It really stands out that you are not mentioning Obama's pandering to AIPAC in the context of this action. His support of the policies of AIPAC are critical and this should be addressed.
*Barack Obama has repeatedly threatened military action against Iran, and refused to rule out using nuclear weapons. Think about that for a second: refused to rule out dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. In a June 2008 speech before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he said: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything."
Obama received a standing ovation for this speech to AIPAC which he made directly after his nomination.
Is Obama an antiwar candidate? Or, does it seem he is more in agreement with AIPAC's "aggressive (and disastrous) U.S. policies toward the peoples of the Middle East."
*A major element of Obama's platform is intensifying the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. In a July 14, 2008 Op-Ed in the New York Times, he argued, "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." A huge part of why Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq is to send them into Afghanistan.
*Obama has also repeatedly threatened to attack Pakistan, including on August 1st, when he said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Oh, so he's only arguing for going after terrorists “the bad guys?" Sure, ok. This is exactly what Bush and Cheney have always claimed to be doing.
*Finally, Barack Obama devotes an entire section of his Web site ("Defense") to his call for comprehensive expansion of the United States military.
Why would an "anti-war candidate" advocate massive expansion of the military?
I think there is an elephant in the room that the sponsoring organizations of this event won't mention - Obama's support of AIPAC's policies. I don't think you can pull off a successful action if you don't. It appears that you are playing politics and not being honest with people.
This protest is about much more than a single politician, it is about a political lobby that has influence far beyond that. Obama ain't the only politician in america. Certainly is not the only politician in america that makes pledges to aipac. So i don't see the need to make it only about Obama, or even only about Obama and McCain.
There are 535 members of the House/Senate too. This is also about them.
Until we start a grassroots movement that rejects openly the militaristic, extremist, and racist agenda of aipac, nothing will change.
Why no mention of Obama's support for AIPAC? Re: 10/27: Stand-Up to AIPAC Rally and March
18 Oct 2008
Date Edited: 18 Oct 2008 09:02:17 AM
*Barack Obama has repeatedly threatened military action against Iran, and refused to rule out using nuclear weapons. Think about that for a second: refused to rule out dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. In a June 2008 speech before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he said: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything."
Obama received a standing ovation for this speech to AIPAC which he made directly after his nomination.
Is Obama an antiwar candidate? Or, does it seem he is more in agreement with AIPAC's "aggressive (and disastrous) U.S. policies toward the peoples of the Middle East."
*A major element of Obama's platform is intensifying the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. In a July 14, 2008 Op-Ed in the New York Times, he argued, "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." A huge part of why Obama wants to withdraw troops from Iraq is to send them into Afghanistan.
*Obama has also repeatedly threatened to attack Pakistan, including on August 1st, when he said "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Oh, so he's only arguing for going after terrorists “the bad guys?" Sure, ok. This is exactly what Bush and Cheney have always claimed to be doing.
*Finally, Barack Obama devotes an entire section of his Web site ("Defense") to his call for comprehensive expansion of the United States military.
Why would an "anti-war candidate" advocate massive expansion of the military?
I think there is an elephant in the room that the sponsoring organizations of this event won't mention - Obama's support of AIPAC's policies. I don't think you can pull off a successful action if you don't. It appears that you are playing politics and not being honest with people.
Comments
Re: Why only Obama?
27 Oct 2008
There are 535 members of the House/Senate too. This is also about them.
Until we start a grassroots movement that rejects openly the militaristic, extremist, and racist agenda of aipac, nothing will change.