Senator Obama introduced priority legislation strongly supported by the pro-Israel community to make it easier for states to divest their pension funds from Iran, as a means of increasing economic pressure to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. The divestment idea grew out of a meeting between Senator Obama and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year.

Hamas: Senator Obama has been steadfast in taking a hard line against Hamas until it recognizes Israel, renounces violence, and abides by past agreements. He has been clear that the Palestinians' suffering is a result of their own failed leadership. He was a cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.

Travel to Israel: Barack Obama traveled to Israel in 2006 and visited the home of an Israeli family that had been destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. Months later, when Hizbullah attacked Israel, he spoke out strongly for Israel's right to defend itself.

Israel's defense: Senator Obama has called for deepening US-Israel defense cooperation, especially in the area of missile defense, to ensure that Israel has the qualitative military edge it needs to defend itself.

Ignoring Senator Obama's record, Zell travels a low road filled with lies and distortions. In a sense, he has done us a service by demonstrating the total disregard for facts that Republicans will use to try to win this election. But these falsehoods cannot stand, so I will rebut each of them in turn.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Zell says Brzezinski heads the Obama foreign policy team. This is false. Brzezinski endorsed Barack Obama because he agrees with Senator Obama's views on Iraq. He is not an adviser to the campaign, and has done no work for the campaign.

Robert Malley. Zell says Malley is on Senator Obama's team. Malley is one of hundreds of people who have sent advice to the campaign. He is not one of Barack Obama's Middle East advisers.

Susan Rice: Zell repeats a lie that Susan Rice, while advising John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, advised him to propose former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker as Middle East envoys. There is only one problem: Senator Kerry made that statement in December 2003, and Susan Rice did not join his campaign until July 2004.

Pastor Jeremiah Wright: Zell cites controversial statements about Israel made by the Pastor at Barack Obama's Chicago church. It is unfair to attribute Pastor Wright's views to Barack Obama, particularly because Senator Obama has stated explicitly and repeatedly that he disagrees with Pastor Wright's views on Israel, has told him so directly, and does not turn to his pastor for political advice. Furthermore, the Anti-Defamation league concluded "it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright."

Louis Farrakhan: There is no easier way to upset the American Jewish Community than by mentioning Farrakhan. But Zell omits the most crucial information: Barack Obama has repeatedly, and explicitly, condemned the anti-Semitic views of Louis Farrakhan for over 20 years, calling his statements "abhorrent." Obama has spoken out forcefully against anti-Semitism in the African-American community, most recently in a Martin Luther King, Jr. Day speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

Zell could have easily established the truth about any of these matters, with very limited research. Responsible journalists have had no trouble uncovering and reporting the truth. The conservative New York Sun editorialized on January 9, 2008 that "Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America…. He has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome."

And on February 21, 2008, Eli Lake of the New York Sun reported that "the national security team that emerges around Mr. Obama is one that is in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The Senator's advisers favor a withdrawal from Iraq and see it as a distraction from the wider war on Al-Qaeda; they have developed a detailed policy on how to exit the country. The campaign favors high-level diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran, but in the context of changing the behavior of these regimes. And the foreign policy team, like the candidate, does not support pressuring Israel into negotiations with Hamas."

Unfortunately, Zell is more interested in using falsehoods to win an election than standing up for Israel and American-Israeli relations. But across America, Jewish voters have had no trouble sorting out fact from fiction, and have found no cause to shy away from supporting Barack Obama. Indeed, they are rallying to his campaign in ever-growing numbers, inspired by his leadership, judgment, and the possibility he represents for truly transformational leadership. Nothing that Marc Zell says can change that.

The writer is a Congressman representing Florida

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203847477582&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull