It would be nice if Obama denied this himself. But I suppose we can''t be too picky.

Posted by: tanstaafl at November 17, 2008 10:57 AM

Obama also claims that he will uphold the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: leon at November 17, 2008 10:58 AM

Obama ran as a man with out principles- oops, sorry, I meant to say "as a 'post-ideological candidate'" - but most hard core conservatives all thought he was really leftist. Maybe he actually doesn't have any convictions and we are in for four years or more of Obama floating balloon after balloon after balloon.

Strasser: I'm not entirely sure which side you're on.
Renault: I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at November 17, 2008 11:07 AM

It doesn't mean anything one way or the other. He has not been tying himself to any policy except the first bailout and I think the potential Big 3 bailout, I could be wrong about the Big 3 though. It's to give the appearance that he is being thoughtful when in reality it's typical lawyer/politician behavior, never take a stand.

Posted by: Kevin at November 17, 2008 11:07 AM

Dennis Ross, Obama's adviser on Middle East policy, issued a statement Sunday, saying "I was in the meeting in Ramallah. Then-senator Obama did not say this, the story is false."

The story is not false....

If one should read the Times story, one will notice there was no mention of a meeting in Ramallah, but.... On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at November 17, 2008 11:20 AM

Good news on the surface. Anyone know anything about Dennis Ross?

Posted by: Eastview at November 17, 2008 11:26 AM

Obama and his coevals, many of whom are highly intelligent and have proven themselves in their previous lives capable of reading, capable of study, will not – if all goes well, if our wishes are fulfilled -- accept the long-accepted Washington-insider view of things, that is will not accept either the scowcroft-brzezinski indifference to Islam so seamlessly wedded to visceral dislike of Israel, nor the assumption, most obvious in Bush, that something called a "religion" (called that faute de mieux, for Islam is far more than a religion, but a Total Belief-System), must be a Good Thing, nor the sheer naive busybodiness of such comical figures as Madeline Albright and, at this point, all those who learn about what the "Arabs really think is necessary to bring about a 'solution'" or (an alternative) "to calm things down" by -- for god's sake -- taking at face value what the assorted abdullahs and husseins impart to them with such obvious, to the madeline-albrights of this world, "sincerity." And there are still other variants, including the dennisross-aaronmiller-richardhaas-martinindyk school of professional, usefully Jewish if not quite yeshiva-bocherish, peace-processors who, hving spent decades on this interminable and essnetially missing-the-point peace-processing without ever coming to grips with the immutable texts and tenets of Islam, and the attitudes and atmospherics natural to states and societies suffused with Islam, but instead continuing to prate, and to shuttle-diplomatise, and to make pronouncements and plans and policies based on continuing to ignore those texts, those tenets, those attitudes, those atmospherics -- yes, these people could not possibly, at this point, admit that they had missed the main thing, missed the boat, mispent their professional lives in a miasma of miscomprehension.

If Obama can resist the temptation to think that those "old hands" -- the brzezinskis and the scowcrofts, malevolent as they are, or the bright breezy and baseless self-assurance of the albrights, and the professional peace-processers unable to admit to their calamitous lapses in knowledge and therefore in understanding of the Arab Muslims, and if all the Pieties of the Age can be resisted, then there may -- just may -- be some hope.

It's a tall order. But as Sister Rosetta Tharpe reminds us, there are strange things happening every day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9beFIankmBY

Posted by: Hugh at November 17, 2008 11:37 AM

I see a pattern that when Obama says something that proves to be politically inexpedient, he wiggles out with the help of the media. Testing the waters with baited reports doesn't strike me as forthrightness. No surprise. The premise however, that Israel, which is doctrinally hated by Islam's religious book and teachings, will somehow become at peace should they concede to an anti-Semitic plan, is frighteningly naive. In the case that the other baited report does eventually render Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, then I think we can expect to see more of this indiscretion to the demise of Israel. Bad catch.

Posted by: Dawneyr at November 17, 2008 11:39 AM

Sister Rosetta Tharpe???
Hugh, you never cease to amaze.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at November 17, 2008 11:45 AM

Well that's too bad. I expect though that Obama will support some similar type of plan. He's not as naive as a lot of Americans in regard to Islam, so I'm excited to hear what he brings...

In regard to wiggling out of "politically inexpedient" things, I suspect that this is the case because, for example, one cannot suck up to Israel and get elected. I think we'll see a great new balanced foreign policy coming from this man, but I too do not see Hilary as the ideal person to help bring this about.

Posted by: jasonrfruit at November 17, 2008 11:51 AM

This Arab Peace initiative will only put that little postage stamp of a country at greater risk of attack. I would not, and do not trust the Arab world and the Palestinians for one moment. Hamas will never recognize any peace initiative as they have pointed out a hundred times that their Hamas Charter's 36 articles (http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/hamas.html) are locked in stone.

Though Shimon Peres knows better and yet he still wants to believe in such a peace that Saudi King Abdullah has been proposing . But how can one ever trust the leader of a kingdom who talks of tolerance from a country who is the most intolerant country on the face of the planet? Whose primarily Islamic Ideology is Waahabism that seeks to fund intolerance of Western democracies in Mosques throughout American and Europe.

People like Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski,and Brent Scowcroft, fail to understand after all these years the aggressive driving ideology that is pervasive in the Umma.

Posted by: Mackie at November 17, 2008 12:06 PM

Just one reminder obama in ohio stateing if elected he would relook at naftas effect on the working man.
The very next week caught telling canada dont worry about nafte he will keep it in place he just said it to get votes so my opinion is israel is really screwed.

Posted by: spcbat at November 17, 2008 12:21 PM

Just one reminder obama in ohio stateing if elected he would relook at naftas effect on the working man.
The very next week caught telling canada dont worry about nafte he will keep it in place he just said it to get votes so my opinion is israel is really screwed.
If a conflict with islam occurs he will side with islam.
then there is the always famous squeezeing the whiteness out of his blood [jews are white] so it really is not hard to tell where his loyalities lie.

Posted by: spcbat at November 17, 2008 12:23 PM

Deniability. Obama just doesn't want to leave any marks of his on that "stinking corpse."

Posted by: John C at November 17, 2008 12:35 PM

It was not Obama "caught telling" the Canadians that the candidate's campaign talk against NAFTA had to be taken with a grain of salt, but rather one of his advisers, Austan Goolsbee, Debater Extraordinaire (so we keep being told, often by friends of Austan Goolsbee now writing at salon.com). Say, if it's Austin Hall (cheek-by-jowl with Obama-All-Nightered-Here Gannett House) why for god's sake is it "Austan" and not, as one expects to spell it, "Austin" Goolsbee? Yes, set that spelling one way and one way only, put a fixative on it, and be done with the problem.

Or as they used to say, on the outskirts of Austin, in the great state of Texas, in the old gabby-hayes days, "you look plumb tuckered out, podnuh. Why don't you come on in and set a spell?"

Posted by: Hugh at November 17, 2008 12:42 PM

"But how can one ever trust the leader of a kingdom who talks of tolerance from a country who is the most intolerant country on the face of the planet?"
Posted by: Mackie

You can't. And because of this, anything proposed by Saudi Arabia with regard to Israel is automatically suspect. By their aggressive spreading of intolerant and violent Wahhabi propaganda throughout the world, Saudi Arabia has earned being treated with contempt and rejection, all their trillions in oil revenues notwithstanding. Western politicians and business leaders who have come under the financial sway of the Saudis are guilty of consorting with the enemy and engaging in what is essentially old fashioned payola, albeit on a grand scale. What's most contemptible about this is they don't even try to justify it on lofty moral principles, merely citing economic expediency in whatever form is required to justify their ill-gotten gains.

Posted by: Eastview at November 17, 2008 12:46 PM

Did the Saudis, directly or indirectly, warn Arafat not to accept the deal offered at Camp David in 2000? I've heard rumors to that effect - that Arafat feared for his life if he took the deal, even though many of his own aides wanted him to say yes.

Posted by: PMK at November 17, 2008 1:34 PM

Indecision is the key to flexibility.

Or for NObama:

Avoid taking a stand - it provides deniability, feigns wisdom, and allows one to seek friends providing the most advantageous alliances.

Rather Clintonesque, but more sinister.

Posted by: Civilus Defendus at November 17, 2008 1:36 PM

Obama aides also say that Obama may not close Gitmo.

Folks, time to be honest with ourselves. In his heart of heats, Obama would love Israel to go back to the '67 borders. If that is not his policy, his reluctance is solely based on the political backlash --- nothing more nothing less.

If the public ever lets Obama be Obama, we would be absolutely screwed.

Posted by: JSobieski at November 17, 2008 3:01 PM

Here we have a new President, and after the longest campaign in history, no one has a clue as to how BHO will handle things. All we know is that he is not George Bush.

Posted by: Spot on at November 17, 2008 3:13 PM

Obama is working right now with efforts to win Georgia's seat for himself, his power base. It may gives the dems full control if it happens.

And if it happens, even G.W.B. may look good to many who have nothing good to say at this time.

The U.S. wanted "change", and the world will get it.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at November 17, 2008 3:35 PM

This disclaimer would be convincing if Obama himself made it. As it is, the Saudi "peace plan" is too close to the known views/prejudices of Zbig B, Scowcroft, jimmy carter, etc. Hence, since it is close to their known views, it is likely to be Obama's real policy, whatever he told Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen in Ramallah. The question in my view is whether obama is closer to rashid al-Khalidi or to Zbig. Or is he equally close to both.

Zbig, let us bear in mind, never expressed public regret or apology for having helped Bin Laden and al-Qa'ida get started in Afghanistan. In an interview published in LeMonde about six years ago, Zbig was asked:
"Don't you regret having favored Islamic fundamentalism, having given weapons and advice to future terrorists?" he answered unshaken, "What is more important for the history of the world: The talibans or the fall of the Soviet empire? A few excited Islamic fundamentalists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" [This exchange was published in Le Monde in 2002]

These comments are rather insane. For some commentary from France on Zbig and Obama and for the French original of the above exchange, see link below:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2008/11/zbig-barack-obamas-evil-genius-part-i.html

As to Obama himself, it seems that just about everybody here recognizes Obama as a cynical opportunist, liar, hypocrite, etc. Now if we could only convince his foolish voters.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 17, 2008 4:35 PM

speaking of Obama as an unreliable breaker of promises, note that he is now eager to send more troops to Afghanistan. On this see his 60 Minutes appearance or other recent appearance as well as his speech in Berlin where he told the crowd:

"The Afghan people need our troops and your troops."

He also failed to confirm his campaign to get all the troops out of Iraq. He said he would consult with the Joint chiefs of staff in order to determine whether the troops in Iraq could be "drawn down." That means that not all would be taken out of Iraq, even if some are taken out. Anyhow, if troops are taken out of Iraq, they may be sent to Afghanistan instead.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 17, 2008 4:41 PM

Jason:

Be upfront with us. What's your notion of a "more balanced" Mideast policy -- more dead Jews?
Wiping Israel off the map?

Posted by: usapatriot at November 17, 2008 9:04 PM

Obama likes to vote "present". Two years, 600 Million dollars, and we wonder why the MSM lapped him up? Now that the Money stopped flowing, they are starting to ask the real questions and find themselves wanting.

Rumor has it that Obama changed his underwear every time he changed his mind. Now he's trapped in the laundry room and the Bleach is running out.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 18, 2008 12:10 AM

sorry that I left a word out of my last post above. Should be:
He also failed to confirm his campaign PROMISE to get all the troops out of Iraq.

Instead, it now seems that he wants to leave a goodly number of troops there.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 18, 2008 8:23 AM

Speech is instrumental to B.O. and his lot. Their words are means to one or another end, and have no value as communications in the normal sense.

It's a step beyond takiya. The mohammedans say it's OK to lie, which at least implicitly recognizes that there may be such a thing as truth. The Alinski crowd and their ilk do not even recognize the existence of truth -- words are purely instrumental, a means of influencing the actions of others.

To judge by his actions, of which there have been few on this subject, B.O. is solidly pro-jihaddi.

The only observable actions he has taken to date are to involve himself personally with jihaddi supporters (if not actual jihaddis) and professionally with apologists, compromisers and useful fools.

Doesn't augur well for the rest of us.

Posted by: joeblough at November 18, 2008 10:51 AM

Jewish liberals, I'm sorry Jewish Democrats/RINOs, I'm sorry Jewish globo-socialists, I'm sorry Jewish Marxists...

... anyway, would stoop to new depths of stupidity should they help force Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, and thereby relinquish the Golan Heights.

This includes liberal Israeli Jews along with liberal Jews in the States and elsewhere in the Free World. They've already made fools of themselves with the surrender of the Gaza Strip, the results of which are well documented.

A cordon of conrete barriers and wire fences around the Golan won't stop the artillery shells that will certainly be lobbed into Israel if it relinquishes this strategic area to the Moslems.

Posted by: 33:21 at November 18, 2008 1:03 PM

Could someone here more knowledgeable then I am about Israeli politics clearly identify the Jewish faction/political party advocating return to the 1967 borders, and what the thinking is for this? Such an action seems self evidently suicidal to me, but what would there arguments be?

Posted by: Eastview at November 19, 2008 1:56 AM