Just like a Senator; Facing criticism, Obama modifies Jerusalem stance

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama amended his support for Israel's stance on Jerusalem on Thursday, saying Palestinians and Israelis had to negotiate the future of the holy city.

Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay on Wednesday to Obama saying Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Asked if he opposed any division of Jerusalem, Obama said: "As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

link to source

This is why we don't elect senators president. Because you can't please all people all the time. Obama doesn't really get this foreign policy thing, does he? You can't swear undying allegiance to the jews one day, and then renege the next.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Oh my god... they are spinning our heads. :O
We're are not gonna know what has happened until it's too late. I really liked Obama, but since all this info has emerged, especially the info that negates the need for election, I guess no matter what, where and when, this is gonna be a lose lose situation.
And there's nothing we can do about it...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
i love the way they spun it
he "amended his support"

thats the main stream media for ya! they are lusting after barak so much it is embarrassing!


[edit on 6-6-2008 by blimpseeker]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by blimpseeker
 


Yeah, its what many of his detractors have said all along. He's just a pandering politician. That's all he is. In his defense, however, I must compliment him by saying that he's a terrific at telling people what they want to hear and making them think he believes it.

And as for the media:

Former MSNBC host Tucker Carlson: The Press Love Obama

Carlson, who has access behind the scenes in the news, compared the media’s affection for the Illinois senator to “the kind of love you have to be a ninth-grade boy to understand.”

LMFAO! I never have liked Tucker Carlson, but he hit the nail on the head with that one, and its especially true of his own network.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I just can't understand where he thinks that this kind of diplomacy is going to take us. I think that Obama forgets what it means to say one thing one day, and another the next, on the larger world stage. This is why it was bad to let him do this domestically and get away with it.



[edit on 6-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what Obama says or does, his words and actions will always be perceived as 'right' by those who seem to be hypnotized by him. I only hope that people will wake up before November!

Jemison



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
So, out of curiosity, if he changes his stance after learning more about a situation and admits that previous assertions were incomplete or wrong, doesn't that show that he's willing to make compromise? Doesn't it show that he's willing to openly admit when his previous stance had holes?

It's the rigid oak that breaks when a strong wind blows.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Sure, I agree. But this is not the local news here, its global baby! Obama doesn't know what the heck is going with the world, and ow these things are perceived...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Had he not said that foreign policy was an area that he felt was his biggest strength I would agree with you.

Jemison



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
This shows me that foreign policy may be his strength. It shows me the will to make changes to his platform and compromise (which is what diplomacy really is all about) rather than say 'my way or the highway'.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 

So he has had months to work on his stance towards Isreal, and then he says it, and within 24 hours he changes his opinion because the others guys didn't like it? Seriously, this isn't a domestic issue about Murphy Brown or gangsta rap...



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Normally, I would agree with you. I might agree if this was a correction about a position he'd taken six months ago. But he was backtracking ONE DAY after making those statements. It strongly suggests that he was merely pandering to the audience at hand. Either that, or he really IS clueless and needs to be corrected by his handlers, as many of his detractors will argue.

I think its probably just the former rather than the latter.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This is a WTF type of thread.
Either that or I can't read. How is saying that the Jews should have Jerusalem, back peddling? Oh, do you mean allowing other people to have access to holy sites? Well, then, you are right. That would just be crazy and would contrary to a Bush type foreign policy. We can't have that.
Do you guys understand how modern politics is conducted? Don't like it then get working on Ron Paul's campaign.
Every politician in recent history has to give a very pro Israel speech at the AIFCA...(I forgot the accronym there) it is almost mandatory.
I know, you want Obama to play by the Ron Paul rules so that McCain can con the Country into voting for him.
You show me a dance like the "I have always supported looking into the Katrina tragedy" and then have a voting record on that issue that makes you a liar like McCain just did. Show me Obama's move like that.
You anti Obama guys are going to have to do better.
Oh, and by the way, ironically this kind of thread is exactly WHY modern politics is done the way it is, because it works obviously!
Anymore spin bytes?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Agreed about the handlers. This is why I think that being president can be such an insular job sometimes. Because these guys, unlike Senators, are expected to make instant decisions that will affect the world. They cannot simply tiptoe around. No matter how much you compromise, this world will always have someone getting their feelings hurt. Suck it up, some things you do as CIC will be unpopular. I think maybe he is too sensitive?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


I disagree. Read what he said yesterday. Read what he said today. Difference? one was a day after some people complained. What if Israel complains today? will he change his stance again? And frankly, if Israel is tired of suicide bombings and wants to seal off that city till some other cooler heads prevail? More power to them...



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Every candidate who seriously wants to win the general election has to cater to the Israelites, I thought you people figured this out already? I know Barack Obama felt that the Jerusalem site had to be shared but we all know that if a candidate does not support Israel or "supportive in that sense" they won’t win the general election. Go figure why he said that, but I'll assume you people knew that already, just another weak attempt to discredit the man.

And what is this new excuse about the fact him being senator makes him less suitable for POTUS? uttur nonsense, as if the last former governor elected did any good for the US right? Some of the great presidents of US history were senators like John F. Kennedy and John Adams.

Hey I gotta hand it to you Jason, this is the closest thread to the real issues you people have posted thus far.

Here, let me just remind you all of McCain’s flip flopping errors:

-John McCain said he'll keep troops in Iraq for 100years if things dont work out, then he changes his statement. His campaigns excuse? "He misspoke"

-He confused al-Qaeda which is Sunni for Iranian extremists who are Shiites and said “Al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and is coming back into Iraq from Iran." he had to get fake independent Lieberman to correct him. You have to get your facts straight if you want to claim that your stronger on foreign policy.

-The man evens flip flopped on his own party by moving against many issues from the republicans, then when he decides to run for president again and starts voting in favour. Now his the nominee and wishes to distance himself from Bush, honestly now.... and you are all acting as if Obamas pro-isreal stance is a big deal?

Check out "The Almanac of American Politics" his always been borderline republican until he decides to cater to the Bushies.

-He opposed the Bush tax cuts then changed his decision to suit his campaign.

-He was anti-ethanol now his pro-ethanol.

-He voted against Martin Luther day then changed his mind and admitted he was wrong.

-Doesn’t know where he stands on Roe v. Wade

-Was on the verge of completely leaving the republican party then changed his mine.

-Claims his stronger on the economy then admits once the cameras are away that his no economist.

There’s plenty more of him flip flopping and lying, I’m not going to even bother, it’s so obvious.

Tell me where is it that Obama lies? I’m just real curious as to where all these accusations about him lying are coming from, seriously.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by southern_Guardian]





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join