Yet more evidence of the guiding principles of Obama's consistent foreign policy. "Pro-jihadist John Brennan to head CIA?," by Pamela Geller at WND, January 9:
...The one-two punch of Brennan and Hagel is an insult to all free people. In the Senate, Hagel amassed a significant track record as one of a hardline hater of Israel who would not affix his name even to the most innocuous pro-Israel initiative. When all but four senators signed a pro-Israel statement in 2000, Hagel was one of the holdouts. The next year, he was again among the few senators – 11 this time – who refused to add their names to a statement urging George W. Bush not to meet with Yasser Arafat as long as the Palestinian groups under his control continued to pursue violence against Israel. In 2005, Hagel, along with 26 other senators, opposed a call to the Palestinian Authority to disqualify terror groups from participating in elections. And when 12 senators wrote to the European Union in 2006 asking that the EU join the U.S. in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Hagel was once again one of the few.Hagel wasn’t intimidated, and Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t either. In late October 2009, Obama appointed Hagel co-chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board. And in a particularly piquant symbolic move, the appointment was announced at J Street’s first annual conference – by Steve Clemons of George Soros’ New America Foundation. And now Hagel is getting a promotion from his grateful anti-Israel boss.
How is it possible in the 21st century that a Jew-hater like Chuck Hagel would be named secretary of defense and a jihad enthusiast like John Brennan would be tabbed to head up the CIA? One word: Obama.
RSS Feed
Perfect example of why RS should bud out of general political commentary and stick to his area of expertise.
Anyone who labels Hagel a Jew hater is ...an ISLAMOPHOBE. End of story. No further debate. (Many JW regulars will fail to grasp the sarcasm).
Anyone who mindlessly reiterates such a stupid comment is obviously an Islamophobe and deserves no further consideration.