Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama - War vet's endorsement of McCain

If the election came down to YouTube viewers, a pro-John McCain video would be the winner.

A short yet powerful video of an Iraq war veteran giving his endorsement to McCain has become the site's most watched election video, with over 11 million views.

The video opens with a young man with close-cropped hair standing outside in casual clothes next to an American flag.

"Dear Mr. Obama," he says, and describes himself as an Iraq war veteran, whose yearlong tour convinced him that Iraqis are "just like us" in seeking freedom.

"Are they better off today than they were in 2002? You bet," he says.

The man proceeds to list the reasons he doesn't agree with Obama's policies toward Iraq and instead is endorsing John McCain for president, "because he understands the fundamental truth, freedom is always worth the price."

The man then walks away from the camera, revealing he has a prosthetic left leg.

1 comment :

  1. Recipients and PublicityNovember 2, 2008 at 5:05 AM

    "Obama - War vet's endorsement of McCain"

    Little wonder, see:

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaAdvisers.htm

    "The Obama File

    Advisers

    ...

    Bill Ayers:

    Bill Ayers, who has been identified as an Obama "adviser," has long held what the left once knew, broadly, as "maoist" politics -- a view of the world that was opposed to Russian style bureaucratic communism from above, instead advocates of this approach supported sending revolutionary cadre to "swim among the masses like fish in the sea."

    There are other ex-SDS types around the Obama campaign as well, including Marilyn Katz, a public relations professional, who was head of security for the SDS during the disaster in the streets of Chicago in 1968. She is close (politically) to Carl Davidson, a former vice president of SDS and longtime Fidelista, who is webmaster for a group called Progressives for Obama, that is headlined by other former 60s radicals like Tom Hayden and the Maoist Bill Fletcher. Davidson and Katz were key organizers of the 2002 anti-war demonstration where Obama made public his opposition to the Iraq war that has been so critical to his successful presidential campaign. Davidson apparently moved into the Maoist movements of the 70's after the disintegration of SDS.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski:

    On February 1st, 2008, Obama, shows his international naiveté by naming, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the current situation in the middle east, as his Chief Foreign Policy Advisor.

    Two weeks after Obama names Zbigniew Brzezinski as his Chief Foreign Policy Advisor, Brzezinski arrives in Damascus, Syria, to begin talks with the terrorists and political assassins of the Assad regime.

    The visit is not coordinated with America's embassy and will not be covered by the press, although Syrian press accounts said the delegation would visit Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad; vice president, Farouq al-Sharaa, and foreign minister, Walid Mouallem.

    Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) commented, "I remember thinking, 'Why are we listening to him?' (Brzezinski) He was the national security adviser for Jimmy Carter 30 years ago. He proceeded to talk to us about Iran, and I said, 'Let me see, didn't the ayatollahs come to power, didn't we have this problem when you were in the White House?'"

    Brzezinski was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism, which he celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian communism. Using the Islamic fundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to make the entire region between the southern border of the USSR and the Indian Ocean into an "arc of crisis," from which fundamentalist subversion would radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost into the five Soviet republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It was in the service of this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski first helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the replacement could be no one else than Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam.

    ...

    Daniel Kurtzer:

    Obama has appointed Daniel Kurtzer as his key Middle East Adviser
    Kurtzer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, has long been recognized by Israel leaders, including prime ministers, as biased against Israel and is notorious for urging extreme concessions from the Jewish State.

    Kurtzer faulted the Bush administration for not doing enough to pressure Israel into dividing Jerusalem.

    "With Jews like Kurtzer, it is impossible to build a healthy relationship between Israel and the United States," Benjamin Nentanyahu was quoted saying in 2001 by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper.

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said Kurtzer "frequently pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions to the Arabs; he constantly blamed Israel for the absence of Mideast peace, and paid little or no attention to the fact that the Palestinians were carrying out terrorist attacks and openly calling for the destruction of Israel."

    Morris Amitay, former executive director of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2001: "Kurtzer … will use his Jewishness as a protective cover for his anti-Israel views."

    Kurtzer first rose to prominence in 1988 when as a State Department adviser he counseled the Reagan administration to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat. The PLO had carried out scores of anti-Western attacks, but in the late ’80s Arafat claimed to have renounced violence.

    ...

    Samantha "Sam" Power:

    Samantha "Sam" Power [since fired] is the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on genocide, and she has a professorship at Harvard. She is also a Senior Foreign Policy Adviser to Barack Obama. The Washington Post has identified her as "closest to Obama, part of a group-within-the-group that he regularly turns to for advice." She "retain(s) unlimited access to Obama." The New York Times said that Power has an "irresistable profile" and "she could very well end up in [Obama's] cabinet."

    She also has a problem: a corpus of critical statements about Israel. These have been parsed by Noah Pollak at Commentary's blog Contentions, by Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr at American Thinker, and by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line.

    Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:

    Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

    Power gave an astonishing answer:

    What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

    Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called "Sharafat" [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

    It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state -- all in the name of our "principles."

    amd more....

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.