Obama Team Denies Report That He Seeks Talks With Hamas
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/09/report-obama-advisers-urge-talks-hamas/

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team denies a report in a British newspaper that it is being urged to use intelligence agencies to “initiate low-level or clandestine” talks with Hamas.

“The President-elect has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements,” transition spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in a written statement.

The Guardian’s source’s and Obama’s team appear to be at odds.
Time will tell.

I hope Obama means what he says here and stands by Israel’s right to exist.
Looking at his foreign policy advisors,it does not give me a lot of confidence that they will.

You can choose to believe it or not. That’s okay. I know who wins. I read the book.

kingsjester on January 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

It’s nice to know, isn’t it? I do sleep a lot better bcs of it.

there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

Probably bcs ALL (or 99.99999%) of Muslims in the ME agree with Hamas.

I don’t have much to say about the Guardian’s report that Obama plans to talk to Hamas beyond what I already scribbled out in the Hot Air comments section: yes Obama will end up engaging Hamas in some form……

1Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Genesis 12: 1-3

You can choose to believe it or not. That’s okay. I know who wins. I read the book.

And no one knows that better than PEBO.
.

The Press is setting this up for Obama to give “humanitarian aid” to these terrorists. Then the Empty Suit will claim that diplomacy with terrorists works.

marklmail on January 9, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Yea Right.

The democrats will probably try and spin this the same way
they say that yelling for Surrender in Iraq for years,Opposing the surge,and declaring we have lost the Iraq
war on the Senate floor is the reason that we have now “succeeded” in Iraq.

When Israel beats Hamas down so much that they will be ready to “negotiate”,they better make sure they “negotiate”
from a position of obvious victory.
If they don’t,you are right,they will allow the liberals and their supporters in the UN to claim victory through appeasement, talking and giving aid to a beaten enemy.

In the famous words of Marty Peretz: “Don’t fuck with the Jews.” Obama was elected with 78% support among Jewish voters, and if they should ever come to believe that they’ve been bamboozled, and Israel betrayed, by Obama, there will be holy unshirt…

“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.

We want, they preach transparency. He is very transparent, don’t you think?

and we all know how that scene eneded

Idiot

Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian writes (via memeorandum): The Guardian has spoken to three ­people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he i…

Samantha Power

In the case of Power, it was Senator Obama who made the initial contact with her after reading her book on genocide. Power is now actively working for the campaign. She cannot be casually dismissed as one of Obama’s many advisors, with no particular assigned role.

POWERS ON ISRAEL:

“alienat[e] a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing…billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.”

Pretty much Powers wants us to cut off support(especially military)to Israel and invest in Palistine,basically she wants us to support the jihadist side of this conflict.

It gets better:

Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:

without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power gave an astonishing answer:

What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Once again,cut off support to Israel and give support to Palistine that includes American Troops being dropped in to protect poor little Palistine from the EEEEEvvviiiiillll
JEWS.

Susan Rice:

This is all you need to know about her to come to the conclusion of how dangerously stupid she is:

According to multiple sources, including former Clinton official Mansoor Ijaz and Richard Miniter, author of the bestseller Losing Bin Laden, it was she who was a major opponent of accepting Sudan’s offer to turn over the world’s most wanted mass murderer(Bin Laden). At the time, Rice was the Clinton Administration’s Secretary of State for African Affairs and a former assistant National Security Advisor under Sandy Berger.

According the both Ijaz and Miniter, Rice’s personal beliefs on the Sudan’s credibility led to her convincing Berger to reject their offer to turn over Bin Laden, overruling the advice of Tim Carney, then ambassador to Sudan. Her partner in this colossal error in judgment? Bush hater Richard Clarke. Sadly, a little more than a year later, Bin Laden’s murderers blew up the African embassies, killing U. S. soldiers and citizens.

She is one of the few people still vouching for Joe Wilson’s credibility long after everyone else realized that not even vultures could find any shred of credibility on the Wilson carcass.

Talking to Hamas is going to escalate into Green Tea parties with Hezbollah,Iran,and Syria.

They will rejoice together saving the “innocent civilians” in Palistine from the EEEVVVVIIIILLLLL genocidal Zionist.

This cut off of support and appeasement coming from the Obama administration will force Israel to deal with their Iranian,Hamas,and Hezbollah problems with military strikes and possibly all out war.

How can the so called “smart ones” be so dangerously ignorant when it comes to the lessons of failure that appeasement has been throughout history.

Samantha Power and Obama’s Foreign Policy Team
By Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

Over the past month, controversy has erupted over the issue of Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisers and the impact that they might have on a future President Obama’s policies toward Israel, and on American foreign policy in the broader region. Articles in the Washington Post, Newsweek, American Thinker, New York Sun, Politico, Commentary Magazine, The New Republic, CAMERA and other publications have precipitated this controversy.

Who are Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisors?

Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. Subsequently, Martin Peretz — an Obama supporter — wrote at the end of December that he got the “shudders” when thinking about the foreign policy influence of “Zbigniew Brzezinski… Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley”.

—————————————————

The most horrific name on Obama’s list, however, is Malley’s.

It is true that Malley was on Bill Clinton’s staff at Camp David when Ehud Barak had all the juice squeezed out of him to satisfy Yassir Arafat. But he was the only American in attendance to blame the failure of the negotiations on Israel, not least in The New York Review of Books, whose prior experts on the conflict were Noam Chomsky and I.F. Stone, afterwards to be replaced by George Soros, “oich mir a maven” or also an expert, and Henry Siegman. Don’t blame yourself if you don’t recognize Siegman’s name. (Anyway, he hasn’t appeared in the NYRB in some time. Maybe he even embarrasses Bob Silvers by now, as Chomsky came to embarrass him.) Malley also showed his colors with his attempt to coin a new nomenclature for the Israeli villages and towns in the West Bank, from “settlements” to “colonies.” Why would Obama name Malley to his team? You ask me. I ask

him.

———————————————————

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Here is one small example of the idiocy this “liberal genius”brings to the table:

“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” [Blum, 1995; Z Magazine, 1997]

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself
desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight
against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe
them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the
Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the
opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow
had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given
arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central
Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism
represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense!

. . .

Real genius here,”yea I helped start and supported radical jihadist and to think they would be a problem later is just
“NONSENSE”.
Here is some of the other colossal mistakes this liberal genius and his buddy Carter were a part of:

Profile: Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=zbigniew_brzezinski

Certainly no friend of Israel.