RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
House Republican Leaders Twist Obama Statement on Israel
May 12, 2008 9:19 PM
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talked a great deal about Israel. He was rather effusive in his support for the Jewish state.
Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.
After describing some of the first times he thought about Zionism, Obama said "the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience."
He talked about how "the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land."
He assailed Hamas as a terrorist organization and said the United States "should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements."
When the topic turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama said, "Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." When asked if Israel besmirches the United States' reputation, Obama said "No, no, no."
Then he said: "But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem..."
It seemed pretty clear to me that by "constant sore" Obama was referring to the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As he says in the next sentence: the "lack of a resolution to this problem."
Nonetheless, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who knows better, accused Obama of calling Israel a "constant sore."
"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims," Boehner said. "Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’"
(That's interesting because in that very same interview, Obama rejected Carter's use of the term "apartheid" as applied to Israel. Said Obama: "I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.")
Another member of the GOP House leadership, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, also misrepresented what Obama said.
"It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel," Cantor said.
When Obama twisted Sen. John McCain's "100 Years" comment, it was pretty dishonest as well.
But this may be worse, because Boehner et al are falsely accusing Obama of besmirching a nation and a people. They are accusing him of being anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic. It is false.
This kind of twisting is unbecoming a party that claims to have superior ideas to Obama's fairly orthodox liberal record. Voters may conclude that Republicans think they have to make things up to beat Obama. Which they don't.
- jpt
May 12, 2008 in John McCain, Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (137)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
How did Obama "twist" McCain's 100 years comment? McCain wants to stay until the troops achieve victory, which means no more wounded or killed troops. Then he wants to stay for 100 years. If people of Iraq continue to fight, as they did against Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, and many other until they left. He will not pull out the troops regardless of the loss of life, treasure, even if it takes 100 years.
Posted by: Jeff | May 13, 2008 11:23:26 AM
McCain has a Farrakhan... called Hagee... and he hugs him!
Posted by: megacephalus | May 13, 2008 11:17:46 AM
"constant sore" would be totally accurate... for 60 years now... but would not win many votes!
Posted by: megacephalus | May 13, 2008 11:13:11 AM
GOP wishes they had a candidate 1/10 as qualified, intelligent, well-spoken and charismatic as Obama.
GOP is perfectly represented by McCain - old, out of touch, moral compass missing its needle, tired, stupid and marinated in religious hypocrisy. Oh, and loves money so much he married it twice.
Posted by: Donnat | May 13, 2008 11:03:48 AM
Republicans like Boner are the reason why his party is losing membership. Eventually, they will become irrelevant.
Posted by: Tommy Thompson | May 13, 2008 10:55:38 AM
I think it would be wise to vote all the Republicans out of office. Ever since Bush became the president, this country has gone in the wrong direction. Hopefully it can be put on the right track ..The soon the better.
The only other thing i can say is that all those that voted to put Bush back in office for a second term are people that are affected by "scare" methods.
marty
Posted by: marty | May 13, 2008 10:53:17 AM
All of these post make me sad to be an American. I feel like I am among village idiots.
Wake up people! We are fighting a war and people are dying. Why don't you care about that unless it's your Son/Daughter? Think about the lives we have destroyed in Iraq. We are shameless self centered people.
Posted by: Brad | May 13, 2008 10:34:52 AM
Of all of the posts condemning Obama here today, the common thread is not one attempts to affirm what is right about McCain and his undefined vision for America. Simply believing that McCain is the better candidate because he is not Obama is hardly a winning strategy, but it seems to be the tact that the republicans will use, as they seem to have no other strategy to sell McCain or what he allegedly represents.
When the best argument that the republicans position for the candidancy of McCain is that he isn't Obama, shows that they are in a very weak state. McCain should have spent his time during the Obama v. Clinton fight, to finely tune his message but what instead we see is a campaign that chooses to run only on the message of fear the 'other' guy. Something that Hannity and Limbaugh seems to wallow in, but who can't come up with any valid reasons to support their guy in the age when the majority of Americans are seeking answers, not another round of divisive politics meant to sift out the worse of two evils.
Its time for the republicans to tell us why we should buy McCain, and they are running out of time spending their energy speaking about Obama.
Posted by: VinceinATL | May 13, 2008 10:33:24 AM
Yes they do have to make up things to beat him, not that they can, but that is what they are left with, just like Hillary was left with lies and fake controversy. We have seen for over a year now that there is nothing of substance to attack Obama over, he is a great candidate, and so we see time and time again that his opponents, whether Hillary or the Republicans, have to resort to lies and distortions to attack him. But it won't work.
Posted by: TPIP | May 13, 2008 10:33:18 AM
I am not surprised about GOPs legislators lying about anything these days, this country has endured eight years of a lying idiot and his lackeys. This is simply more of the same. Look at the lying flip-flopper that they are propping up to run for president. McCain had a chance back in 2000 when he WAS a maverick, now in 2008 he is nothing more than a Bush puppet.
Posted by: Ericka | May 13, 2008 10:30:30 AM
eyes wide open, it's the math, stupid!
While the race is not over, there's no way Hillary can win the nomination. Hillary is like a basketball team trailing 10 points with 6 seconds on the time clock. While the game isn't over, there's no way that team can win.
Posted by: RFBorjal | May 13, 2008 10:25:22 AM
Wow... it's up close and personal now. The hidden racism in this country is gradually coming to light the closer Obama gets to the nomination. The thing I find most interesting is the fact that blacks can no more claim Obama than can whites. I guess that 1 drop rule applies. Obama is a great American and will make a great President for all of us. What will be will be and it won't matter how many of you hate him because of his skin.
Posted by: Kim | May 13, 2008 10:22:45 AM
eyes wide open, it's the math, stupid!
While the race is not over, there's no way Hillary can win the nomination. Hillary is like a basketball team trailing 10 points with 6 seconds on the time clock. While the game isn't over, there's no way that team can win.
Posted by: RFBorjal | May 13, 2008 10:13:27 AM
McCain's reference to 100 years in Iraq is entirely in bounds. The fact is that McCain hasn't presented any viable path to an Iraq occupation that wouldn't have our troops in constant fighting. He's even said in interviews that the Iraq situation is not comparable to Japan, Germany, or Korea. Late last year he acknowledged that the political and religious realities of the region wouldn't support a long term occupation. So, why can't he be called on his 100 year statement when it's obviously a direct contradiction of his earlier position? Honestly, the media needs to stop playing so soft with McCain. I know he's very friendly with reporters, but they need to stop letting that cloud their judgment.
As for the Boehner thing, it's just detestable. He needs to step up and formally apologize for the statement when he retracts it.
Posted by: Justin | May 13, 2008 10:11:40 AM
There is a great fear by the mainstream media right now that they have become irrelevant due to the Obama campaign. His grass roots organization will be so incredible strong by November that the Clinton's will be completely irrelevant.
The reason the campaign has not ended is because Obama has no doubt how he can when without her support. I do not think she can say the same.
Posted by: Hank Jestor | May 13, 2008 10:07:05 AM
Thank you for printing the facts of this matter. There's no way at all that a person can read the portion of the interview having to do with Israel and Palestine and NOT understand that Obama mean "the conflict" was "the wound." The twisting of his words is desperation or sheer boneheadedness.
Posted by: Megan | May 13, 2008 10:02:06 AM
Scary thought...
West Virginia but Clinton the cheater and liar and Bush Iraq War and most despise President in office..
This is VERY SCARY.... It makes you wonder...
I am personally insulted by the ideal that MRS. Clintons is playing the race card. Are her "base of supporters" racist..?? Is this true? Why IS she playing the race card? I have a college degree, I have struggle to change the course of my life but, I do not fit her base mold so does that mean that my vote does not matter if she becomes the nominee?
Posted by: Marie | May 13, 2008 9:58:50 AM
The reality is that the Republicans have nothing on Obama so they have to lie and make up stories to create a narrative that once again appeals to Americans' fears. The Republicans have become a party of losers, with no new ideas, no plans for the future of ALL Americans, just more Rovian name calling, association politics to deflect the vast nothingness of their own candidates and agenda. What a pathetic party they have become.
Posted by: Debra | May 13, 2008 9:56:58 AM
Boehner is not twisting it. Media has been 100% twisting the comments by Clintonites - why they so much suck up to obama = i don't know? Obama's millions at works or what?
Posted by: I know obama | May 13, 2008 9:52:27 AM
Kentucky and West Virginia, the two states with the most people per capita with no teeth. No wonder they're supporting Clinton.
BTW, I live in Kentucky.
Posted by: kamenwati | May 13, 2008 9:50:48 AM
Post a comment
