General Petraeus goes off the reservation...

Jerusalem Post, dateline March 18 2010:

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,” he said in the written testimony. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the [Middle East] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

New York Times, dateline March 16 2010:

Gen. David H. Petraeus said Tuesday that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon this year, but that the country still remained the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East and Central Asia.

These statements by general Petraeus, current commander of US Central Command, are very mild and common sense like.

To the rest of the world.

But in America, these are bold, courageous shouts in the darkness.


Because America is officially in love with its soldiers, with TV news shows coked-out bimbettes gushing over "the boys and girls over there", with even our workplaces organizing sending stuff that soldiers requested donation drives (don't ask, true story), an open attack on the general is out of the question.

Although they would like to, Petraeus won't be called an anti semite, a bigot or a racist.

He will simply be ignored.


Meanwhile, to prove that our politicians think about Israel first, and American corporations second (with American people not thought of at all), our brave Congress creatures inhaled a bunch of white trails, snorted some pills, and washed it down with the cheapest whisky available, and, having gotten that liquid courage, they ALL stood up against the president who dared to say boo to Israel.

In case you missed what the hullabaloo between USA and Israel is all about, here is the Council on Foreign Relations summary. The full article is here.


And now without further ado, here are our American Congress "patriots" in action:

Jerusalem Post, March 17 2010:

Two US Congressmen sent a letter to the White House Tuesday calling on the Obama administration to tone down its attacks on Israel as several members released statements stressing the importance of American-Israeli ties.

“We urge your administration to refrain from further public criticism of Israel,” Mark Kirk (Rep.-Illinois) and Christopher Carney (Dem.-Pennsylvania) wrote to US President Barack Obama.

While many Republicans have used the opportunity to bash the White House, only a few Democrats have gone so far as to criticize the Obama administration for its handling of the situation.

One, New York Democrat Steve Israel, said in a statement, “The administration, to the extent that it has disagreements with Israel on policy matters, should find a way to do so in private and do what they can to defuse this situation.”

Elliot Engel (Dem.-New York) offered a slightly more calibrated response in a floor statement Monday.

“I don’t think that we should blow the timing of that announcement out of proportion. We should not have a disproportionate response to Israel,” he said. “We need to be careful and measured in our response, and I think we all have to take a step back.”

Several other members emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong and smooth relationship, including Nita Lowey, chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees aid to Israel.

“Israel is and will remain the United States’ most stalwart ally,” she said. “I believe the stakes are too high and the threats are too urgent to allow the unfortunate recent exchange between Israel and the United States to derail ongoing diplomacy.”

Steve Rothman (Dem.-New Jersey);

“The vital national security interests of the US heavily depend on the survival and security of the State of Israel, just as Israel’s vital national security is heavily dependent on its relationship with the US.”

Ugh.

Sickening.

How long will our stupified, dazed, soon to be third world citizenry tolerate these traitors in our government?