May 09, 2008

Obama's Double Standard

Presidential candidate with terrorist friends fires adviser friendly with terrorists:

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed today that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council.

"I've never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people," he added.

So Barack Obama fires a campaign adviser for having contacts with Hamas for the nutty "peace" group to which he belongs.

Obama, on the other hand, kicks off his political career by attending a fundraiser in the home of a pair of well-known and infamous domestic terrorists that led a group that had targeted and in some cases killed American citizens, including off-duty soldiers and police officers. When this association is highlighted, he labels it a "distraction."

Clearly, Barack Obama has a problem with others associating with terrorists, but that moral clarity certainly slips when it is to his material benefit.

That's not change you can believe in. That's moral cowardice and craven opportunism.

h /t Ace of Spades, who notes that Hamas had endorsed Obama.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at May 9, 2008 03:44 PM

Why do I have this really sneaky desire to smuggle some big Palestinian flags into the Demo's convention in Denver?

Posted by: Jeff at May 9, 2008 03:54 PM

No doubt the Hamas endorsement is just the icing on the cake for the leftwingnuts that make up Snobama's base.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at May 9, 2008 04:16 PM

Bob, you realize the MoveOnocrats will say you're a racist for pointing out that Hamas would prefer Obama. The fact that it's true doesn't matter, you're still a racist, according to Screamin' Howie Dean.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 9, 2008 05:55 PM

Wow. If this Bill Ayers thing is the best you guys got, McCain is going to get completely slaughtered in November.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 9, 2008 06:25 PM

That Hamas knew they were meeting with someone who consults for a possible POTUS is the real shocker here. Whether or not Malley was meeting on Obama's behalf is just about immaterial. Fact was, he was there quite frequently (in whatever capacity) but Malley also DOES work, however "casually" or for no remuneration for Obama. Malley and Obama were, after all, college schoolmates. When you connect all the dots, sitting listening to Wright's anti-American rants for TWENTY years, Michelle Obamamama's rancid bitterness, Ayers flag stomping, there is plenty to worry about about Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: Marybel at May 9, 2008 07:05 PM

McCain can certainly get slaughtered. Particularly if he doesn't bother to point out that Obama has chosen to associate with terrorists, racists, anti-americans, marxists, and crooks during his very short career. McCain might also point out the policies and philosophy of Obama is better suited to a 3rd world hellhole than the greatest nation in the world. And maybe someone will point out that electing someone who was born a muslim and was taught in muslim schools during a war with Islam might not be a very good idea. (Maybe that was why Hamas likes Obama so much).

But on the other hand, possibly it is time for an affirmative action president. Michelle has said that it is "our turn" now, and who are we to bar Michelle from finally getting enough from the USA to finally be proud of it.

Or....Obama's chickens might be coming home to roost. And young Mr. Hussein Obama will be subjected to a major defeat as the Democrats realize that university liberals and american blacks do not make a coalition.

Posted by: iconoclast at May 9, 2008 07:26 PM

What, Arbo, you don't think it's a Bad Thing to have a campaign event at the home of someone who is not only unapologetic about bombing government buildings, but says he is sorry he didn't do enough?

Would your opinion be the same if McCain's campaign was launched at the home of Timothy McVeigh?

To ask the question is, of course, to answer it.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 9, 2008 07:27 PM

It was ill-advised, yes. But are you going to pillory him for this, weighed against the entirety of the man's life? This guilt by association with Ayers (and the association is tenuous at best) is not going to hold water in the eyes of the American people.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at May 9, 2008 09:46 PM

Actually, Arb, I don't subscribe to the "magic bullet" theory--that is, there is rarely (if ever) a single news story or event that dooms a political candidate.

However, I do believe that the Ayers connection is part of the "death of a thousand cuts" that Obama will eventually fall to. Ayers is part of an overall picture of Obama that the American people will probably reject.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 9, 2008 09:53 PM

Arbo - The main subject of this post is not Ayers. Take another look. It's about another one of Obama's advisers who is hostile to Israel. It seems he's got a whole gaggle of them when you take a look at who/was on his list of foreign policy advisors. It sort of makes you wonder whether their views are really reflective of Obama's thoughts or the more pro-Israel comments the candidate is currently making now perhaps in an effort to retain the Jewish and pro-Israel vote.

Posted by: daleyrocks at May 9, 2008 11:08 PM

People who think like Arbo are the extremely cancerous enemy within America, the useful idiots.

We will eventually have to have a civil war I fear. They literally have no problem with anti-Americanism all forms, including violence it seems. Che is a mass mirdering terrorist and they love him, Bill Ayers, Rev Wright's church gives awards to the leader of the murderous Nation of Islam, they're not proud of America, etc. etc.

These people are nuts!

Posted by: Bob USMC at May 10, 2008 01:41 AM
(and the association is tenuous at best)

Yeah. And Wright? Taken totally out of context!

Being in the bag limits one's vision, Arbo.

Posted by: Pablo at May 10, 2008 05:39 AM

Precisely my point, Daley.

If any one of these radical friends--say, just as an example, Wright--was Obama's only nutty friend, it would be a reasonable assumption that it was just an aberration, and that the friend's views were not necessarily shared by Obama.

The profusion of these radicals, however, is what forms the "death of a thousand cuts" I spoke about earlier. With each new discovery of anti-American companions, it becomes that much harder for even someone who doesn't really follow politics, like Joe Six-Pack, to conclude that Obama himself does not share these views.

Add to that his comments in San Francisco, and Michelle's endless whining about how hard it is for millionaires to get by, and, well, that's not really what the majority of the American public want living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 10:26 AM

Daley is correct. Malley is being dumped so as not to lose the Pro-Israeli voters.

In January, Ed Lasky at American Thinker wrote an interesting piece entitled "Barack Obama's Middle East Expert"

"Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama.

"This is merely a sample of Malley's views -- which are focused on disengaging from our ally Israel (whose lead America should not "follow") and engaging with and, in some cases financially supporting, the likes of Syria, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah and Hamas. His ideology is radically at odds with American foreign policy as it has been practiced by two generations of Presidents -- both Democrats and Republicans -- over the years. This is the type of advocacy Robert Malley has been pursuing in the years since the end of the Clinton Administration and from his perch at the International Crisis Group -- an organization that may share his agenda."

Not only is Malley anti-Israeli, he has major differences with Bill Clinton's Camp David peace process in which he blames Israel and absolves Yasser Arafat.

Posted by: arch at May 10, 2008 10:39 AM

It would only be a double standard if Obama (who, btw, has consistently stated he would not meet with Hamas) actually did fire Malley, but this is not the case--just virally misreported as the case, i.e, a false accusation, a lie. Malley's role was also greatly overstated anyway.

Posted by: ER at May 10, 2008 12:25 PM

Talk about lies, ER. From the same story linked above (emphasis mine):

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.” The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.

"Will not play any role in the future" sounds a lot like he's been fired.

Of course, you'll spin, spin, spin, and debate what the meaning of "is" is, but reasonable people know when someone's being shown the door.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 10, 2008 12:55 PM

ER - Why does the Obama campaign have to formally sever ties with someone it doesn't have any formal relationship with according to your argument? The spin from Obama land doesn't make sense as usual.

Posted by: daleyrocks at May 10, 2008 01:26 PM

Guilt by association, eh? Obama's problem is that he is not only completely comfortable intimately associating with terrorist murderers (Ayers, Hamas, and all those with whom he'll immediately "dialogue" if elected) and racist bigots (the deranged Rev.), but when confronted about these associations, his first instinct is to attack those bringing up the problem rather than the terrorists and bigots.

Let's try a little thought experiment: An average American (perhaps a "typical white person") and His Saintliness Obama Are given some choices. Let's see how they respond.

Choice: To associate with and intimately befriend a man who tried to commit mass murder, but failed through incompetence, who is an accessory to murder, who was not prosecuted due to police failures, who brags about his crimes, and who, among other things, takes great joy in being photographed doing a tango on the American flag.

TWP: "Are you kidding? Associate with them?! I wouldn't urinate on someone like that if they were on fire!"

HSO: "He's lives in my neighborhood and is a friend, and we don't discuss things everyday anyway, and we served on some boards together, and this is a distraction."

Choice: Your pastor has been spewing the most vile, racist idiocy for decades. Not only that, his racist conspiracy theories are so deranged as to make the sane question his sanity. Do you continue to embrace him?

TWP: "Embrace him? After the first sermon with that kind of stuff I would have never returned to the church in the first place!"

HSO: "I never heard him say stuff. Well, some stuff. Kind of, more or less. I could no more repudiate him than I could the black community. OK, he attacked me, so I repudiate him. More or less" (you think they bought it, Michelle?).

Choice: The representative of one of the foremost and most bloodthirsty terrorist organizations in the world has announced that group's support for you in your bid for public office. How do you respond?

TWP: "He what?! You can tell that #@&&%$#3# to %$#@$$%^!!! I wouldn't urinate on Hamas if they were all on fire!"

HSO: "How dare you bring that up! That's the kind of racist hatred that the American people won't stand for! We're running a positive campaign here, a campaign that transcends division, that inspires, that...Hey! Wake up out there!"

Ultimately we have to ask a simple question: What kind of person is not only comfortable befriending and associating with such vile scum, but is so out of touch with decency, reality, and an understanding of the foundations of civilization that they can't see such associations as not only personally, morally, blindingly wrong, but as a massive political liability for a man who hopes to lead the free world?

Posted by: Mike at May 10, 2008 03:23 PM

Malley continues an interesting, and disturbing, trend among Obama's supporters.

Samantha Power: "Informal" foreign policy advisor---also touted as Obama's leading foreign policy advisor. Wanted the US to suspend aid to Israel, and invade on behalf of the Palestinians. (She termed it deploying tens of thousands of US troops to act as peacekeepers on the West Bank---something which would be opposed by the Israelis. Sounds like an invasion to me.)

Joseph Cirincione. "Informal" foreign policy advisor---also touted as Obama's leading nuclear proliferation expert. Wanted Israel to declare all its nukes, wants the US to condemn Israel for possessing nukes, considers the reason for Syrian/Iranian proliferation to be Israel.

Robert Malley. "Informal" foreign policy advisor---also touted as one of Obama's leading Middle East experts. Wants US to negotiate with Hamas---which happens to be dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

IF all of these folks are really just "informal" advisors, why do they keep getting fired? And what do his "real," his "formal" advisors advise, especially regarding Israel?

The world wonders...

Posted by: Lurking Observer at May 11, 2008 12:54 PM

Oooh, good question, Lurking. I'd be very interested to hear the answer from the Obamamaniacs around here.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 11, 2008 05:08 PM