digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Clinton aide: Role of President to support Israel decisions

americangoy.blogspot.com — Ann Lewis, a top Clinton aide, said: "The role of the presidents of the United States is to support decisions made by the people of Israel." Yes, she really just said that.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • AntParmenter, on 03/19/2008, -4/+24Yeah, but ***** Americans, their President doesn't need to listen to them.
    • neko6, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3And yet again AmericanGoy finds something that might be twisted to use against Israel and pulls it out of context. How surprising.

      "Next question to Kurtzer: Obama's assertion that he needn't have a "Likud view" -- that of Israel's right-wing party -- to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a "plurality of views." Silence in the room.
      To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded."
      • Charlotte_Web, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Thanks for that bit of context; it changes the meaning entirely.

        Article buried as INACCURATE.
        • americangoy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Inaccurate article?
          Lets look at the context then:

          "To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.""

  • VikingoTJ, on 03/19/2008, -3/+36Israel is capable of defending itself! There is no need to even help them.
    • cageybee, on 03/19/2008, -11/+7nah, i doubt they would last one day without our support. they would be immediately attacked and wiped off the planet.
    • Kizilbash, on 03/19/2008, -7/+11Israel is only able to 'defend' itself as long as they get US hardware and unlimited ammunitions and containerloads of US money. And even then they can't even beat Hezbollah.
      Without it, they would be forced to (gasp!) make concessions.
      • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -0/+9Why is "concession" such a bad word for people?
      • Charlotte_Web, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1What concession do you make when the goal of your enemy is genocide?
        • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Not all Israeli's think that way though, some are very nice.
      • mystcnurse, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1We already have, how much more do they need, especially when we are broke?
    • JerkHimey56, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2You people are deeply confused. Israel is the only state in the middle east that has nuclear weapons at all, and they have hundreds. They don't need the united states at all. I wish you people would get over your delusion about israel, or anyone else needing you. The U.S. needs israel way more than Israel needs the US. If it wasn't for the US sticking its nose into israel's business, they would have expanded their borders into oil rich countries over there years ago, and will eventually anyway. The US is going bankrupt. They should pull out of the middle east and go home and fix their economy. They can't even beat one lousy country filled with half witted monkeys in iraq. Leave the middle east to israel and don't botch anymore necessary military operations and it would be the best thing that happened to israel. You stupid red necks think everyone needs and loves you around the world, but your wrong, and your about to leave the world statge in shame.
      • americangoy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2"To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel."

        Half-witted monkeys?

        Just..... Is racism like that acceptable in Israel? Because in America (and the rest of the world, including ex-Apartheid South Africa) it is not.
    • Dani77, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Err, not so much. I mean just look at a map of the world- Israel is teensy, and it is surrounded by some huge countries that don't even want to acknowledge its existence. They would wipe Israel out in a second without a superpower like America standing behind it. So I think it's rational to say that Israel is not exactly capable of defending itself all on its own. Now the question is whether you think Israel deserves to be protected, which you seem to think not. I am an Israeli American who lived there for four years and I would be devastated if Israel was abolished- my whole family lives there- so for me, yes, I would like America to keep protecting Israel. The only thing is that I want the US to do so without leaving out the Palestinians- I wish the support was more even so that Palestinians wouldn't resent Israel and America for buddying up against them.
      • mystcnurse, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Wow, great insight. Not kidding.
      • JerkHimey56, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1That's just it. You're right. Israel is too small. There is little chance that they'll be overrun, but there is a chance. That's why they need to expand their borders considerably. An opportunity like this will not come again. The U.S. is about to enter into an economic downturn that will last many years and demand their empire shrink. They may not be there for israel in the future, but if Israel strikes first, particularly gaining access to oil fields in this move of expansion, again, their reliance on the united states will be even less than it is now. What you're doing is the common mistake that will end the nation, and that's trying to please everyone over there, when there is no way to do that, and drastic action is demanded now. American Jews need to return to Israel now and prepare for this battle, the longer we put it off, the more difficult it will be. I can't understand why more possible citizens of israel in the united states are not behind the conservative movement. They understand these necessities and urgencies.
  • sungoddess808, on 03/19/2008, -29/+7When you have groups like the UN (worthless piece of crap as far as I'm concerned) not allowing Israel to defend herself, having the US support Israel's decisions is great! The IDF is totally awesome and can kick the ***** out of any of those Arab countries!
    • Kizilbash, on 03/19/2008, -2/+12As long as they get US hardware and unlimited ammunitions (the US actually had to resupply during the war on Lebanon in 2006) and containerloads of US money that is. And even then they can't even beat Hezbollah.
      • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -13/+5Maybe back in 1948. Now the US buys it's weapons from Israel.
        X^P
        Couldn't beat Hizbullah? Are you nuts? When the war was over Hizbullah was whining that Israel didn't fight fair because they used "disproportionate force" and tried to charge Israel with "war crimes" for using "illegal" bombs.
        >.>
        So, suddenly kidnapping soldiers and firing rockets and mortars into civilian towns is okay but dropping carpet bombs on rocket launching sites is "illegal?" Give me a break, if Israel hadn't backed off they would've destroyed Hiszbullah and half of Lebanon with them.
        • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -3/+11Actually the war started because of those Israeli soldiers - at the end of the war, they still didn't have the soldiers and Israel was caught using illegal weapons, bombing a red cross building, buzzing a German ship sending humanitarian supplies....

          Nope, it would be hard to imagine any other scenario (Short of Hezbollah walking through Israel) that Israel could have lost worse. They did destroy half of Lebanon - which brought the rest of the world to the side of the Lebanese people. There is a lesson in there if someone was willing to see it.

      • neko6, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1Of course they can't beat Hizbullah - its impossible to beat a terrorist organization that hides behind civilians without hurting the civilians. And Israel being a first world country (yeah, that surprised me too, but it checks) doesn't accept massive civilian casualties in its warfare.
    • eminem213486, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4cuz of course, those arab countries need more ***** beaten out of them. What they need is education and society reform. democracy comes with education and dedication not bombs and nukes.
      • JerkHimey56, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Nothing re-educates a hard headed arab like a nuke
  • cageybee, on 03/19/2008, -7/+14all hail zionists
    • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -5/+7Please don't praise us Zionists, only G-d deserves praise for His blessings on us and for blessing Ms. Clinton with this unexpected wisdom.
      ^^
  • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -20/+7Good for her. And why shouldn't the American President support the decisions made by the people of ANY sovereign nation?
    >.>
    When the Iraqi ruler decided to disobey the ruling of the UN security council SEVENTEEN TIMES the American President supported Saddam's decision by following up on the UN resolution with the force it called for.
    -_-
    Now, the sovereign Islamic nations surrounding the sovereign Jewish nation of Israel have declared war and are attacking the tiny Jewish country in an attempt to drive all of the Jews into the ocean and I certainly hope that ANY American President would support the people of Israel in ANY action they take to defend themselves.
    • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -4/+13"When the Iraqi ruler decided to disobey the ruling of the UN security council SEVENTEEN TIMES the American President supported Saddam's decision by following up on the UN resolution with the force it called for."

      Care to tell us how many UN resolutions Israel is in violation for? *Hint - way more than 17. BTW - when di those Arab nations declare war on Israel? It wasn't those Arab that were using DU shells in the Lebanon war was it? It wasn't an Arab state that just flew into another sovereign nation(Syria). I have no doubt that if they were given the opportunity they would attack Israel, but I think that has a lot more to do with what Israel does(As History more than demonstrates), than what it is.
  • pintomp3, on 03/19/2008, -4/+18see which candidates put israeli interests ahead of america:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ...
    • citcokid, on 03/19/2008, -2/+9Typical, Ron Paul isn't even listed.
      • pintomp3, on 03/19/2008, -0/+7neither are gravel or kucinich.
      • Tyr7BE, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Yeah, and with almost 3% of the popular vote too. What an outrage.
        • pintomp3, on 03/19/2008, -0/+5the page list many candidates who didn't even run. percentage of the vote was not the criteria, only allegiance to israel.
    • willskillz, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1HA ha
  • chulaka, on 03/19/2008, -4/+22Such is the hold of the Zionist lobby in America. I would not say that Israeli interests are always chosen over American interests, but it is true that all presidential candidates have to kowtow to the Israel Lobby and that they all or most have aides who are Zionists extremists.
    If any aide for a presidential candidate said "The role of the presidents of the United States is to support decisions made by the people of Japan, China, England or Iran" then there would be hell to pay and they would most likely have to resign. Even the statement "The role of the presidents of the United States is to support decisions made by the people of Japan" sounds absurd. Why not "The role of the presidents of the United States is to support decisions made by the people of Israel"? Why is that not questioned? People have to wake up and see that this kind of subversion of the political landscape is dangerous for the well being of Americans, and indeed, for the rest of the world.
    • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -4/+5It really is amazing to see how consent is manufactured isn't it?
    • foopirata, on 03/19/2008, -3/+4@waiting2awake: Chomsky quotes have to be in context as well - it's not sufficient to just spout them.

      @chulaka: please let me offer a different interpretation to your affirmation - "If any aide for a presidential candidate said "The role of the presidents of the United States is to support decisions made by the people of Japan, China, England or Iran" then there would be hell to pay and they would most likely have to resign.":

      It just so happens that Japan and England and to some extent Iran are democracies that elect their governments. I purposely take China out of the equation as noise-over-signal.
      An American president that says "We support decisions taken by the insert-another-democracy" is in my opinion simply affirming the American way of supporting democracy. I would like that affirmation to be qualified, as in "We support decisions taken by the insert-another-democracy, UNLESS they go against the interests of the US". But fact is, I believe that to be unnecessary, since most people would believe that the American president has the interests of the US first and foremost in his/her agenda. Given, there are some paranoid and other -oid elements that would have us believe otherwise - but fact is, the US does what the US wants.
      Another point is - the right to exist of China, Japan, England and Iran are not being questioned. Israel's is. So an American president, by giving support to Israel's democracy, is simply stating that Israel is, in the US's eyes, a legitimate state. That's all. No big conspiracy.
      • chulaka, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Even though I disagree with the creation of Israel, for all practical and legal purposes (i.e. the U.N. resolutions) Israel is a legitimate state, as any other state is. However, I don't think though that any state has an inherent right to exist, any state can be changed or alerted by its inhabitants.
        This whole thing about Israel being wiped off the map accusations are a distraction from the real issue. The Israeli government makes decisions that a illegal under international law, the same laws that gives Israel "illegitimacy". It is certainly not the role of an American president to support such actions, even though Israel is a "democracy" and the decisions of the government can be considered to be the decisions of the Israeli people. Are you saying then, that if the Indian people decided to invade, say, Nepal, and confiscate their land, steal their homes, make them live in inhuman refugee camps, subject them to daily humiliation and indignities, destroy entire generations, that because India was a democracy, that it is the role of the American president to support that?
    • chulaka, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1The quote is "To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      I would think that the role of the American president is the have a foreign policy that is moral and fair, one that most American citizens would support, not what is desired by some fifth column in the U.S. political sphere.

      I suspect that this kind of hubris coming from the Zionists will eventually lead to a backlash. I certainly hope so.
  • Stevanoski, on 03/19/2008, -11/+3Not to fret, I'm sure if a Democrat gets in he will abandon our ally Israel as fast as he can.
    • strafefire, on 03/19/2008, -3/+10Ummm...Clinton is a Democrat...
    • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -3/+10Abandon? sensationalize much? What you call abandonment, the rest of the world calls standing on ones own feet.
    • 1337Einstein, on 03/19/2008, -1/+4As a parent has the right to want their 30 year old slacker offspring to move out of the house, we have the right to want Israel to stand on its own feet. Neither case is abandonment.
  • nova912, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3cuz' that's totally worked out for the best...
  • Chassit, on 03/19/2008, -3/+13Israel is a terrorist state, just like Palestine. The only difference is that Israel was destroyed once upon a time and lunatic people chose to steal someone's land kick the people out and call it Israel. ***** zionism!
    • KyleRayner, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3"lunatic people chose to steal someone's land kick the people out and call it Israel."
      Sounds a lot like how America got started. I wish the President and Congress was as concerned with we Native Americans as they are with Israelis.
      • americangoy, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2"I wish the President and Congress was as concerned with we Native Americans as they are with Israelis."

        I second that!
  • jaymzdean, on 03/19/2008, -3/+9Anyone who takes an honest look at Zionism finds that they are Jewish supremacists. Imagine if the KKK were bankrolled by the Rothchild's and had achieved the status that would make it taboo to speak out against their racist and genocidal activities. Zionism is racism, pure and simple.
  • MeauxToo, on 03/19/2008, -5/+5It appears that Ann Lewis' comments have been taken out of context. In reading the referenced Washington Post article, she was responding to a question about whether or not the United States government should support a particular Israeli political party (in this case, the Likud party). She responded that the policy of the United States government should not be aligned with a particular Israeli political party, but with the will of the Israeli people.
    • bmorlok, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2I agree with you, but most people won't look at it in context. Plus, that website seems totally legit and unbiased in any way, right!?
    • LoveYouSomeEric, on 03/19/2008, -1/+5So how is that better? Why should the US government be aligned with the will of ANY people but its own? Which, sadly, it hasn't been for quite some time.
      • MeauxToo, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2In context, her point was that the US should deal equally with the democratically elected governments -- not openly advocate prefer governments of one party over another. She was responding to a question of whether or not the US government, should as a matter policy, openly prefer the Likud coalitions over the Labor coalitions. She did not say that the US government should prioritize the needs and desires of the Israeli people over those of the US citizens.
    • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6"She responded that the policy of the United States government should not be aligned with a particular Israeli political party, but with the will of the Israeli people."

      But they should be aligned with the will of the AMERICAN people, not the Israeli. That is the problem here. Sadly, America isn't the only infested with zionist sympathies.
      • americangoy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3"But they should be aligned with the will of the AMERICAN people, not the Israeli."

        DING DING DING!

        We have a winner!
    • DharmaDog, on 03/19/2008, -6/+2Don't go bringing context into this. The bigots HATE that.
  • Homerr, on 03/19/2008, -2/+8***** Israel.
  • eryximachus, on 03/19/2008, -5/+3Has anyone else noticed how frequently Digg headlines make a totally outrageous conclusion from a sentence, and then include affirmations said conclusion is true?

    It's getting to be a rather old rhetorical trick. Let's get back to old skool trolling!
  • dougmc, on 03/19/2008, -5/+4Wow, take something out of context, and it sounds like they're saying something totally different than what they really meant. Who knew?
  • LynchBomb, on 03/19/2008, -3/+3Here's an actual article quoting this line... as opposed to linking to BLOGSPOT.COM:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
    • LynchBomb, on 03/19/2008, -4/+3Yeah, somebody is trolling through and burying every comment that points out that this is blogspam, by the way.
  • dslozak, on 03/19/2008, -6/+4Buried for blogspam.
  • forgiste, on 03/19/2008, -1/+6So basically they ignore the citizens of their own country to help fight this "holy war" in Israel. So that basically means that Clinton is a Zionist, right?
  • iShotWeb, on 03/19/2008, -4/+7This is completely taken out of context and misrepresenting what the woman said. RTFA.

    "Next question to Kurtzer: Obama's assertion that he needn't have a "Likud view" -- that of Israel's right-wing party -- to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a "plurality of views." Silence in the room.
    To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded."

    She's just saying that our government should respect the wishes of the majority of Israel and not get involved in their own internal political squabbles.

    That said, Israel has way too much influence on congress and I don't understand why we're giving them $30 Billion in foreign aid this year. It's insane.
    • Metalmoon, on 03/19/2008, -3/+5"She's just saying that our government should respect the wishes of the majority of Israel and not get involved in their own internal political squabbles."

      Using that logic, we should support the democratically elected Hamas party. You can't support sovereignty only when it fits your agenda and then claim the moral high ground.
      • neko6, on 03/19/2008, -4/+3Democratically elected doesn't mean legal. Hitler was democratically elected, but then destroyed the moral fabric of his own country. Hamas does the same, only they are weaker.
    • neko6, on 03/19/2008, -2/+4Israel is at least an ally of the US - why do you give billions to Egypt which always votes against the US in the UN security council?
      • americangoy, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Answer - so that Egypt does not attack Israel and also is a good destination for the "rendition" captives - Egypt tortures US caught terrorist suspects (not ALL of whom are actual terrorists - some are cases of mistaken identity, etc).
  • VitaminCM, on 03/19/2008, -4/+3A. I hate Hillary, but does anyone know the context of this statement?
    B. Worse yet, does anyone care enough to find out?
    When did this happen? What question was this an answer to? How many more sentences came before or after this statement?
    Did you find that out before you DUGG and then Commented?
    I'm just asking.
    Again, I still hate Hillary, but come on.
  • DharmaDog, on 03/19/2008, -4/+3Here comes the bigot parade. While the logic of "not supporting Israel does not not make us bigots" is sound, the reality is that most people that bitch about the US supporting Israel also happen to hate Jews and don't mind the US supporting countries other than Israel. And there is no way of telling the isolationists from the bigots, who are also frequently one and the same.

    If you want to argue that Israel should receive no aid from the US, fine. But you must also be against all foreign aid to any country regardless of circumstance. If you can't support that, then ask yourself why you can support cutting off aid to just this one country.

    I say cut off funding and material support to everyone. Can you get on board with that? Or do you just hate the Jews?
    • jaymzdean, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2OH, FOR ***** SAKE. You're racism charges have grown old and tired. They are useless. ***** YOU and ***** ISRAEL. Excuse me, now, I must meet my good Jewish friend for coffee (he's not a Zionist, ie...racist ***** pig).
    • americangoy, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3"I say cut off funding and material support to everyone. Can you get on board with that?"

      Count me in!
      I am all for that!

      As a softie liberal type, I am for humanitarian aid only - to people who are starving, victims of wars, diseases and such. But yes, no more aid to Israel... and Egypt, Jordan, Ukraine, India and all the other recipients of US aid.

      I am with you!
      Where do I sign?!

      PS
      What makes you think I hate the Jews?

    • TrevaLVF, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I say, cut funding and material support to everybody if the politicians here in the USA are too unwise to avoid offering a helping hand without creating more problems for people in other countries and in our own. We have our own problems, our own domestic conflicts that might boil over any day, and our own economic and material issues concerning numerous US citizens. The more involved the US government and groups associated with it are with any country, the more it tends to follow those "diplomats" and our troops back here to haunt us like plagues. Obviously, decision makers and those carrying out their policies are not doing something right to prevent it. We and many people in the world beyond our borders would be better off today if our government and the CIA just left people in other countries alone since WWII.
  • Waiting2awake, on 03/19/2008, -2/+5OK, who took the story? Showed on the frontpage, lists as popular, but I can't see it on the first few pages. Story seemed to drop awfully fast. Maybe I am looking for it wrongly.
  • willskillz, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3I didn't even bother to read the article cause I'm stupid like that. The only thing good to come out of Israel is Krav Maga. Oh look. FOX is showing that clip of Obama's racist pastor again for the millionth time.
    • TrevaLVF, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I don't see Barak Obama as a racist. He's a politician. Fake News is just trying to find a way to justify the right-wing bigotry that will surely expose itself more and more by depicting Obama and all his non-white supporters as a bunch of bigots. That's really not a sincere effort to address the problems caused by bigotry within any group in this country. Besides... Damnit! I am so fed up with people pulling any type of race card and gender card in this election where Obama and Hillary are concerned. Ignorant arses play that game.
  • neko6, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2Yeah right, "support"... as if the Israeli government actually does anything beyond breathing without US approval...
  • caponumen, on 03/20/2008, -1/+1Translation: We are holding all Jews everywhere hostage by Zionist association.
    Support Israel or die alone. Isn't that pretty much it?
    Or has my foil lined Yamaka, been knocked askew?
    BTW thanks yet again for making Jews look like the biggest assholes in known human history.
    Christ, you guys are making the Romans look good and they where some sick *****!
    In any case, shame on you for your titanic arrogance and total lack of even a little guile.
    You folks over there are rapidly becoming my Rev. Wright.
    • TrevaLVF, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1 Many religious groups and many nations earn and inherit the Royal ***** crown.
  • TrevaLVF, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3The correct response should have been that the policy of the US government is to mind its own business where elections in other countries are concerned and do the will of the American people to serve our interests, instead.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.