Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Obama's Muted Response To Gaza Crisis

by The Reverend on January 15, 2009

in Barack Obama,Israel,moral values,pre-emption,rule of law

UN headquarters hit in Gaza. John Bolton drew wood.

UN headquarters hit in Gaza. John Bolton drew wood.

About-to-be president, Barack Obama, has had no problem communicating with other governmental leaders and the American people about his intentions in dealing with the collapsed economy. Obama has boldly, and repeatedly, told us how he intends to "jump-start" the economy, as well as "save" or "create" up to 4 million new jobs with a large stimulus package…..all in order to prevent the "second Great Depression."

With the domestic financial crisis, Obama has not deferred to outgoing maniac George W. Bush. Obama hasn't stated, when asked about what he will do with the economic disaster, that "we only have one president at a time." Obama has had no problem, whatsoever, demanding, for example, the remaining $350 billion of TARP funding from Congress, warning he would veto any attempt to stall the money.

However, when it comes to the still ongoing Israeli slaughter of boxed-in Palestinians in the Gaza Strip….Obama becomes a bit…gunshy. Except for this comment early on….

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that,” he told reporters in Sderot, a small city on the edge of Gaza that has been hit repeatedly by rocket fire. “And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” Link

Standard issue, even though childish and simplistic, American establishment defense of anything Israeli. I don't buy the kneejerk, stale, bullsh*t attempt at analogy that Obama offered up here.
_________

The following attempt, admittedly imperfect, seeks to explain why Obama's "reasoning" is hollow:

A band of extremely violent narco-traffickers infiltrate northeast Ohio. Ohio law enforcement, in conjunction with federal officials, decide to lock down the region from I-77 eastward, I-70 northward and the Pennsylvania border westward. National Guard troops set up "border checkpoints and crossings", basically prohibiting any civilian movement in or out of the designated "terror-crime zone". This is all done for "state security" reasons.

National Guard helicopter gunships begin rooting out the narco-traffickers by launching extremely destructive attacks throughout the cordoned off region. Completely innocent Ohioans, as you might imagine, are killed and mutilated in the process. Hospitals, schools, churches, and government buildings are hit in Canton, Akron, Cleveland and Youngstown….officials claiming the traffickers are hiding there.

What was originally deemed a necessary, yet temporary, effort, turns into a months-long, then years-long situation. Hundreds of Ohio women and children are slaughtered, along with a few narco-criminals, yet the effort continues. Conditions in northeast Ohio become grim, desperate.

Some Ohioans decide to fight back. They begin launching primitive-weapons outside the condoned-off sector, foolishly hoping to change the ongoing slaughter dynamic. The attacks by Ohio law enforcement and the National Guard only intensify….many more Ohio civilians are killed. National Guard troops slowly begin occupying the region, rolling in tanks and armored vehicles from which they continue to shell densely populated cities. What at first was announced as a temporary and necessary measure becomes the permanent status quo.

The hypothetical Ohio governor-elect then makes a statewide announcement…

"We only have one state governor at a time, so I'll only say this for now….if northeast Ohio residents are launching dangerous attacks into the non-cordoned off zone where my family resides, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that."

Acceptable? Reasonable? You tell me.

  • larry d.

    They should handcuff and drag this criminal off to prison!

  • http://keelerreport.blogspot.com/ Ben Keeler

    Wow I think when Obama suppoorts Israel you are going to be disapointed.

  • larry d.

    Kind of like the Rev will be disappointed when Obama decides raising taxes on the rich isn't such a good idea. Or that withdrawing troops from Iraq faster than the Bush Administration is doing isn't such a good idea. Or that killing Osama bin Laden isn't such a big priority. Or that spying on Americans isn't such a bad idea. Or that retaining Cheney's strong executive branch isn't such a bad idea.

  • The Reverend

    Obama demonstrated his unquestionly loyal allegiance to Israel during the campaign, so his chosing to be silent is not some flip-flop.

    I have blogged numerous times that the best we'll get with an Obama presidency is a cauterizing of the nations open wounds. End the flagrant criminality practices ushered in by Dick-Bush. Provide a safety net to give basic services to working Americans in light of the Serious, Professionals' GrandTheft-Wall-Street blitzkreig on all the money.

    larry, however, has it wrong. Obama, while ass-kissingly campaigning for Jewish votes…and money… has also campaigned that he would close Gitmo, end Iraq, allow tax cuts to expire and take Bin Laden seriously. Despite what I'm sure will be fierce wingnut resistance, I think he'll make some progress while the Dick-Bush wounds are, you know, healing.

    But the next two years are going to turn Americans sour on the whole damn mess.

  • larry d.

    I know how he campaigned, Reverend. In fact that's where the disappointment will come from.

  • Da King

    Actually, Obama voiced support for both Israel and the Palestinians when he was campaigning for president (depending on which group he was talking to). Now that he is the president and the responsibility is on him to deal with crazies like Hamas, Iran, Al Qaeda, etc – he will support Israel.

    And Rev, Obama has already hedged on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. He also said he won't interfere with the existing SOFA agreement in place in Iraq. And he hasn't said one word about what he'd do with those Gitmo detainees, which is a rather important little detail, don't ya think ?

    And about the only way to "take Bin Laden seriously", as you call it, would be to invade Pakistan. Is that what you are advocating, another "pre-emptive" war ?

  • larry d.

    On the big issues of the day, Obama is following Bush's lead. Even a fearmonger like myself is disappointed.

  • Da King

    I'm thinking Obama's policy views started changing right about the time he became privy to all the national intelligence information, and realized that it was going to be HIS responsibility now.

  • larry d.

    He's throwing the Reverend under the bus and it's sad to see.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).