[Peace-discuss] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That Exposes Obama's Obseqiousness

[Morton K. Brussel]

This is from another list-serve. One doesn't have to agree with what  
is written below, but Obama's (non-)response stuck out like a sore  
thumb, and shook his cool demeanor. The obvious answer for the non- 
answer is that he wants to protect our pet Israel and its policies. -- 
mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Palm <rpalm32 at yahoo.com>
> Date: February 10, 2009 3:24:36 PM CST
>
> Subject: [WBPF] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That Exposes Obama's  
> Obsequiousness
> Reply-To: rpalm32 at yahoo.com
>
> Israel won't brag much about their nukes except to threaten to use  
> them on Iran who may be working on getting nukes.  So if our boss  
> Israel doesn't want the US government to acknowledge Israel's nukes  
> the US won't.  But if Israel wants the US to get all excited about  
> Iran's maybe nukes then gosh darn the US will.  Israel rules the  
> US.  The US has lost its sovereignty to a money-leaching, Middle  
> Eastern, religious state.
> Bob
>
>
> The Huffington Post   February 10, 2009
>
> MJ Rosenberg
> Director of Policy for the Israel Policy Forum
> Posted February 10, 2009 | 09:34 AM (EST)
> BIO Become a Fan
>
> Why Did Obama Diss Helen Thomas?
>
> I love Helen Thomas. During the past eight years she was the only  
> reporter who stood up to Bush, took on this rotten war, and, in  
> general, acted like a journalist. Last night, the great hall looked  
> like it was populated by a president, a reporter, and 11th graders  
> from local high school newspapers. I think I saw a cub reporter from  
> the Dillon, Texas high school paper. (sadly, not Lilah Garrity).
>
> Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear  
> proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of  
> any Middle Eastern state with nukes?
>
> Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to  
> respond as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of  
> course. And everyone knows it. In fact, the State Department has  
> published reams of material about JFK's concern about the Israeli  
> bomb. Israeli politicians talk about it. Every Arab in the world  
> knows about it. And Israel's nukes are its number one deterrent  
> against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows that too.
>
> But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any  
> official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel  
> having to sign the NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.
>
> So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to  
> acknowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that  
> everyone knows it does.
>
> That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.
>
> But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden  
> from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no  
> reason, unless we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by  
> definition, apply here as well.
>
> So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the  
> media would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know  
> nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted  
> Israel's perspective.
>
> Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his "blunder"  
> the story of the night.
> He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more important  
> things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.
>
> So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she  
> should ask how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza.  
> As the father of those two precious girls, we all know how he felt.  
> But it would help America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say  
> it.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090210/acb4ab69/attachment.htm