| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Try this: search for "'Obama and Ahmadinejad' by Amir Taheri" at Google. The first link goes to Forbes magazine, which published Taheri's article on October 26. But if you click on that link, you get this: "Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found." (Thanks to Olivia for the heads-up.)
You can still find the article in the Google Cache.
But what I want to know is, Why has Forbes sent it down the memory hole? The Forbes editors should be decent enough to provide some explanation.
Here it is, for posterity's sake:
Obama and Ahmadinejad Amir Taheri 10.26.08, 1:33 PM ETIs Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?
The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.
According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."
In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition.
Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama's position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a "systematic violator of human rights."
Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism." Instead, he uses the term "violent groups" to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.
Obama's election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad's entourage claim that his "steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan" was a factor in helping Obama defeat "hardliners" such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.
"President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson," says Hassan Abbasi, a "strategic adviser" to the Iranian president. "This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran's power." The Iranian leader's entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan "Yes, We Can" from Ahmadinejad's "We Can," used four years ago.
A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an "enemy of Islam." A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama "a better choice for everyone." Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic "prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House" next year.
Tehran's penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.
Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a "sunset" (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a "sunrise" (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America--attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.
Seen from Tehran, Obama's election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.
During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show "understanding of Muslim grievances" with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the "Iranian solution for Palestine," which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.
Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.
UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Paul informs me that the article is still online at Forbes -- not the main article but the printable version. Since the article itself seems to be gone -- I just hunted around for it again at Forbes and came up empty -- I suspect this was just an oversight, but I could be wrong. If anyone has more information, please contact me.
Posted by Robert at November 4, 2008 11:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I can see why Forbes pulled it...It's way too hot...
I especially like this line" President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson," says Hassan Abbasi, a "strategic adviser" to the Iranian president. "This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran's power."
Self centered Iran thinks America will vote Obama because of them...
America will vote Obama out of mistaken identity.
His reign will only last a year...America is not elastic enough for 'that much' change...
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 4, 2008 11:31 AM
Obama and Ahmadinejad = Obamadinejad = Evil United
Posted by: champ at November 4, 2008 11:39 AM
Oh, good grief! The Iranian mullahcracy can fantasize all it wants about Obama's helping to usher in the return of the Mahdi, but does that mean we have to attach any great significance to their projections? Muslims everywhere seem to think they'll have one of their own in the White House, and new day for Islam is a'dawning in America and the world. They underestimate both the limits of what Obama will actually be able to do if he attains office and the degree of disgust and disdain the vast majority of the world has for Islam. The fact is, Obama was never really fully vetted here before rising to power and remains in many ways a cipher to all of us, Muslims included. It will become clear soon enough where his true sentiments lie, but realism does dictate that we must all prepare to adjust our responses accordingly (especially, but not limited, to his chilling proposal for establishment of a new "internal police force.").
Posted by: Eastview at November 4, 2008 11:57 AM
Robert, and others, I'm Persian-illiterate.
I do know that Barack (compare Baruch in Hebrew) means 'blessed' or 'blessing.' But does Obama mean what the article says, 'he is with us'?
And does this late hadith have any validity? I can't find it to search online.
Posted by: Lori B. at November 4, 2008 12:00 PM
I've seen numerous articles about Biden's support for the mullahs as well so perhaps the choice of Biden was also based on their support for islam.
Newsmax had an article on 8/26/08 titled Biden's Ties to Pro-Iran Groups Questioned by Kenneth Timmerman.
www.newsmax.cam/timmerman/bdein_ties_to_tehren/2008/08/26/125165.html
And there have been stories here on JW that have shown his ties to Iran as well.
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022416.php for one.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at November 4, 2008 12:10 PM
End of time stuff, let me tell you!!!
Posted by: have_mercy at November 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Oh and by the way, why is this just now coming out? What, it didn't occur to anyone months ago to see what barak hussein's name really means in arabic and persian?
Unbelievable!
Off to work the phones for McCain.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at November 4, 2008 12:15 PM
"[T]he Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama's position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a "systematic violator of human rights."
Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism." Instead, he uses the term "violent groups" to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations."
-- from the article by Amir Taheri above
An article that appeared here on the need to disabuse the Islamic Republic of Iran, and other Muslim states and groups around the world, of their dreamy belief, in some cases, that Obama is a secret Muslim or, at least, sympathetic to them. He must show, and make sure it is understood, that he offers them no grounds for what we all widely assume is their misapprehension -- but they, not we, need to know it.
Here is an article from mid-October that makes this point about unambiguously correcting Muslim misapprehensions, and without any hint of rethinking policy on Israel (and that is why it is so important for Obama not to appoint, at either the State or Defense Departments, those who have shown a record of being unsympathetic to Israel, which is a marker for a predisposition not to grasp the meaning, and menace, of Islam (you will never find Pat Buchanan, for example, worrying about the islamization of Europe, or figuring out why the war on Israel is a Lesser Jihad that is without-end, and that any perceived victory over Israel will not sate but whet Arab and Muslim appetites, feeding a triumphalism that will take, as its next victim, the Lands of the Infidels in Western Europe.
Fitzgerald: What Obama has to demonstrate
One would have thought, one would have hoped, that those running the Obama campaign and the candidate himself would understand the need, now and especially after the election if he is successful, to reassure the many Americans, and others in Europe, who are unsure of him. They worry about whether he has some kind of sentimental family attachment to Islam -- one that would prevent him from recognizing Islamic realities for other reasons than George Bush's naive belief in the essential goodness of anything called, for want of a better word, a "religion." Islam is far more than a religious faith in the ordinary sense; it is a politics, it is a geopolitics. It presumes to Command or Prohibit in every area of life, and thus constitutes a Complete Regulation of Life. That is what is so dear to the hearts and minds of those who are confused and thrown into mental disarray by modern life, and these, the psychically marginal, can find Islam to be The Solution, or at least Their Solution.
Obama has to demonstrate not merely that he is "a Christian" but that he grasps, as his predecessor did not grasp, what the ideology of Islam inculcates. He must understand, and cleverly share that understanding with those whom he presumes to instruct and protect, that Jihad, properly defined, is the duty -- not tangential but central -- of Muslims to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to remove all obstacles, of every kind (the American Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, constitute such an obstacle), to the spread, and then to the certain dominance, of Islam.
Obama is quite capable, if he so chooses, of finding out what is in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. And he ought to be capable of not taking tuition from the espositos and armstrongs, or even from the noah-feldmans, but by reading and learning from those who have read the informative and highly articulate "defectors" from Islam such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq. He has to do this. He has to do it if he does not want to leave so many -- including some who will vote for him despite all kinds of misgivings on this score -- permanently nervous, or soon outraged and disappointed that he turned out to be what they had worried about and had hoped would not be the case.
Even if elected, he has a great deal of reassuring to do as to his knowledge of, understanding of, the ideology of Islam. This knowledge should be one based not on dreamy or sentimental visions of his biological but absentee father or his four childhood years in Indonesia. For in both the case of Kenya and Indonesia, especially decades ago, the easy-going, often syncretistic, and relaxed practices he would have encountered are merely misleading. What counts is not the Islam that Obama may have encountered as a child in places or connected to places (Kenya, Indonesia) that are far from the Middle East, in countries where there are still many non-Muslims, and where non-Islamic or pre-Islamic traditions are still much in evidence, not having yet been eradicated (although the situation in Indonesia, too, has changed, as the Muslims purs et durs are ever more insistent and aggressive). Obama may be elected, but he does not thereby become exempt from the responsibility, the duty, to reassure all of us that he is not a stalking-horse, does not harbor secret sympathies, and will be as resolute in his defense of the West and of America, this country that he keeps telling us he "loves so much."
He, and Axelrod, and the rest of the juggernautish crew, should clearly understand that aside from the youthful tribe of sometimes hysterical enthusiasts, his support is not wild, but very measured, and mostly the result of the awfulness of the past administration and McCain's failure to articulate sufficiently his differences with Bush, and not because people have ceased to be wary, and worried, about Barack Obama.
A meeting with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others of that ilk would be a good thing. Attention to the Arab supremacism within Islam, exemplified in the genocidal campaign against black African Muslims in Darfur (and the renewed campaign against black African Christians and animists in the southern Sudan), would also be good. And Obama should stop talking about Afghanistan being the "central front" in the "war on terror" and instead take a much more effective approach, identifying the instruments of Jihad. He should not, for god's sake not, repeat the Bush notion that we must transfer further Infidel wealth to Muslims in order to curb their aggression, which threatens to turn us, at a time when the tiniest OPEC Muslim Arab states have hundreds of billions in their "sovereign wealth funds," even as needy as our own government and people have become, into the permanent supporters of any Muslim state or people who happen not to have oil, but who have been led to believe what the Qur'an teaches -- that the Infidels owe them a living, or at least the Jizyah. They will have been led to believe this, alas, by the attitudes and behavior of Infidel governments themselves.
If Obama plays this wrong, four years of woe await him, as former enthusiasts, and others who always resisted falling into that category, see all their pre-election suspicions and worries confirmed. If he does what he should, what makes political and moral sense, and manages to do what Bush was incapable of, by openly and accurately identifying the ideology of Jihad (he can keep the word "Islam" out for now, and Kirsopp Lake's son can explain to everyone on the campaign what the word "synecdoche" means) then many in this country and in India, and in southern Nigeria, and in southern Sudan, and in much of sub-Saharan Africa, and of course among the peoples of Western Europe who feel themselves and their freedoms and customs and laws everywhere under aggressive Muslim attack and siege, will be much relieved, and a first term not of woe but of weal may conceivably be the result.
It requires knowledge. It requires study. It requires an intelligent and deliberate choice. By Obama, and by those who advise Obama.
We'll see.
[Posted by Hugh at October 16, 2008]
at November 4, 2008 12:18 PM
The paragraph that may have caused the article to be dropped is surely this:
"Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations."
If true, this is....well, unbelievable. It cannot conceivably be true. Neither Obama nor his advisers are idiots. And if he did attend a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, it would all come rushing back: the Muslim father and stepfather, his being officially listed as a "Muslim" at his school in Indonesia, his friendly relations with(instead of avoidance of) who dedicated "Prairie Fire" to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan; his record of being befriended by, and carefully tutored in their view of perfidious Israel (it being unclear how much of this Obama accepted at the time, and how much he still accepts but may be concealing the extent or depth of that acceptance, and how much he has indeed done to learn more about the demographic and cadastral history of the area, and about the intent, and express terms, of the Mandate for Palestine (including its important Preamble), and the actual, as opposed to concocted, history of the local Arabs who metamorphosed after the Six-Day War, as the key part of a deliberate campaign to repackage a Jihad to eliminate the Jewish nation-state as simply a fight for the "legitimate rights" of the just-invented "Palestinian people."
It would be terrible, for America, for the West, for Infidels everywhere, including those Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq, if Obama naively showed up at an O.I.C. meeting. And it would be, for his own domestic program in America, a colossal political mistake.
I assume Taheri has this wrong.
Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2008 12:33 PM
I googled 'world without America' to find out more about the above mentioned conference, and came up with this instead - an appreciation from a British point of view of the good things about America in the last 50 years.
Some of us Brits do care about our all-weather friends. For what it's worth.
Posted by: StephenA55 at November 4, 2008 12:35 PM
Sorry, I forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwAtNILh6uY
Posted by: StephenA55 at November 4, 2008 12:43 PM
The Coal fired electrical plants need to shut down service for two days. Giving the American People a direct wake up to what Obama has in store for their future.
The Masses have been brainwashed by the MSM and something big needs to happen to Box Obama in a corner.
Would they not just be lowering their carbon signature. That's supposed to be a good thing right?
It beats having, say, the entire armed forces command structure retire in protest. People we really cannot afford to lose.
Posted by: flowerknife_us
at November 4, 2008 12:44 PM
I can see Obama attending the O.I.C given who he has associated with for the last 20+ years, it would be in sync with his value system and a signal to the Muslim world he's ready to do their bidding.
As for potential blowback resulting from attending such a conference, it would only be with conservative Americans. People who didn't support Obama to begin with, so the downside is pretty much nil.
Furthermore the MSM will cover for him and sugarcoat his meeting with thugs and fanatics.
But there would be a societal price, it would freak out and radicalize a sizeable portion of white working class America against the Democrats and Obama, just as Clinton radicalized them when he was in office but much,much worse.
Posted by: waltc at November 4, 2008 12:48 PM
"We'll see."
Posted by: Hugh
Indeed. Assuming Obama wins, as the projections indicate, there is likely to be massive disappointment among some segments of both his supporters and detractors as he is finally forced to reveal himself and his appointments are announced and his policies are dribbled out piece by piece. Some, perhaps many, old political alignments will disintegrate and new ones emerge, both domestically and internationally. Our task will be to be aware of these developments as they occur, to assess their relevance to stemming and reversing the tide of Islam, and to be prepared to forge a new opposition built around whatever the new realities turn out to be.
Posted by: Eastview at November 4, 2008 12:55 PM
waltc: "I can see Obama attending the O.I.C given who he has associated with for the last 20+ years, it would be in sync with his value system and a signal to the Muslim world he's ready to do their bidding."
Absolutely waltc. Furthermore, the MSM and Dems will applaud him for it and pass it off as: 'see hope and change is coming to America and the world'just as Obama promised.
It has also been reported (not proven) that Obama has made secret promises to Palestinians.
The Pals apparently
"heard the best things they ever heard from an American president."
And he
"supports the rights of the Palestinians to east Jerusalem, as well as their right to a stable, sovereign state, but asked them to keep the remarks a secret."Posted by: Sounder
at November 4, 2008 1:13 PM
If Obama does indeed win the Presidency today (knock on wood) he will have an extremely long list of scary people he's beholden to.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at November 4, 2008 1:18 PM
Lori B:
The Shiite have their own hadith tradtions. The Sunnis are the ones who have filled the internet with their own translated stuff. Paid, of course, by Saudi Arabia. Mohamed, himself, was not found of black men. When he was asked to describe the devil, he pointed to one of his black slaves. A black person is considered a bad omen in dreams.
Posted by: have_mercy at November 4, 2008 2:06 PM
Hugh quotes and says: "Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency."
"If true, this is....well, unbelievable. It cannot conceivably be true. Neither Obama nor his advisers are idiots."
I don't see why this is so unbelievable. It's the next logical step from what Bush has done when he named a "Special Envoy" to the OIC, Sada Cumber, back in March of this year.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/101432.htm
Obama would just show how much more "sensitive" he is to the need for "dialogue" with our Islamic "partners" in the world blah blah blah.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 4, 2008 2:58 PM
I too have little difficulty envisioning Obama at an OIC conference.
As for the many campaign issues that were covered up by the MSM, why would they harp on them when the guy they wanted is in office? How could those who glossed over the Muslim background, Wright, Ayers, etc. make a fuss afterward?
It would be terrible for America, the West, infidels everywhere if Obama turned up at an OIC meeting but would it matter to those who support him? Many of them are likely to dig in their heels rather than admit they were wrong. Would Colin Powell come out against Obama? Doubtful.
Look at what JC did - turning Iran from a Western ally to an Islamic republic in just a few short years. The man did inestimable damage to America both at home and abroad but he remains popular in certain circles. Like Nixon, he was rehabilitated after a disastrous presidency and is now an elder statesman to many Democrats.
at November 4, 2008 3:14 PM
"End of times" "re-emergence of the Mahdi"? Ok, first, in order for this to be anything but laughable, there has to be a Mahdi, which there isn't. It's a fable, a fabrication constructed to control and profit from those who can't think for themselves.
The world needs to stop believing in fairy tales.
"The Iranian leader's entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan "Yes, We Can" from Ahmadinejad's "We Can," used four years ago."
Obama has used that slogan since the very first day of his first race in Illinois. If the internet gave full searches in Iran, maybe they'd know that. Not that hard to find.
Since it looks like Obama's going to get his chance, why don't we wait to pass judgement until he makes some moves?
I have a hard time believing that someone who ran his campaign with such shrewd efficiency and efficacy, would immediately turn into a thimble deep retard, his actions during the campaign say otherwise. The characatures built by both campaigns were just that, characatures built to manipulate those unable to discriminate between reality and cartoon-esque invention. John McCain is not a crazy, war-mongering old coot, nor is he Bush, he's just a politician (and an American hero). Likewise Barack Obama isn't a communist, a terrorist, an arab, a messiah or any of the other drivel passed off as fact by campaign minions and pundits. He's just a politician, and strangely enough, the one who had the balls to say he'd be taking it to the taliban and Al qaeda in much the same manner as the current administration has recently.
Posted by: Beaux510 at November 4, 2008 3:57 PM
If he does show up, the members of the OIC will not be able to conceal their glee. Just hope someone films it: then surely Americans will wake up to what they have done. Surely...?
Posted by: PG at November 4, 2008 3:57 PM
"first, in order for this to be anything but laughable, there has to be a Mahdi, which there isn't. It's a fable, a fabrication "
It doesn't matter if it's real or not, what matters is that masses of Shiite Muslims in Iran (and elsewhere) believe it's real, and will be motivated to do things based on this insane belief.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 4, 2008 5:00 PM
Beaux, Obama was never at any point during this campaign shrewd, tactful, or careful. He has never, at any point in his life, tried to hide his true jihadist/genocidal intentions. He has surrounded himself with Islamic and black supremacists bent on murder and parasitism. How anyone could possibly conider that he's not an Islamic Manchurian Candidate at this point is beyond me. Check out this roll call of advisors (courtesy Sammy Benoit, the Yid With Lid):
Samantha Powers called for an invasion of Israel in order to impose a solution to the "Palestinian problem" and complained about the influence of "the Jews" in American foreign policy.
Robert Mally, Obama’s disputed Middle East advisor, was a family friend of Yasser Arafat and a Clinton Middle East advisor. His presence in France publishing his magazine Afrique-Asie, which supported the Soviets and various "liberation [terrorist] movements," "threatened harm to French relations with conservative Asian and Africa countries and [they] put him on a plane to New York. . . Some on his articles are a veritable incitement to the assassination of foreign chiefs of state. The French government cannot tolerate them [him and his family]." He, not surprisingly, expressed his support for Palestinian terrorism/intifada against Israel.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has taken an ardent anti-Israel, pro-terrorist Iran stance since the Carter Administration. He has supported Walt’s and Mearshimer’s attack on the Jewish Lobby and has said that America should stop Israel from protecting herself from Iran. He has also apparently been talking to the Taliban of late.
Merrill A. Peak, Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman, has said that "American Jews" are the roadblock to peace in the Middle East; not a supremacist, genocidal, jihadist doctrine bent on eliminating not only non-Muslims, but also black African Muslims as we are seeing in Darfur, mind you, but "American Jews."
Daniel Kurtzer, an Orthodox Jew, was one of James Baker’s anti-Israel "little Jews." He was a key player in the formulation of the US's decision to recognize the PLO and Yasser Arafat "as the legitimate and sole representatives of the Palestinian people." He supported the handing over of the majority of Jerusalem and has often referred to terrorists as "guerillas." One can only assume that he would favor giving HAMAS the same recognition that he did the PLO.
Joe Cirincione argued that talk of a Syrian desert nuclear facility was rubbish. In the aftermath of Israel’s September air raid he listed Israelis who "wanted to thwart any dialogue between the US and Syria" as rumor-spreaders of the fact that Syria was constructing a nuclear facility, despite White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's statement that the "Syrian regime was building a covert nuclear reactor in its eastern desert capable of producing plutonium." He also stated unequivocally that Israel must give up its nuclear weaponry.
Senator Hagel, among the top three most anti-Israel US Senators, accompanied Obama on his little Israeli excursion.
Then, the shady connections, courtesy Debbie Schlussel:
In his role as Senator and in other high positions in Illinois Obama has been propped up by many Nation of Islam/Farrakhan devotees such as Jennifer Mason, Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his US Senate office who is also in charge of selecting his Senate interns. Shakir Muhammad held a consultant post in Obama’s state senate campaign. Cynthia K. Miller served as Treasurer of Obama’s US Senate campaign. Obama attended an Arab Fundraiser with Palestinian activist and Islamist Ali Abunimah at which the racist, plagiarist, prominent PLO/Arafat advisor and demopath Edward Said was the keynote speaker. Then there is his crony, the Federal Indictee Tony Rezko, who "helped Obama in a deal to purchase his new home" and was "in a partnership with NOI founder Elijah Muhammad‘s son, Jabir."
Obama himself favored working with Yasser Arafat and denounced Israel’s fence to keep terrorists out of their nation, which he called "a barrier to peace." He remained silent when Egypt built an identical fence to keep out the same HAMAS terrorists, thus displaying overt racism by holding Jews to a different moral standard than Arabs. Or perhaps he simply values the lives of Egyptians far more than those of Israelis and therefore he believes that Egypt should be able to protect itself while Israel should not be afforded the same right. He felt that "the Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the Mideast situation could not be resolved," according to Audra Wilson [of the Nation of Islam].
Don't forget Khalidi, Wright, Frank Davis, Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, Iraqi gun runner Nadhmi Auchi, Saul Alinski, Kwame Kilpatrick, Joseph Aramanda, Louis Farakhan, his newly-hired CAIR lawyer Joe Sandler (if this CAIR lawyer is actually a lawyer) as an advisor, and the list goes on and on. Then the Sirhan Sirhan thing, the Ingrid Mattson and Jimmy Carter at the DNC thing...
He totally talked to HAMAS. He's totally in bed with them. They're evil, genocidal parasites. He's never stayed away from any evil, genocidal parasite, or communist, or terrorist for that matter, who ever crossed his path. He never even hid his intention to bankrupt the coal industry and send electricity prices sky-high.
That's shrewd how exactly? He would meet with the OIC in a heartbeat. The media may portray him as shrewd by hiding everything he's ever said and done and everyone he's ever palled around with, but he's never hidden any of it. He's devoted his life to selling America and every hard-working America down the river and he wants to be President so he can do the same to Israel and usher in an era in which it's Beslan and 9/11 every single day and degenerate parasites collect their jizya. That's Obama's America: hell on earth, then non-existent. Ahmedinejad's Middle East is Obama's Middle East.
Posted by: jdamn at November 4, 2008 5:22 PM
Obama isn't shrewd nor smart, the news media only makes him appear that way and why his handlers keep him away from reporters and people asking him questions.
The last time he was confronted by reporters on Rezko and other issues he fled after about 8 questions were tossed his way.
And as Jdam pointed out: "Obama... has never, at any point in his life, tried to hide his true jihadist/genocidal intentions. He has surrounded himself with Islamic and black supremacists bent on murder and parasitism."
at November 4, 2008 5:50 PM
"That's shrewd how exactly? "
Maybe not shrewd to you and me, but apparently shrewd to millions of other Americans who aren't radical Leftists and racists like he is.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at November 4, 2008 6:36 PM
If he ran such a shrewd campaign, no one would have heard him talk about people being "selfish" if they didn't want to pay higher taxes. He never would have talked about "bitter" Americans. If we were still in Walter Cronkite's America, probably none of this would be known.
Now Jim Moran (D-VA) is talking about how accumulating wealth is simplistic!
Say goodbye to whatever you've managed to acquire.
at November 4, 2008 7:34 PM
Does this hadith, as obscure as it might be, actually exist?
Posted by: Peaceful_Muslims? at November 4, 2008 10:20 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)