Notwithstanding Obama's consistent support for Israel, Rove suggests that as president, Obama may withdraw funding for Israel
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, in discussing Sen. Barack Obama's statement that money being spent on the war in Iraq "is money that we could be spending here in the United States, rebuilding our infrastructure, building schools, sending kids to university," Karl Rove quoted a "Democrat" he said he had spoken to in Los Angeles as saying, "I'm worried about that, because does that mean he's going to be looking at our support, for example, for the state of Israel and looking at it in terms of what could we be doing at home with those dollars?" However, Obama has consistently supported aid to Israel.
On the March 2 edition of Fox News Sunday, following a clip of Sen. Barack Obama stating of the money being spent on the war in Iraq, "That is money that we could be spending here in the United States, rebuilding our infrastructure, building schools, sending kids to university," Fox News contributor Karl Rove said, "I'm not certain over an eight-month general election that you can make the argument that we ought to take a look at every foreign policy commitment in the United States and measure it on the basis of the number of dollars that we've got there." He then added, "I happened to be in Los Angeles on Monday, and somebody had heard Obama say this to me [sic], and they were Democrat, and at dinner they said, 'I'm worried about that, because does that mean he's going to be looking at our support, for example, for the state of Israel and looking at it in terms of what could we be doing at home with those dollars?' " However, contrary to Rove's suggestion that Obama may be "looking at our support, for example, for the state of Israel and looking at it in terms of what could we be doing at home with those dollars," Obama has consistently supported aid to Israel:
- On November 10, 2005, Obama voted in favor of the conference report for the bill making appropriations for the State Department, including more than $2.2 billion in military aid to Israel.
- On February 14, 2007, Obama voted in favor of a continuing resolution that included more than $2.3 billion in military aid to Israel.
- On March 2, 2007, Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): "At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."
- On August 16, 2007, Obama issued a press release supporting the provision of $30 billion in military aid to Israel.
- Obama's presidential campaign's position paper on Israel says, "Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. Additionally, he has called for sustaining the unique U.S.-Israel defense relationship by fully funding military assistance and continuing cooperative work on missile defense programs, such as the Arrow."
- In a January 29 fact sheet, the National Jewish Democratic Council stated that Obama "has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran."
- An article of the March 3 issue of Newsweek reported: "Almost unanimously, American Jewish leaders say Obama's voting record and public pronouncements paint him squarely as an Israel supporter. 'Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain and Governor Huckabee have demonstrated their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,' AIPAC president Howard Friedman wrote to NEWSWEEK. (AIPAC says all three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the U.S.-Israel relationship.)"
Earlier in the segment, also in reference to Obama's comments, Rove stated, "Well, Obama -- it's a good argument for Obama, but I'm -- I'm wondering where it goes, because it really is a very neo-isolationist argument. It basically says, you know, 'We should not be involved in the world because of the consequences to the budget here at home.' " Obama has called for an increase in diplomacy and called for the use of "the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity":
In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community -- with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies, and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option.
Additionally, as Media Matters for America noted, later on Fox News Sunday, while discussing questions Obama has faced about Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, Rove asserted: "Now, having ties to Louis Farrakhan and his anti-Semitic comments, that's -- that's -- you know, people have a reason -- that's a reasonable question: Do you agree with him? Do you renounce him? Do you reject him?" However, neither Rove nor host Chris Wallace noted that Obama has denied that his campaign has "ties to" Farrakhan or that he has answered the questions posed by Rove, having repeatedly and consistently denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements.
From the March 2 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: All right, but Obama has found a clever way to link the war in Iraq to our domestic problems with the economy here at home. Let's watch.
OBAMA [video clip]: We are spending $12 billion per month. That is money that we could be spending here in the United States, rebuilding our infrastructure, building schools, sending kids to university.
WALLACE: If he's able to define Iraq in terms of where do you spend that $12 billion, on the battlefield over there or on infrastructure and social programs here, doesn't Obama win?
ROVE: Well, Obama -- it's a good argument for Obama, but I'm -- I'm wondering where it goes, because it really is a very neo-isolationist argument. It basically says, you know, "We should not be involved in the world because of the consequences to the budget here at home."
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9-11, and look what happened. Look at the cost to the American economy after a terrorist attack on the homeland. We lost a -- we lost a million jobs in 90 days after 9-11.
If we were to give up Iraq, with the third-largest oil reserves in the world, to the control of an Al Qaeda regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200-a-barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy?
So you know, it's a cute thing in a primary. I'm not certain over an eight-month general election that you can make the argument that we ought to take a look at every foreign policy commitment in the United States and measure it on the basis of the number of dollars that we've got there.
I happened to be in Los Angeles on Monday, and somebody had heard Obama say this to me, and they were Democrat, and at dinner they said, "I'm worried about that, because does that mean he's going to be looking at our support, for example, for the state of Israel and looking at it in terms of what could we be doing at home with those dollars?"
And it was a nice line, but I'm not certain how durable a line it necessarily is.
WALLACE: All right. What about the economy itself? I mean, the -- the -- the sort of cliche is people vote for peace and prosperity. [Sen. John] McCain is defending an unpopular war. As for the economy, let's take a look at a recent poll which shows that 66 percent, two-thirds, of Americans think the country already is in a recession.
How does McCain counter Obama -- not only on the war, but now also on a Republican economy?
I cant beleive I used to beleive Rove was some sort of Machiavelli like evil genius.
I can't believe it either. Rove is anything but Machiavellian. A Machiavellian would have secured Iraqi oil simply by paying Saddam for it. That wouldn't have stopped the US from funding Halliburton to provide oil services either.
Rove took the neoconservative view that the better way to secure US interests in the Middle East was to work for a just society there. Tyrannical rule, even rule by a friendly tyrant (such as the Carter-installed tyrant, Arafat) would create social problems that would eventually lead to hatred and would threaten our interests.
Rove is a genius, but he is a good genius in that the means he favors to create his desired ends is the liberation of others, with more widespread democracy and more widespread global participation in free markets. His speeches are quite inspiring.
The problem with his views on freedom is that the advantages are hard to define and the disadvantages are easy to point out. It is easy to point to problems in the society, and to advocate taking a little from all in order to address those problems. It is like a lottery. It is easy to point to the advantages to the lottery winner, it is much harder (except that a strict accounting is done in the case of a lottery) to make the case that the non-winners actually paid more than the winner received. So the Machiavellian can easily play on greed to convince most people that they are likely to win the "social engineering" lottery.
It is easy for someone like Edwards to encourage diverting the nations resources into propping up our older industries in which we no longer have a comparative advantage. It is harder to see that this is equivalent to denying opportunity to the next generation who are deprived of those resources in what otherwise would be a more productive industry.
Clearly there needs to be a balance between interests, the question is whether the best way to achieve that balance is through negotation, or through control by a central authority.
The believers in freedom, like Rove, have a much harder time making the case that the costs of achieving beneficial results through tyranny exceed the costs that arise with free markets and democracies. However, the recent history of the world seems consistent with that view.
Rove took the neoconservative view that the better way to secure US interests in the Middle East was to work for a just society there. Tyrannical rule, even rule by a friendly tyrant (such as the Carter-installed tyrant, Arafat) would create social problems that would eventually lead to hatred and would threaten our interests.
If Saddam was more like the tyrants in Saudia Arabia, the Iraq war would have never had happened. The Neocon philosophy is "Do what's in our best interests (not America's but theirs) or we'll bomb you. That philosophy doesn't work and that's why the people of Iraq are fighting and killing American troops.
more widespread global participation in free markets.
You mean more free trade which will benefit corportions and lead to the destruction of the American Middle class. The Neocons hate a strong and vibrant middle class.
The problem with his views on freedom is that the advantages are hard to define and the disadvantages are easy to point out.
The problem is forcing your way of life on people at the barrel of a gun. You create problems when you do this.
It is easy for someone like Edwards to encourage diverting the nations resources into propping up our older industries in which we no longer have a comparative advantage.
You can combat this with tariffs and by strengthening unions.
The believers in freedom, like Rove, have a much harder time making the case that the costs of achieving beneficial results through tyranny exceed the costs that arise with free markets and democracies.
Rove is a believer in corporatism not freedom. Corporations (specifically big oil) couldn't benefit with Saddam in power so you remove him and create a corporate paradise. The problem is that the natives are not going along with it. No country will allow themselves to be raped of their resources without a fight.
Mazzula posted:
"Tyrannical rule, even rule by a friendly tyrant (such as the Carter-installed tyrant, Arafat) would create social problems that would eventually lead to hatred and would threaten our interests."
________________________________________________
Interesting rant, but I think you better check your time line on Arafat and Carter?????
The Google is yer friend! :)
So what if he does? Israel has nukes, they are a deterrant as the cold war proved. And Israel doesn't strike me as a country afraid to use them. The only reason the US supports Israel is because of the die hard right wingers who think the crapture is so close they can taste it. Supporting Israel pisses off the middle east, which fans the fires of fanatiscism, which plays right into the wingers dream scenario.
Pull funding, watch the right wing writhe in agony as they see any hopes of fulfilling biblical prophecy in their lifetime fade from view.
Snoop,
Supporting Israel, politically & financially is the only way anyone gets elected in this country. That's a given. Both sides do it.
I wish Obama had the balls to do things differently, but he doesn't. None of them do.
but the rightwing gets extra hipocracy points because they whine the loudest about giving "foreign aid
True.
But, [you knew there had to be a But] our Pro-Israel stance has caused hard feelings among the middle eastern arab states so why doesn't a Democrat step forward & suggest a change in policy instead of going along with the status-quo? That's leadership, IMO.
The other voice kind of pooples? ;-)
BTW, I missed how the other voice stuff started though I see you & Pearlene mention it often. I think I know, butt could you explain?
Just for you!
The phrase started at work. I have a good bud who I spend lots of time in meetings with. We banter alot when we wait for the meeting to start, sometimes we take that banter into some pretty crazy directions. He may bring up broccoli and all of a sudden we'll work together to have what sounds like a "deep" discussion on the value of broccoli, for instance. Our manager (who is totally cool, btw) usually catches the tail end and gives us funny looks, so we started countering by putting one hand over our mouths, giving that fake OMG! look and saying "we used our outside voice again, didn't we?".
I think pearl just connected the dots that I always made that statement every time I made an outlandish comment here.
Got it ;-)
Thanks for the explanation Snoop, now at least I'll know what to call it when I read it...or write it :-O
I copywright nothing, so feel free to use it to your heart's content!
but do let me know how it goes over at work. It's always interesting to observe reactions!
That's leadership, IMO.
It's also political suicide.
It's also political suicide.
I wonder what the opinion of the voters would be IF we got the chance to weigh in? I'm not saying we abandon Israel, but I wish we could have a more even handed policy in the Middle East.
It seems to me our politicians continue with a Pro-Israel policy simply because of pressure from groups like AIPAC, instead of what is in our nations best interest.
It seems to me our politicians continue with a Pro-Israel policy simply because of pressure from groups like AIPAC, instead of what is in our nations best interest.
AIPAC can get away with it because of the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country. Until that changes, AIPAC will get its way.
This has always been a religion thing – so you’re only kidding yourself if you try to put logic into the mix.
America was founded as a Christian nation
American morals are based on Judeo-Christian values.
What percentage would disagree with those 2 statements? That’s your percentage of voters who would go along with your idea. (but u have my vote)
As a whole, Christian nations are allies - Jews are OK because they use 1/2 our bible and are part of biblical prophecy - any on else can go to hell. I'm ashamed to say it, but that's your average American's thinking.
What I'd like to know is....... How much does it cost FOX Noise everytime they get Karl Rove to crawl out from under his rock?
As for Isreal..... they have been using the murder of their people by the Nazi's as a bludgeon against anybody that doesn't suck up to their own bullcrap!
I don't want to see Isreal destroyed or anything.... but I'm wondering if perhaps the Palestinians aren't as bad as we have all been led to believe?
I also wonder sometimes if perhaps much of their brutallity toward the Palestinians exists only because we back them?
Take this for what it is worth.
My sister has spent about 6-8 months living in, and among the Palestinian people, and ditto for the other side (over in Israel). She says, without a doubt, the safest she felt while in that region was when she was around the guys from Hamas. They treated her with respect, had good conversations with her, and basically treated her as an equal (she's not a reporter, journalist, or anything like that, she was just traveling and essentially getting a "feel" for the place).
The most scared she ever was while there? Being around the IDF.
Before she traveled there, and saw for herself what was going on, she was super duper pro-Israel f the Palestinians. After coming back, she's turned 180.
MAGNOLIA,
Actually, it wouldn't suprise me at all if this were a story that might be told more than once!
Of course, like any other country, no doubt there are a few that would have just as easily treated her badly in Palestine but even with that said, I tend to believe that there are few that would have treated her quite good in Isreal......
What I can figure out..... other than the right-wing wacko's want the Jews/Isreal to be in one piece when the (C)rapture may begin just so that they may all die and end up in hell, is why does Isreal bother with us anymore?
Because I sure the hell hope that scum like Paul Wolfowitz isn't part of the reason?
Rove's language is telling:
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9-11, and look what happened. Look at the cost to the American economy after a terrorist attack on the homeland. We lost a -- we lost a million jobs in 90 days after 9-11.
I doubt the veracity of his million jobs claim - I've never heard it before. The American public's priorities were 1) get those responsible, 2) prevent recurrence. Bush gets a D. He did disrupt Al Qaeda and take down the Taliban as a protectorate, but he failed to get their leadership, is allowing Afghanistan to deteriorate to the point that it may fail, and has mired us in a 2 - 5 trillion dollar nation-building exercise that isn't remotedly tied to US Nat'l Security.
If we were to give up Iraq, with the third-largest oil reserves in the world, to the control of an Al Qaeda regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200-a-barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy?
And there you have it - War for Oil.
So you know, it's a cute thing in a primary. I'm not certain over an eight-month general election that you can make the argument that we ought to take a look at every foreign policy commitment in the United States and measure it on the basis of the number of dollars that we've got there.
What the hell does he mean cute? This is exactly the type of general election argument one should expect. How are my tax dollars to be spent in your Administration? How much goes overseas vs. stays at home? How many more guns vs how much butter? In what direction will you lead, what are your ideas on government's proper roles and size, and how are you going to both execute your vision and pay for it?
Well, we were not involved in the world before 9-11, and look what happened.
T-bone, I'm glad you included that, I did get a laugh that Rove is still playing to that crowd. Poor little USA was just minding our business for the last 100 years, and out of nowhere, we're attacked. OK, technically and literally, we were minding our business, but that's not how Rove is trying to frame it.
And to the simple-minded, the above comment puts me squarely in the "Blame America First" club.
Poor guy..just trying to eke out a living. Going from GENIUS to destroying the Republican Party to losing Congress to Fox news..talk about a downward spiral.
Karl, my advice, organize a run for the White House for Newt G. Show us you still have it. I'd say a prayer for you but my Italian Catholic mother thinks Devil Worship is sinful.
It would be great to see a caption under Rove's picture that read Former GOP Genius. ;>)
Because he was able to get Bush elected twice Rove was once thought to walk on water. But as it turned out he just knew where the rocks were beneath the surface.
Israel doesn't "pisses off the middle east as "SNOOPY" suggest us to believe. I dare to say that this kind of talk is irresponsible.
abe_bird9465 / Tuesday March 4, 2008 1:18:11 PM EST
Actually, what is really irresponsible is misquoting someone and then using that misquote as a method to rebuke someone. Here's what I really said:
Supporting Israel pisses off the middle east, which fans the fires of fanatiscism,
By leaving out that one key word you twisted my actual qoute to make it look like I was bashing Israel. While that is really phony logic on your part, it does play well with the fox news crowd. You should put in a job app, you'd be a shoe in.
snoopy / Tuesday March 4, 2008 3:34:48 PM EST
One word doesn't change my intention and not your suggestion either. If "Israel doesn't pisses off the middle east" NO ONE can "supporting Israel pisses of the middle east". The very fact is that Israel does not piss off anyone. The key word is: accuracy. Accuracy in portraying reality and not falling into your wish full thinking. Any way, I think that I explained well enough why supporting Israel is not pisses of the ME but on the contrary, it brings more stability there. You should know that supporting Israel is not right wing character only. Most of the democrats also stand by Israel. Only the far left and far right fringes oppose pro-Israel policy."Well, we were not involved in the world before 9-11, and look what happened."
Lie.
"Look at the cost to the American economy after a terrorist attack on the homeland. We lost a -- we lost a million jobs in 90 days after 9-11."
Lie.
"If we were to give up Iraq, with the third-largest oil reserves in the world, to the control of an Al Qaeda regime or to the control of Iran, don't you think $200-a-barrel oil would have a cost to the American economy?"