Obama to force Israel to give up nukes?
posted at 9:29 am on May 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs. Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes. The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state:
President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.
The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
Gottemoeller has a track record of demanding Israeli disarmament:
However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”
“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.
The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.
The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.
Gottemoeller’s speech had to have been cleared by the Obama administration, and so appears to represent their foreign-policy position. The Bush administration and its predecessors handled the situation more tactfully, supporting a “nuclear-free Middle East” without naming names. Why? The position of Israel in the Middle East is unique. They are not just simply another nation among many. They had been the one successful continuous democracy in that region, save Turkey, and quite obviously surrounded by nations explicitly threatening to annihilate them. Israel had to develop a deterrent that would keep a nation of 5 million people alive among 100 million enemies.
Over the years, some of those neighbors have moderated their stance somewhat towards Israel; Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic relations with Israel, but in Egypt’s case only because Washington pays them to do it. None of the rest of the nations in that region even recognize Israel’s existence, and two of them — Syria and Iran — have a long-running proxy war of terror running against Israel. Under those conditions, Israel can be forgiven for thinking that a deterrent is still a damned good idea.
Besides, the Iranian nuclear program threatens the US as well. We want to stop Iran from building nukes to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, and not just those aimed at Israel. They don’t call us the Great Satan out of respect, after all, and Iranian leadership has been just as annihilationist towards America as it has been towards Israel. Instead of disarming our allies, maybe we should just concentrate on disarming our enemies.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
Guess the Obama administration is continuing down the ‘I’m the boss of the whole world because I won’ road. Wonder how long before all these countries whose economic policies and defense policies he’s taking charge of rebel. What is the matter with him? Megalomania?
jeanie on May 6, 2009 at 11:36 AM
re: Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Agree with your point about Isarel’s probable victimhood in the absence of US support. Please don’t think that many Israelis don’t recognize appreciate the value of our erstwhile partnership! We regret and fear your nation’s dissolution into Eurosocialism and moral cowardice, because we are so acutely aware of what you have done for us. We know it will be hard to go it alone.
We wish we could help you, too, but it is difficult when your President is trying to trade our lives and our nation for his political expediency :( but thanks and have a great day! It is always heartening to know that there are still voices supporting us in the US.
Kol Tuv
MogenDavid on May 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You know, this has often confused me. Why do American Jewish people vote for this type of persona, at the expense of their brethren in Israel? It is just beyond comprehension for me.
One of the most vocal, and outspoken Liberals….Streisand, had never spoken out against the current actions, being taken against Israel? Why is that?
capejasmine on May 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Your not
kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Too funny!
mrsmwp on May 6, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Not anywhere near enough to come to a sound conclusion one way or the other, but then again the “what it does” part of that question is likely buried in some intelligence estimate, not exactly Britannica knowledge.
Barak gave specific timetables. Iran was supposed to have a nuclear weapon by 2004. It was supposed to be a done deal, we shouldnt even be able to discuss it, as they were certain Iran would already have the bomb.
This is true, i wouldnt be much of a budding realist if i didnt cede this point.
That peace was not secured in the 30′s is less an indictment of negotiation than it is of poor negotiation.
It is in attaining the answer to that question that lies at the heart of this discussion. We must be absolutely sure we’ve calculated that answer correctly, whenever it is someone decides to act. Another avoidable war would be disastrous to us as “shining city on a hill”
LOL i almost spit out my drink! quite true!
Hey, if i could, i most certainly would :)
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM
capejasmine on May 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Have wondered the same thing many times. One can only conclude that Israel is just not that important to the American Jew. Or…that sending money is enough so don’t bother to expect anything else? And, I think we should all e-mail the WH with the suggestion that if Obama wants this then perhaps we, over here, should set a good example and get rid of all of ours and see how well this goes over with the American public. And… along the way, remove all the tax ‘havens’ provided by our incomprehensible tax code and set an example for Holland, Ireland and the Bahamas on how to do this. We could have Geithner negotiate this since he seems something of an expert on it.
jeanie on May 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Hasn’t this idiot heard the phrase “Peace Through Strength”?
I often have the thought about relocating Israel to somewhere friendlier. Say, Baja California? I’m not a Biblical scholar so maybe there is a reason that the Jewish state has to be in Israel. And, no I am not joking. Get the Jews out of the Middle East and let the crazy Muslims have their Jew-free paradise. Stop buying their oil and let them just rot in their 10th century lifestyle.
mrsmwp on May 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM
I am not sure most Jews will do anything here in the US, they’re pretty firmly in Obama’s camp. They’ll probably see Obama go to a jewish audience, laugh, tell them he’ll ensure Israel’s survival, they’ll all clap and swoon, and Obama will get right back to disarming Israel.
I don’t have much faith in many Jews’ ability to escape from the liberal ghetto
Defector01 on May 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Netanyahu should cancel the upcoming visit. There is no reason why he should expose himself to these yelping pups. Obama is out of his weight class in dealing with Netanyahu.
thegreatbeast on May 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM
WTF.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Here’s how the Ventriloquist Dummy in Chief will conduct the negotiations:
“Israel, you pretend to give up your nukes. Iran, you pretend to stop developing nukes. I’ll pretend like I did anything of relevance, and the press will pretend that I’m the world’s peacemaker.”
Thank God the adults are in charge.
TheMightyMonarch on May 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Uuhh Isreal,…under the bus you go.
Alden Pyle on May 6, 2009 at 11:55 AM
The typical liberal lacks the survival gene. It is then incumbrent upon the rest of us to recognize that fact and to plan and act accordingly.
Yoop on May 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM
True, the rantings of a Mullah or fifty aren’t going to establish when the nukes are ready or the like, but they do give anybody dealing with Iran valuable insight into how Tehran “ticks.” If you are going to deal with somebody, it helps to know how they see the world. And seeing these rantings, raves, and sermons that are still VERY highly respected amongst the Iranian leadership helps do that.
Which again is to miss the forest for the sake of the trees: yes, our estimates have been off, sometimes grievously so. But Iran has made its intentions clear, and we know it has help. All that means is that we are running out of time, but we don’t not how much time there is left, and at this point, the Iranians probably don’t know either.
And what about the irreconcilable nature of the ideological differences between the Third Reich and its Fascist offspring (Hungary, Slovakia, etc) or Japan? The fact was that, like the Kaiser and Bismarck before them (though they were not nearly as malignant) they were willing to kill and kill and kill to remake the world in their image, and they explicitly stated their intention to do so. With such “partners,” the very ability of diplomacy to affect their stance is questionable: it may delay or alter where it happens, but can it stop it?
True.
The question is whether or not it is an “avoidable war” or not.
Turtler on May 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Nuts!
krl on May 6, 2009 at 11:57 AM
That peace was not secured in the 30’s is less an indictment of negotiation than it is of poor negotiation.It is an indictment of leaders who were willing to do anything to avoid war. The negotiations were designed to try to appease a expansionist dictatorship. Peace at any cost was the mistake there, not the idea of talking. That is why talks with Iran will fail. Iran knows obama will do nothing real to stop them. Such leaders almost always end up ENCOURAGING war. If obama must talk to Iran then he should park 3 aircraft carrier groups off of Irans shores, send a few squadrons to Bahrain and deploy a few divisons to Kuwait. They can hold “training exercises” there for the duration of the talks. Nobody needs to actualy bomb anyone to make the point.sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I meant to hit quote not strike.
MORE. CAFINEE. STAT.
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I wonder what all those old Jewish retirees in Florida who voted for Obama because Sarah Silverman got their grand-kids to tell them to are thinking now. Buyers remorse?
PersonalLiberty on May 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM
If that weren’t so close, to a true scenario, it would be hysterical!!!
capejasmine on May 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Ernesto actually has a point.
Following the end of WW1, the UK and France had been devastated by years of horribly destructive warfare – especially France as much of the war had been fought on their territory. Millions of soldiers dead, millions of dollars/francs spent, billions worth in lost opportunity costs. After finally beating Germany (with our help) the Allied nations were hot bent for revenge. Defeat wasn’t enough, they wanted the Germans pounded into the dirt.
I won’t post all the details as it would take several screens worth of info, but the result was that Germany became an impoverished shell of its former self. And that was before the Depression hit the world.
The entire nation was so absolutely destitute that when Hitler started getting ambitious it was low-hanging fruit. He and his Nazis offered good jobs, a revived economy in general and a Germany reborn. He gave Germans hope, at least the ‘right’ kind of Germans. And he delivered. Going from there was a cakewalk.
Dark-Star on May 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Thats as good a foreign policy idea as ive ever heard. whatsay you, me, jianxidad, and turtler call up a meeting with the NSC.
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM
All the Israelis have to do is to have them send Hans Blix to look for the nukes.
re: “Team America”
TexasJew on May 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Don’t bother. I’ve got Churchill’s 6 volume set thanks.
Ernesto specifically said 1930s. Hitler started re-arming in 1933 and marched into the Rhineland in 1936. The only possible negotiation would have been for Britain and France to start rearming when Hitler did. By 1936 they were far behind.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 12:06 PM
God no, thats way to close to the pentagon and white house for me.
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Send me to Kuwait instead.
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM
negotiation can be, and often is, a diversionary tactic.
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM
So what. It wasn’t.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Well how better to propose a plan to the NSC than having its chief architect on the ground ready to go?
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM
gh,
It is time to cease attempting to understand the liberal mind and to plan for survival. They finally will really screw something up that is irreversible. I’m afraid that time is nearing sooner than anyone expected. This entire administration, and their cult following, totally lack the survival gene, nor any sense of defense.
At the present time they are only interested in defending their grip on the taxpayer and the fruits of the taxpayer’s work, and the adulation of THE ONE-WON.
Yoop on May 6, 2009 at 12:09 PM
אנו מודים לך על סוג המילים.
יברך אותך ואת כל העם היהודי.
יחי ישראל!
(And I pray that translator worked!)
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Hence them being poor negotiations.
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
France had a bigger army and better tanks than the Germans in 1940. What they didn’t have was good leadership and Rommel.Oh and for some stupid reason they thought Hitler would respect neutral countries.
Dumbasses
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Why would Obama ask Israel to do something he knows (or hopefully knows) that Israel would never agree to do? I think at least someone previously mentioned the idea of making Israel a scapegoat. If something horribly goes wrong, then Obama can say that Israel was given its chance and they did not take it, or he can blame Israel if something happens to us.
I know biblical prophecy is not considered as any kind of authority within “intellectual” discussions of world events, but in that area of study there is much debate on why there is no mention (or hint) of the the United States in the prophecies that foretell a full scale attack on Israel from the “north” (or “Persia”) that indicate the beginning of the end. Just something to think about. Either the US is unable to intervene or is unwilling to intervene when Israel is attacked (if biblical prophecy is to be believed.) Its looking more like “unwilling” to me.
AverageJoe on May 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Arrogance on parade! So, who is the cowboy now? This move and all the others made towards Israel reminds me of “High Noon”. Obama and Gang are the bad cowboys trying to killing the Sheriff. I am sure you all are familiar with the movie, and how it ends. The bad guys end up in pine boxes. When Bibi and Israel go to make the bad guys pay for their misdeeds; I sure as hell hope they do not get the American people confused with the bad dudes ruling over us.
It is not just Soros that has been poisoning Zero’s mind regarding Jews. Do not forget about his mother and father. Add to his parents, Khalidi, Farrakhan, Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, all of the Chicago elite like Ayers, all the radical Black Fascists he has been in contact with or read . The last time I checked, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not exactly showing any love to Jews. He of course is not very close to Al or Jesse, but he has been influenced throughout his education by that section of American culture.
Add to the disarming of Israel story running; Zero wants the U.N. to have control over different sections of Israel. When does the surreal nature of all this insanity end? I mean, this stuff is so out of history books, and Orwellian that at times you have to make sure you realize it is really happening and not just some weird dream!
freeus on May 6, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Ditto.
Israel values liberty, security and prosperity.
Obama does not. Obama and his followers might think they do but their actions are so counterproductive to those goals that they may as well be enemies to them.
Yakko77 on May 6, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Once Iran proves their nuclear capability, I won’t be visiting any large US cities.
Obama’s focus is on winning that Nobel Peace prize, methinks. He’s probably already done enough to get the next one.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM
This is one of those great liberal Utopian ideas that sounds good; who doesn’t want a nuclear-free and peaceful Middle East? But just how do you get there from here? You can’t ignore the very real and still existent reasons why Israel acquired them in the first place.
In practicality this means unilateral disarmament by Israel. As Rocky would say to Bullwinkle, “that trick never works!”
rockmom on May 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Don’t you love how this pressure comes after Rahm was telling Israel they need to bargain right now or Iran will get the nukes they seek? The sickest thing about that Chicago-style offer is that Rahm knows that Obama plans to let Iran obtain nukes even if Israel agrees to the demands. They’re being played as chumps.
It’s a replay of Obama’s AIG pitchfork point:
“The only thing standing between Israel and the pitchforks of radical Islam is my (pro-Islamist) Administration.”
econavenger on May 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Israel had at least 2 nuclear bombs by the Six-day War in 1967.
They may have well over 200 now, as well as a probable H-bomb.
The very knowledge of that has kept the Arabs rather quiet, as far as the major states, since 1973. Terrorism is used because they fear a frontal attack, which could trigger a nasty reprisal.
The Israeli polls are overwhelmingly pro-preemptive strike. Obama’s pumped-up polls mean exactly squat to the Israelis.
Their lives are at stake, and Obama and Gates do not exactly calm their fears. And how could they?
TexasJew on May 6, 2009 at 12:16 PM
So now the MORON-IN-CHIEF wants Israel to disarm itself to make peace with Islamofascist-thugs that want them dead. In other words, surrender, then expect annihilation. A real military minded dumb-ass.
Israel, tell Hussein Obama to get f**ked!
byteshredder on May 6, 2009 at 12:18 PM
This is over the top,Obama needs to be tried for Treason!
Israel’s Nuclear Weapons,is whats saving them,from
being run over by millions upon millions of Jihady’s!!
canopfor on May 6, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Yes, indeed. But not all of us are cowering in the saloon or the church.
Do not forsake me, oh my darling
On this our wedding day
Do not forsake me, oh my darling
Wait, wait along
I do not know what fate awaits me
I only know I must be brave
For I must face a man who hates me
Or die a coward, a craven coward
Or die a coward in my grave
And remember that in the end, the Sheriff did do his duty, stood up to the bullies, and he won.
And, perhaps most important of all, to some, got the girl!
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:18 PM
So here’s the thing, I can see the position that it’s sort of absurd to pretend Israel doesn’t have nukes. Everyone knows they do.
If you dont want to pretend they dont have them, I’m ok with that on one condition: Let’s also not pretend that we morally equivocate Israel and Iran. We dont effing trust Iran as far as I could throw them. We trust Israel will only use them in self defense and they need them for self defense.
Obama foolishly thinks if he disarms Israel then Iran will stop trying to build them. That’s as naive as you get. Iran would redouble their efforts to gain an advantage. You might well even get someone crazy enough to use them.
Dash on May 6, 2009 at 12:18 PM
(And I pray that translator worked!)
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Not too badly.
The last line looks transposed, however…
TexasJew on May 6, 2009 at 12:19 PM
The Precedent has now moved into working a wedge issue in his most brazen attempt, thus far, to destroy the West. This is above and beyond the idiot messiah’s usual treason, that he has been committing on an almost daily basis, and moves into a new realm of threat to civilization.
The Precedent is the most dangerous person to occupy power in more than a century. He is a threat to all that is good. He needs to be removed and removed quickly, after which he must be held responsible for the damage he is trying so hard to cause. I, for one, will not rest until he is punished for the traitor that he is (and that includes everyone close to him and participating in his traitorous cabinet and administration.
No one can even begin to overstate the threat that this moron, and the lunatics that surround him, pose to modern civilization.
As for Israel, it’s time for them to start thinking about using some of those nukes on Iran, putting away any notions of a restrained attack on Iran, and taking control of the Iranian fields (as well as looking to take some other gulf fields, since the gulf is going to be a smoldering mess soon, anyway).
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 12:19 PM
I don’t think it is as crass as that. Rahm Emanuel was born in Israel, remember, and would almost certainly want his legacy to be as the architect of the policy that actually got the “peace process” unstuck. There are many liberal true believers who think Israel’s possession of nukes is the original and continuing destabilizing force in the region, NOT the petty border war between Israel and the Palestinians. These are the same people who argued for the “nuclear freeze” back in the Reagan years. There are a whole lot of them in this Administration.
Besides that, politically it is a very shrewd move to one-up Netanyahu’s demand that the U.S. do something abut Iran. This is sort of “I’ll see you one and raise you one” gamesmanship with Bibi.
rockmom on May 6, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Two points.
First… does not Barry realize that his radical shift in previous US foreign policy shows that America can not be trusted? HE may promise to defend Israel if they give up their Nucs… but the NEXT administration would have the precedent to change that…
Second… Is Barry really so naive that he thinks Iran will give up their “peaceful Nuclear research” because Israel disarms?
We have a bunch of radical Hothouse flowers (never been in the real world) now making major policy in Washington… they really have no idea what consequences their actions will have… but its the same liberal arguement as gun control, they really do not understand that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns…
Now, they take their gun control meme to a whole new level… Nuclear Weapons.
Romeo13 on May 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Thanks.
… do will it maybe then ,out it figure could you if But
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:23 PM
American Jews are no different than most Americans in general: as long as the lights come on and the water flows from the faucet, they’re content to let the government do whatever it wants. Events abroad are just too far away to matter. There’s no special connection to Israel for them, any more than any other person with ethnic ties overseas.
n0doz on May 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Maybe because they are Americans first and supporters of Israel second?
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM
“Agree with your point about Isarel’s probable victimhood in the absence of US support. Please don’t think that many Israelis don’t recognize appreciate the value of our erstwhile partnership! We regret and fear your nation’s dissolution into Eurosocialism and moral cowardice, because we are so acutely aware of what you have done for us. We know it will be hard to go it alone.
We wish we could help you, too, but it is difficult when your President is trying to trade our lives and our nation for his political expediency :( but thanks and have a great day! It is always heartening to know that there are still voices supporting us in the US.”
Thanks for the nice words. Wish you could collectively get your voice to chastise/educate all the Jews here in America supporting this obamanation.
America1st on May 6, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Anyone who supports The Precedent is an enemy of America. That is perfectly clear.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 12:25 PM
What is “The Precedent”?
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Figure it out. Consider it a quick, little IQ test.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM
On Rahm… don’t bet on his sideing with Israel.
Yes, he was in the Israeli army just like all their Citizens are… but I really don’t have any idea of what his “end game” is. He’s a cipher who is now in charge of both our economy, and may have a large say in foreign policy as well…
He is the architect of a massive US Gov grab of power… and so his motives become very suspect on other issues as well.
Romeo13 on May 6, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I think we should drop the fiction that “Obama believes Iran will cease if Israel disarms.”
He wants the outcome he is making happen. To ascribe to him the notion that he earnestly believes it will work despite all indications to the contrary is ridiculous and enables him in this madness.
America1st on May 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM
It will be interesting to see how Netanyahu crafts his response. There is always the “Israel reserves the right of self-defense” boilerplate. Of course, he may choose to put Obama on the defensive by depicting him as soft, weak, diverting attention from his administration’s ineffectual approach to state sponsors of terrorism and WMD. And then there is the possibility of inserting the wedge between Obama and America by reaffirming America’s support for Israel, despite the short-term and short-sighted approach of the current US administration.
Christien on May 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The closest thing I could think of would be “The President”, but you would be making too many typos (si and ce are really far appart), and you would be saying that 70% of Americans are enemies of America.
Besides that I was thinking of some kind of precedent, but I couldn’t think of any…
Maybe instead of giving out IQ tests you could explain what you meant.
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I made no typos. You’re just not very smart.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Alternatively:
Anyone who The Precedent supports is an enemy of America. That is perfectly clear.
econavenger on May 6, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Also in 1939. But they could have put a stop to him in 1936.
[Wikipedia: Battle of France]
They were essentially defeated in the first 6 days. The rearmament, they should have made in the mid 1930s they they “planned” for 1940:
Of course, Hitler didn’t wait for 1941. Churchill was urging serious rearmament as early as 1934/5, iirc.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Yep.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM
do you know what ogabe means ?
runner on May 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM
First black president, etc. Quite a precedent.
cs89 on May 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You want to wear leiderhosen and dance with aardvarks in a bathtub filled with lime Jell-O?
Daggett on May 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Then are you talking about the “The Precedent – A full service real estate company in Indianapolis”?
http://www.theprecedent.com/
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM
HANS BRIX??! AH NO!!
TheMightyMonarch on May 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Meanwhile,John Kerry tells Iran,there won’t be a regime
change!
canopfor on May 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM
That’s “the precedent”?
Seriously…
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Never a good sign.
But I agree about the rest. Hitler could have been stopped, cold, in the Rheinland. But the west faltered. Hitler knew he had them then. obama looks like he may do the same thing.
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Your hovercraft is full of eels?
Please fondle my bum.
TheMightyMonarch on May 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Lime??? eeewwww
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM
He’s refering to Obama: Zero, Bambi, The Precedent.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I hope that soon, Obama will be able to tell us how you say “F*** OFF!” in Hebrew.
Star20 on May 6, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Now… flash forward to the Presedent cutting the F-22…
Can’t remember who made the quip (someone later paraphrasing Santayana)…. but:
Of course history repeats itself, no one was listening the first time…
Romeo13 on May 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM
The Precedent.
Show some respect for the traitor.
progressoverpeace on May 6, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Be wary of strange places…
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 12:40 PM
With the precedent Obama’s setting, you could easily take it as proof that only white men should be President! Not even the screwups of the last three POTUS’s combined did as much damage as he’s doing right now.
Dark-Star on May 6, 2009 at 12:40 PM
I stand firm on support of Israel regardless of what the current punk in the White House “feels”.
The Taliban could have hands on Pak Nukes in a day or so while Obama does not have a damn clue…
Go IDF, while Obama scratches his head and backside and missed that 3AM phone call…
old trooper2 on May 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Is that an offer?
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Hopefully, Obama is just playing up to the Muslim world by floating a proposal he knows Israel will reject. Nevertheless, Israelis and Jews worldwide should recognize that Obama is not a friend or a man to be trusted.
KW64 on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM
(and others on the similar tangent) –
see my comments at 11:11am and…quit whining already about the jewish vote, please !
runner on May 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Seems to me the ones that have to show respect are the people that lost the election and that resort to all sorts of name calling when having what was perceived to be a serious discussion.
You are calling 70% of the population “enemies” of America. And you are saying it’s perfectly clear. What else is left to call them? Traitors? Other types of patriotic insults? Nazis? I mean, shouldn’t there be a limit to this?
mycowardice on May 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM
I think that Israel should agree to give up the nukes. They have had enough time to reverse engineer the damn things and I think it’d be prudent for everyone to THINK that Israel didn’t have the ability to destroy Iran.
DeathtotheSwiss on May 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
And the important factor that should give pause to all of us is that Hitler became dictator 100% legally.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
love to be a fly on the wall on this one. Bebe gonna give the man-cub the finger as he should.
Obama..what a joke.
Handel on May 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
old trooper2,
I’m with you. I’m Catholic, but I’d like to see the IDF take Iran out….I mean as long as they don’t waterboard anybody, of course. That would be barbaric.
Star20 on May 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
mycowardice:
After the treatment of bush over the last 8 years, it is clear that respect for the office and person of the president is not required. So obama the fraud can suck my left nut and so can his supporters.
EOM
sonofdy on May 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
It will be interesting when Bejamin Netanyahu
meets Hopey/Changey this month!
—————————————–
Hopey:
Um..ah..um..ah..Bi Bi..it would..ah..how can I ah..umm.
say this..ah..um..so I will ah..ah..um..say this ah..
outright..ah..um..lose your Nukes..um..ah..and..um..
everybody..ah..um..will be ah..happy.
Bi Bi: Obama your nuts!!!!!!!!!!!(Snark).
canopfor on May 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Rough guess: About 80% of Jewish Obama voters are not particularly supportive of Israel. It’s just not a factor to them. It’s the remaining 20% that I don’t understand. I have a lot of friends among that 20%, and I still don’t understand. There’s a tremendous amount of self-delusion that’s occurring.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I think you’d be astounded by the contents of my hovercraft.
Are you a toddler and need a changing? Okay.
Are you an adult male? No thanks.
Are you an adult female? Chances are, I’m too old for you, but thanks for the memories.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Who is this 70% you keep talking about? He did NOT win 70% of the vote, and in fact got just over 30% of ALL Registered voters (when you count those who did not vote at all).
Are you talking about approval numbers? which are now in the low 60′s% in most polls?
Are you talking about his support on individual issues? which are even lower?
Get off yer High Horse, and quit exagerating the amount of support the Prededent has… ( and I call him Precedent because he is the first Dual Citizen President, in direct opposition to the Founding Father’s intent by their putting in the Natural Born Cit clause, defined at the time as born on American soil OF AN AMERICAN FATHER).
Romeo13 on May 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I don’t believe that The Precedent thinks this at all.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Thanks for your kind words.
Bless you and all the Jewish people.
Long live Israel.
(Hebrew is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!)
(And so are Hot Air posters!)
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Only and idiot like Obama could morally equivocate Iran and Israel.
ManInBlack on May 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Watch and all will be made clear.
Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook
TheMightyMonarch on May 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM
R.E.S.P.E.C.T – is EARNED – the affirmative action experiment that is siting in the white house now and is pushing his puny weight around hasn’t earned it. majority of the voters made a huge and irreversible mistake in November of 2008.
runner on May 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »