Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Obama shows his true colors on day 1 after winning the election... again

It is deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra used to say.

What did Obama do the day after getting the Democratic presidential nomination?

Well, that is not true.

What did Obama do 12 hours after being nominated by the Democratic voters as a possible president of the USofA?

If you have been reading my blog, you would know.

Obama and the common treason, my old article from June 5, 2008.

Quoting Washington Post: It's a Mitzvah, dateline June 5, 2008, by Dana Milbank.

A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.


Mr. Hope and Change (tm) changed himself into a pro Israel hard liner?

A mere hours after being nominated the Democratic presidential nominee, he went to AIPAC to praise Israel.

Do you remember the brouhaha the talking heads on TV raised because Obama was not usually wearing an American flag lapel?

No problems here - he was wearing an ISRAELI flag on his lapel.

The crowd of 7,000 (AIPAC delegates -AG) loved him anyway. He received 13 standing ovations, more than twice the number granted the next act, Hillary Clinton. The AIPAC faithful gushed about his performance as they left the Washington Convention Center.

Splendid performance.

And what did Obama say while at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, while wearing an Israeli flag on his lapel?

From the Washington Post article:
He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

He called Palestinians "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt".

And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Wow, he went much further than Bush Sr., Bush 'W' and McCain combined.

The only thing he didn't promise is that the USA will bomb Iran.

Dana Milbank from WP:
Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused."

Oh, he did even that.

Onward to Iran then, Obama.

Why is it deja vu all over again, today?

Because Obama (hope, change!) has chosen Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel to be his White House chief of staff.

His first selection for his administration.

(Story is all over the news wire, no need to link).

Who is Mr. Rahm Emanuel?

Counterpunch: How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress, dateline October 14-15, 2006:

Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal.

So back in 2006 53% of polled Democrats wanted immediate withdrawal, 25% wanted gradual withdrawal and 17% wanted to stay the course.

We all know what happened - we 'stayed the course'.

In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable.

Why was that, when the Democrats swept to power in 2006 because there was a mandate - get us the fuck out of Iraq?

Then why did the Democratic candidates, except for the Marine Murtha and Mr. McGovern oppose even a timetable for withdrawal?

Because Mr. Rahm Emanuel controls the money for Democratic political campaigns, that's why.

Counterpunch explains the past election to Congress:
If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).

Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT).

So only 1 candidate supported by Emanuel Rahm was for withdrawal.

Can Counterpunch article call a spade a spade?

You bet.

"Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates."

So how come Mr. Emanuel is so pro Iraq war?

Lets go to another Counterpunch article, Emanuel's War Plan for Democrats.

You see, Mr. Emanuel wrote a book (really, a booklet) in which he unabashedly spoke his mind.

The book's summary paragraph states:
We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5.

This guy is a D E M O C R A T?

I am speechless.

He wants to expand the American military (note to all: America spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military) by 100,000 troops.

He also wants to create a new spying agency (I thought that's what the FBI is for; why do we need a new spying agency that would spy on us, Mr. Emanuel?)

Again - this guy is a democrat.

So, what does Mr. Emanuel say about the current war in Iraq?

In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-'knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes.

This guy is a democrat?

Why does Mr. Emanuel love the current American occupation in Iraq?

First, as is often pointed out, Emanuel's physician father was an Israeli émigré; but, according to Leon Hadar, he also worked during the 1940s with the notorious Irgun, which was labeled as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.

Mr. Emanuel's father was in the Irgun - these are the Jewish terrorists who perpetrated the Deir Yasin massacre.

If you are an American I forgive you for not knowing what I am talking about here - per Wikipedia's article here:

The Deir Yassin massacre was the killing of between 107 and 120 villagers, the estimate generally accepted by scholars, during and possibly after the battle at the village of Deir Yassin (also written as Dayr Yasin or Dir Yassin) near Jerusalem in the British Mandate of Palestine by Jewish irregular forces between April 9 and April 11, 1948.

Contemporary reports, originating apparently from a commanding officer in Jerusalem of one of the irregular forces involved (the Irgun), Mordechai Ra'anan, gave an initial estimate of 254 killed.

The size of the figure had a considerable impact on the conflict in creating panic and became a major cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

The Deir Yasin massacre was instrumental in showing the Arabs that they must flee for their lives - otherwise the Jewish soldiers would kill them.

Uri Milstein wrote: "The story of the Deir-Yassin massacre is now part of the heritage of both Arabs and Jews.". Eight years after the event, in 1956, the Arab historian Arif al-'Arif, in his account of the nakba arrived at the estimate, now generally accepted, of 117 victims, 7 in combat, and 110 killed inside their homes.

Al-Arif's study was confirmed by Sharif Kananah, of Bir Zeit University, who in a detailed study estimated 110-120 villagers had been killed, an estimate generally accepted by other authors.

117 victims, 7 in combat, and 110 killed inside their homes.

So, Deir Yasin was the murder of civilians after the battle, of men, women and children, by the Irgun troops.

Mr. Rahm Emanuel's father was IRGUN.

Eliahu Arbel's eyewitness account: Eliahu Arbel arrived at the scene April 10. He was an Operations Officer B of the Haganah's Etzioni Brigade. He reported:-

"I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses. From my experience I know well, that there is no war without killing, and that not only combatants get killed. I have seen a great deal of war, but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin.

Mr. Emanuel's father was IRGUN.

Jacques de Reynier's eyewitness account: Jacques de Reynier was a French-Swiss Representative of the International Red Cross. He came to the village on April 11. He reported:-

"... a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children. About 150 cadavers have not been preserved inside the village in view of the danger represented by the bodies' decomposition. They have been gathered, transported some distance, and placed in a large trough (I have not been able to establish if this is a pit, a grain silo, or a large natural excavation). ... [One body was] a woman who must have been eight months pregnant, hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she'd been shot point-blank.

This is IRGUN.

[One body was] a woman who must have been eight months pregnant, hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she'd been shot point-blank.

This is the organization that Mr. Emanuel's father was a member of.

I recommend the Wikipedia article - it is very impartial, and gives unbiased views and eyewitness accounts of the atrocity.

But maybe the apple fell far from the tree?

What does Mr. Emanuel's father being a terrorist have to do with today?

Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, Emanuel was a civilian volunteer in Israel, "rust-proofing brakes on an army base in northern Israel." (Wikipedia, New Republic). This is peculiar on two counts. Here the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, but Emanuel, a U.S. citizen, volunteers not for his country, but for Israel. Moreover, here is a well-connected Illinois political figure with a father who had been in the Irgun, but he is assigned to "rust-proof brakes" on "an army base." Maybe.

During the first American war with Iraq, Mr. Emanuel went to Israel.

This powerful Democratic politician was hammering nails on an Israeli Army base.

Forgive me while I laugh for a full minute.

Third, immediately upon his return from his desert sojourn, Emanuel at once became a major figure in the Clinton campaign "who wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds."


After hammering in nails onto Israeli Army's buildings, Mr. Emanuel becomes the chief "money man" for Bill Clinton and the Democrats.

Fourth, after leaving the Clinton White House, he decided that he needed some accumulated wealth and "security" if he were to stay in politics. So he went to work for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier.

According to Easton, "Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella. According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period.

He made $18 million in two years.

His previous experience - a lost in the crowd Democratic politician and then carpenter, in Israel.

Next Emanuel won a seat in Congress in 2002, and by 2006 he was chair of the DCCC. Another near miraculous rise.

He has risen farther than Jesus in his own lifetime.

Not bad for another Jewish carpenter, eh?

So lets sum up - Mr. Rahm Emanuel's father was a terrorist, Mr. Emanuel himself is pro Iraq war and the continuing American occupation, and he has very strong ties with Israel.

Now, kids, what do we call people like that - people who act for the benefit of Israel at the expense of America, who are pro Iraq war, who have strong ties to Israeli extremist movements?



And this man is now being offered America's chief of staff position.

However, what does that actually mean?

Lets read the Wikipedia yet one more time:

The White House Chief of Staff is the highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and a senior aide to the President. The U.S. President's Chief of Staff is a very powerful position, sometimes dubbed "The Second-Most Powerful Man in Washington.



The son of a terrorist, the supporter of the American occupation of Iraq, the pro Israeli (Democratic) hawk, the neocon (if you don't think so, you must be willfully blind) - is now offered the 2nd most powerful position in the USofA.

What message is Obama sending now?



Or onward American goyim to Iraq - Israel's security demands yet more American blood?