Sunday, March 04, 2012

The President Speaks at AIPAC-2012

hat tip-3CHICS:




From The Daily Dish:
Obama At AIPAC

The bottom line:


Iran's leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon .... Already, there is too much loose talk of war. Over the last few weeks, such talk has only benefited the Iranian government, by driving up the price of oil, which they depend upon to fund their nuclear program. For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in, and to sustain the broad international coalition that we have built. Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: speak softly, but carry a big stick.




I agree with Ackerman that Obama basically repeated his Goldberg assurance, reminded the Bomb-Iran-Now crowd of how substantively pro-Israel is administration has been, and refused to take the Israeli/Greater Israel lobby bait:


Israel wanted Obama to give Iran a red line not to cross. I would argue he did. “I made a commitment to the American people, and said that we would use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” That isn’t what Netanyahu wants to hear. As Noah Pollak incisively tweeted — yes, yes, snicker to yourselves, but he’s right — the Israelis want Iran not to be able to produce a nuclear weapon. Obama did not liquidate the disagreement.




Basically, Obama has refused to have the Greater Israel Lobby move the red lines to rendering Iran incapable of producing a nuclear weapon, rather than deciding to make one or actually making one. And this will be where the Greater Israel lobby shifts its support to the Christianist GOP, already committed to the Netanyahu-Lieberman position on Iran and the settlements, and now financed by Greater Israel fanatics, like Sheldon Adelson. (Here's a response to the Atlantic interview in an Adelson newspaper in Israel.) So no surprise to hear Liz Cheney was on a panel with this kind of reception:

 




Among the speakers was Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and daughter of George W. Bush's vice president. There was widespread applause for her attacks on Barack Obama including when she said the president is more interested in "containing Israel" by discouraging it from attacking Iran than blocking Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb. There was also applause when she said there was no president who had done more to "undermine and delegitimise" Israel. There were loud cheers when she predicted that the next Aipac conference will be held under a new US president.




For the worldview of Cheney and Netanyahu to prevail, Obama must be defeated. That is clearly the agenda of the current Israeli government, and what the NYT delicately but accurately calls "Israel's backers" in the US.

My worry is that once the Likudniks begin to realize Obama may not be defeated by the GOP at home, the current Israeli government would launch a war without warning to create a crisis to humiliate the president, rally end-times evangelicals to vote, send oil prices soaring, and force the US president to coopt a war he does not want and does not yet believe is necessary. If that helps the GOP nominee, so much the better. Every GOP candidate is now committed to the most extreme positions of the Likudnik Israeli right - and are to the bellicose right of most Israelis.

I hope that the Israeli government is not that reckless or extreme. But ask yourself when thinking about Netanyahu: what would Cheney do? These individuals are radicals. They turned the US into a torturing nation and regarded that decision as a "no-brainer." A "wag-the-dog" scenario in which Netanyahu creates a war to wound and weaken a US president before an election is, sadly, not unthinkable. And he will have the GOP as his critical back-up.

1 comment:

Brian E. said...

"For the worldview of Cheney and Netanyahu to prevail, Obama must be defeated. That is clearly the agenda of the current Israeli government, and what the NYT delicately but accurately calls "Israel's backers" in the US.

My worry is that once the Likudniks begin to realize Obama may not be defeated by the GOP at home, the current Israeli government would launch a war without warning to create a crisis to humiliate the president, rally end-times evangelicals to vote, send oil prices soaring, and force the US president to coopt a war he does not want and does not yet believe is necessary. If that helps the GOP nominee, so much the better. Every GOP candidate is now committed to the most extreme positions of the Likudnik Israeli right - and are to the bellicose right of most Israelis."


That's the heart of the matter. Israel (with their warped view of the situation) thinks that a hardline Republican in the WH would be in their best interest. They are unpredictable right now. I do believe that they see an attack as (in part) a way to tank the economy... boost the GOP... get someone in office who would be an obedient war monger for Israel (more than Obama already is) to build support for their position.

Nevermind the fact that the idea of an attack on Iran...makes no sense whatsoever...not politically, or militarily. An attack by air wouldn't accomplish the mission and (once launched) would require a ground invasion of some sort sometime down the road. That would be a monumental effort...not seen since Vietnam. Not to mention the impact on the global economy. AND IT IS NOT EVEN CLEAR THAT IRAN IS EVEN SEEKING A NUKE. Most Americans have no clue.

I hate seeing Obama kowtow to these people. He looks weak to me when he does this... like a tool. It shows him as a follower and not a leader. He is doing his best to serve Israel and their interest groups at the expense of the best interests of the U.S. No other two Countries in the world have this kind of bizarre relationship... where the larger more powerful Country is almost completely subservient to the smaller one.

This also represents a bigger problem for the U.S. It shows that national priorities are not fundamentally changing like they should in order for the Country to regain its position of real global leadership and compete with China and the rest of the world. There will be no significant changes (for the better) in this Country unless there is a shift in foreign policy. The U.S. must divest from some of these global hot spots... otherwise it will be dragged into all sorts of wars not of its own choosing. But the global cop foreign policy approach (the grandchild of the Truman Doctrine that U.S. foreign policy still operates under) will keep us locked into these global messes... going from one crisis to another. Instead...the U.S. has proclaimed that Israel's security is completely tied to our own...and we must be in lock step with Israel (gigantic lie being told to the American public).

America is basically screwed...and foreign policy is at the heart of the problem. More conflicts will mean deficits and national debt will continue to get out of control, there will be fewer resources for investment in infrastructure, fewer resources for investment in people...in education, in research, in job creation, and an overall neglect of other needs at home.

Will write more on that later.

But this is the reason why I have gone back to my long held position of not voting. Regret breaking the cycle and voting in 2008. No one to vote for. If I do change my mind.... the only motivation will be keeping the greater of two evils out of office. The same thing that motivated me in 2008.