Obama falsely accuses Romney, Perry and Gingrich of planning to cut aid to Israel

Yep, I'd figure this is something Gingrich or Santorum would use to attack their opponents, but low and behold, it's Obama and his campaign team:

Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel—and every other country—to zero.

Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan.

my.barackobama.com...

Is this some kind of a half assed attempt to gain sympathy from social conservatives? What is this? Seriously? We send around $4 billion worth of aid to Israel, most of it is spent on the military and defense, so because we many want to cut aid and focus on domestic matters, this is isolationist? This is a very wrong move made by Obama and his campaign team. If this is the beginnings of Obama's campaign, I really question just how serious he is about the general elections...

Do three Republican presidential candidates favor "zeroing out" aid to Israel?

That’s the hot-button claim that Barack Obama’s reelection campaign makes on an outreach page on its website.

"Stand against ‘zeroing out’ aid to Israel," the web page says. "Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero. Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan."

Finally, the Obama campaign misleadingly used the term "zeroing out" instead of accurately describing it as "zero-based" budgeting. We found the claim to be a ridiculous distortion and rated it Pants on Fire.

www.politifact.com...

And what's worse, his campaign is caught out lying out of their teeth over these attacks.... I don't know what more to say to this.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


This sounds like a ruse, to get people to think cutting foreign aid is something bad.(hey if Obama says it is, it must be bad)

When people start digging into it, none of them actually have claimed they would do so, the only one is actually Ron Paul.

So this might be a ruse to get the sheep aim at Ron Paul.

Of course, it is a longshot, but it might work.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

This sounds like a ruse, to get people to think cutting foreign aid is something bad.(hey if Obama says it is, it must be bad)

When people start digging into it, none of them actually have claimed they would do so, the only one is actually Ron Paul.

So this might be a ruse to get the sheep aim at Ron Paul.

Of course, it is a longshot, but it might work.

This is a very good theory, it may just be a way to divide the Republican party further, to get them to respond..... but it is a long shot if it is....

What am I missing here...

Just read the Politifact break-down...

It’s true that the the proposal, offered initially by Perry and then seconded by Gingrich and Romney, would reduce aid to zero, but only temporarily (and theoretically) as a starting point for discussions about what the final level should be, not an end point. As Perry put it, "And then we'll have a conversation." The new policy could just as easily leave Israel with higher funding rather than lower.

Politifact is losing credibility lately in my opinion...nothing in the candidates statements guarantee aid to Israel. Politifact claims it is "only temporarily"...which claims certaintity that Aid would be restored, and the very nature of what they are calling for..."Zeroing it out" and asking each country to make their case..does not involve any certaintity that they will recieve aid. So I find the "temporarily" claim in Politifact "Pants on Fire"

"Only temporarily" infers a certaintity that is rebuffed by "And then we will have a conversation" bit that follows.

Politifact claims that "The new policy could just as easily leave Israel with higher funding rather than lower." which is accurate, but fails to mention that the new policy "Could" leave Israel with Zero Aid.

Not sure what drives their bias lately, but politifact is starting to stumble.

Edit to add: The Obama campaign's claims rank as "half-true" IMO. While their is a strong liklihood that after Zeroing aid to Israel that aid would be resored after "conversations" with a potential GOP POTUS...thier is also a possibility that it would not and the proposals are designed to afford for that exact possibility.

No Guarantees...and that is the purpose of the plan they propose.

All of this is political posturing. Niether Obama nor single Republican candidate has the power to change any policy toward Israel let alone the billions we borrow from China, so our kids can pay it back over the next 150 years to give to Israel.

The real number of US taxpayer dollars that end up in Israel every year are probably in the range of 10 to 12 billion is not more.

Individual Americans can give money to Israeli charities and claim a US tax deduction for one thing. So Carl Icahn, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison (Oracle), Steve Wynn (LV casinos), Sheldon Adelson (LV casinos), Howard Schultz (Starbucks), Mark Zuckerberg, Steven Spielberg, Paul Allan (Microsoft), Michael Bloomberg, Larry page can give tens of millions to Israel to build illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land and get a tax deduction in the process.

If the richest Jews in America want a tax deduction for giving money to Israel they are going to get it and if that want the US to give aid to Israel that is what will happen.

If you think your vote can change this fac then you might also think you can vote yourself a new Rolls Royce.

Money does talk and it says, or screams, "Hands off the Israel policy."

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Money does talk and it says, or screams, "Hands off the Israel policy."

I would argue that a large part of the issue is that our electoral college is arranged in such a way that Florida is a critical state and has the 3rd highest population of Jews in the nation, behind NJ and NYC.

It is politically difficult to win the electoral college without pandering to the Jewish population.

Not to say that we don't, in fact, have a long and close relationship with Israel...we do. I believe we are able to continue to support Israel and have much needed, more honest, conversations with them about the peace process. Our politics corrupt those conversations and this ploy by the Dems and the GOPS pandering are both one of many examples of that.

If Iran nukes Israel do we have to give them any more money???
I think that would be a better solution

The actual number of Jewish voters is a factor but the amount of Jewish money that can make or break a congressional campaign, presidential run and the success of an entire political party eclipses how a few Jews here and there vote.

If you look at who contributes to campaigns based on ethnicity the issue becomes clear.

Zionists have a stranglehold on congress and the administration and have for decades.

80 Congressional representatives visited Israel last fall as part of a program Israeli / American Zionist Lobby carried out to slant Congress toward pro-Israel policy.

The US has supported Israel for a few decades but that is because the Zionists have manipulated the US into adopting this policy.

Israel started off basically as a Communist / Socailist state and was closer to the Soviet block until it became so belligerent toward all of the Arab states that wanted to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union.

I have to remind you that the US State Department warned Truman before Israel declared itself a state that the Zionists would be pure trouble and that has proven to be a fact.

It is an artifcat of not reading the early hisatory of Zionism that leads people to think that Israel has suddenly gone wron. No, it was a horribly wrong from the start and has become the only thing it could become considering the nationalist, imperialist ideology that is Zionism.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Money does talk and it says, or screams, "Hands off the Israel policy."

I would argue that a large part of the issue is that our electoral college is arranged in such a way that Florida is a critical state and has the 3rd highest population of Jews in the nation, behind NJ and NYC.

It is politically difficult to win the electoral college without pandering to the Jewish population.

Not to say that we don't, in fact, have a long and close relationship with Israel...we do. I believe we are able to continue to support Israel and have much needed, more honest, conversations with them about the peace process. Our politics corrupt those conversations and this ploy by the Dems and the GOPS pandering are both one of many examples of that.

Israel dont need no stinkin money,,,,we have the arc.

One of the many great things that the Ron Paul campaign has done is to expose the fact that Israel is extorting money from us.

I wish Ron Paul would go further and expose exactly how much money is drianed from the US economy fund Israeli Apartheid and imperialism.

I think the $3 to $4 billion a year that people talk about is just pocket money compared to the full amount.

Israeli does not really have much of an ecomony yet they keep expanding the illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land and building nuclear weapons. You have to think that tens of billion sof US tax dollars are being subverted to kep Israel alive.