General Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus (Benghazi issue)

There has never been peace in South/Central America either. What's your point?

 

Why are you talking about an Israel that existed thousands of years ago, instead of the modern Israel that was founded in 1948? If you frame the negotiation in that way, an agreement will never be reached. From the Palestinians perspective, even the 1967 borders is already a major concession given the amount of land Israel acquired beyond its original 1948 borders. And what you are essentially endorsing is a forced exodus of Palestinian Arabs out of their homeland. Isn't this precisely the sort of thing that the Jewish people should be against, given their own history?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa

[rquoter]Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.[/rquoter]

 

What partition of Israel are you talking about? Israel has been instigating wars including 1967 in order to take more land, and they have been illegally settling Palestinian territory since then, and even in the Oslo agreement weren't giving the Palestinians any land that had enough water on it, and would sustainable on it's own.

Moishe Dayan admitted that Israel provoked most of the conflicts leading up to that war.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7265515

 

I was actually supporting you. Petraeous said he didn't deny requests. Since he did not state there were no requests then it's obvious the requests were made. If he didn't deny them, the denial came from higher up.

Sorry for not wording it better.

 

More from Israeli govt. members about the 1967 war.

Egypt and Syria weren't innocent by any means. But to act like Israel didn't want war so they could grab land isn't really truthful.

You don't have to believe me, just Rabin, Dayan, Begin.

 

That doesn't follow. He didn't state that there were no requests, presumably because he didn't know for sure that no requests were made. It doesn't mean that he knew for sure that a request was made.

 

It goes both ways. Even before Israel became a nation the zionist forces
invaded began taking over Palestinian villages. Look up Deir Yassin and what happened there.

Palestinians also fought against Israel and attacked Israeli caravans and massacred them as well. But it was both the Israelis and Palestinians that were trying to take over land, and neither was just trying to live in peace.

Even recently Israeli leaders have said that Palestinians should never have a state. The Likud party charter is against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14772

So again Palestinians have certainly used terrorism to fight back against Israeli oppression, but Israel also has done more than just try to get by peacefully. They have laws that are prejudiced and based not on security but ethnicity.

 

That's great, but what gives the British the right to decide that a land which is mostly populated by non-Jewish Arabs should be converted into a Jewish state? We know that this was an untenable proposal, without uprooting by force millions of Arabs from their homes. It is why, when Israel decided to set up their state initially, they could only do it on a relatively small slice of land. Because that's where most of the Jews were. The attack against Israel in 1948 turned out to be a gift to them and a major strategic blunder for the Arabs, because it gave Israel a pretext to significantly expand their own borders.

Palestinians didn't want to give up their land to a Jewish state, and the Zionists wanted to claim a huge swath of land for themselves despite the inconvenient fact of it mostly being populated by non-Jews. Naturally, there was animosity. And attacks were carried out by both sides against civilian populations.

Steering this back to your original point, the position Obama struck was a very moderate one in my view. 1967 borders with land swaps has been the target for a realistic 2-state solution for the last 20 years. Perhaps that was forgotten during the Bush years.

 

I find it ironic that the Republicans have talked over and over about how this election is about the economy... and when the economy starts recovering, suddenly decide maybe they should talk about other stuff.

Guess they don't give a s**t about the economy after all.

 

Actually, your take on this contradicted Fox News which is the original source of this spin.

"Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ng-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQF6q6Ng

1. It's Petraeus vs FOX. He did not throw anyone under the bus. It was FOX News who reported CIA denied the request for help.
2. Is Petraeus saving his own skin?
3. Unless you can show even an iota of evidence that it was the White House who denied the requests, and it can only happen if Petraeus say so, your insistence to somehow tie up the WH in this does not hold even a drop of water.
4. FOX sources is from Benghazi, so it can't be a WH leak to pin Petraeus.
5. Aren't you supposed to trust FOX News?

 

If you actually read the article, it quotes Ehud Barak. That was the whole point. It could be the Wall Street Journal, or the Financial Times. Doesn't matter. If you want to accuse the Isreali minister of defense, quite possibly one of the most hawkish figures in this whole shindig, of "carrying water for Obama", well you'd be damn right. And I have the feeling he has a lot more credibility than most at defining the Isreali-American relationship.

I dislike Barak, but he calls a spade a spade when it comes to Obama's treatment of Israel.

 

Oh yeah, nothing like the extrajudicial prisons where he tortured people, corruption, and one-state politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/two-years-mubarak-prison-torture-apparatus-still-wounds-130008034.html

Hey, you're so good at judging other people, I think it's only fair you receive in turn. I think you have done no research into the issue at hand, and you are relying on cheap general stereotypes as a result that paints millions of people in one brusque brush. I also think you only have the fraction of the courage required to stand in Tahrir Square. So, before you disparage a large group of people even further, I urge you to at least look into the Arab Spring beyond a superficial "one-size-fits-all" lens.

 

And once again another thread attempting to make a white house cover up and scandal withers away.

I know giddy was so excited about this one.

 

It wasn't the CF that refuted it. It was the CIA. Sorry for your disappointment.