President Barack Obama has decided to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Mary Robinson, who was in charge of the Durban I Conference Against Racism that became an anti-Semitic hatefest reminiscent of Nazi Germany... and that the Unites States boycotted. At the time Robinson, as the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, rejected many American demands to remove anti-Israel language from final conference documents.

This is a telling commentary as to where the President stands . Israel should be very worried

Hello tom:

My support for the war in Vietnam was absolute, until one television event. Seeing the body count of my brothers on one screen, followed by the senseless argument about the SHAPE of the TABLE that the peace talks MIGHT happen at, turned me into an absolute opponent of the war.

The same thing happened here. I'm a Jew who has supported the State of Israel absolutely from the git go. I've been a believer that the Palestinians deserved what they got.

Then on TV, I saw the Israeli aerial bombing of the Palestinian people, and the people had nowhere to hide. It was brutal. They didn't deserve that.

It's hard for me to suggest that the Jews are annihilating a population. But, it LOOKS that way...

So, I'm not sure how I feel about it anymore...

excon

Annihilating a population?? The demographics say a different story. I cannot comment on what you saw on the TV. The context normally is that the Israeli's retaliate AFTER they are attacked from within the civilian areas of the Palestinians .

The UN calling Israel a racist state does nothing to further the cause of peace... and Robinson is undeserving of such a high honor from our President.

I have more on this but I'm on vacation and will have min. time this week to waste on a PC.

Edit have a little more time

During Robinson's time as Human Rights Commissioner Arafat was skimming large amt.s of foreign aid to line his own pockets. The Palestinian Authority spent approximately $9 million of European
Union aid money each month on the salaries of those organizing terror attacks against civilians.
Much of these charity funds also has gone to purchasing rockets to attack Israeli homes from safe havens inside Palestinian homes Mosques and hospitals.

Now ;the President refused to have US participation in the 2nd Durban conference. Why would he take that stand and then award the head of the HRC that allowed the 1st one to be taken over by anti-Jewish despots ? The medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award in the United States. It is designed to recognize individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

Please show me how she qualifies ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

My support for the war in Vietnam was absolute, until one television event. Seeing the body count of my brothers on one screen, followed by the senseless argument about the SHAPE of the TABLE that the peace talks MIGHT happen at, turned me into an absolute opponent of the war.

The same thing happened here. I'm a Jew who has supported the State of Israel absolutely from the git go. I've been a believer that the Palestinians deserved what they got.

Then on TV, I saw the Israeli aerial bombing of the Palestinian people, and the people had nowhere to hide. It was brutal. They didn't deserve that.

It's hard for me to suggest that the Jews are annihilating a population. But, it LOOKS that way...

So, I'm not sure how I feel about it anymore....

excon

---

First of all, what exactly did you see? What went on BEFORE? What happened after? Did you actually see Israeli bombs falling? How do you know they were Israeli bombs? Did you track the bombs from their source (the plane or the helicopter it was supposedly fire from)? Did you see the missile track? Or did you hear the intimation that it was Israelis doing the bombings? Seeing a picture of Israelis firing something and then seeing a picture of Palestinians running away, and a COMMENTARY that the Palestinians were attaked by Israelis does not mean that the pictures are telling you what actually happened or why. There is no context for what actually occurred.

You have no idea what the Israelis were firing at. Was it a mortar or missile site? Was the mortar or missile site hidden among civillians? Or were Israelis just firing randomly into cities without regard to civilian population?

You have no idea who the Palestinians running away really were. Were they the guys running the mortar or missile site? Were they innocent civillians FORCED to act as human shields for a missile site? Or were they just people going about their business getting sprayed by indescriminant fire?

You don't know. You only know the picures you saw. They do NOT tell the whole story.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You don't know. You only know the picures you saw. They do NOT tell the whole story.

---

Hello again, El:

Pictures don't ever tell the whole story. But, what I saw was video shot from a Palestinian town under Israeli aerial bombardment... It was brutal... Children were being blown apart.

Now, if you want to deny that it happened, we don't have anything further to discuss.

excon

PS> (edited) Isn't denial the problem? The Arabs deny the truth all the time. Now, you're going to take it up too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

Pictures don't ever tell the whole story. But, what I saw was video shot from a Palestinian town under Israeli aerial bombardment.... It was brutal... Children were being blown apart.

Now, if you want to deny that it happened, we don't have anything further to discuss.

excon

PS> (edited) Isn't denial the problem? The Arabs deny the truth all the time. Now, you're gonna take it up too??

---

I'm not denying it happened. But WHAT happened? Why were the Israelis firing? Who were they firing at? What was their target?

Was it brutal? I don't doubt it was. But you STILL don't know what happened. You only know what the video showed, and what the Palestinian who shot the video SAYS happened. He showed you a shot of Israelis firing on Palestinians. What was the target? Were the Israelis under fire? Were the Palestinians acting as human shields? Who fired first? What happened BEFORE the camera was turned on? What happened after it was shut off?

You don't know. So go and find out. Find the context. And if the context is such that Israel is guilty of doing something it shouldn't, then fine. Judge them for their actions. But don't judge them for a piece of video for which you have no context. That's what the Palestinians are trying to get you to do. That's what they tried to do with the trumped-up "Jenin Massacre". That's what they tried to do with the video of Muhammad al-Durrah being shot... in fact, although the video showed Israelis shooting, and then Muhammed al-Durrah being shot, it didn't show the fact that al-Durrah was shot by PALESTINIANS who were off-screen. And that part was never reported in the media until months later after an investigation was completed.

That's the same thing you are being shown here. You are being given a video and told what the video means. But you don't know what happened off screen. You have no information on which to make a decision of what happened. It could very well be that exactly what you describe is all that happened. But it could also be that more happened than you are aware of, just like in the Muhammad al-Durrah case or the Jenin Massacre case. The Palestinians have become very good at giving the media pictures without giving those pictures the correct context. Don't fall for it. Find out what happened before you make a decision.

Elliot

PS: Israel happens to be the country that denies its mistakes the LEAAST of any country in the world. Look up how many Israelis are sitting in jail or have careers that are in ruins because of mistakes made in the field... shots taken that shouldn't have been taken, overreacting when under fire, firing WARNING shots, NOT firing warning shots, etc. Israel takes this stuff VERY seriously.

Surprise: Mary Robinson wasn't vetted

Is there ANYTHING this administration can do with the slightest amount of competence? Besides organizing the astroturf to do his bidding...

Proof that Engel can get it right sometimes. I'll have to write to him to support his position (that is if his staff donesn't have instructions to file my letters).

So what Tevi Troy is claiming is that the President now knows her selection was a mistake ;but won't back down now because of some face saving ? Too late ;he blew it by selecting her in the 1st place. He will make it worse by giving her the medal .

This is a women who got up in front of the UN to deny that the Palestinians were using ambulances to transport weapons even after the International Red Cross witnessed them off loading suicide/homicide belts from them.

Regulatory czar Chas Freeman(friend of Obama from the U of Chicago days) and his wife Samantha Power who is the senior director for multilateral affairs at the NSC(and who probably did the vetting for the President ) have suggested that it is groups like AIPAC that are organizing the opposition to Robinson.Robinson has made statements similar about those opposed to her selection .
Add to that Jeremiah Wright's recent comments that the Jews were preventing him from having access to the President ( I guess he means Rhambo) ,and I see a pattern of anti-Semites surrounding the President and at least having a strong influence on his policies. Power of course is a long time confidant of the President and we have become aware of his pattern of selecting friends and friends of friends to czar positions to bypass the normal hierarchy of decision making .She advised him on foreign policy during the campaign .

It is doubtful that the President was aware of Robinson's body of work before the selection . After all; the President himself refused to allow the US to participate in Durban II because of the controversy over the 1st one. Given that ,I find it hard to believe that he would've selected Robinson knowing the controversy that would erupt .

But this tells me that he needs an upgrade about who his foreign policy advisors are . He has made a number of errors in his 1st 6 months .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

...She advised him on foreign policy during the campaign .

It is doubtful that the President was aware of Robinson's body of work before the selection . After all; the President himself refused to allow the US to participate in Durban II because of the controversy over the 1st one. Given that ,I find it hard to believe that he would've selected Robinson knowing the controversy that would erupt .

But this tells me that he needs an upgrade about who his foreign policy advisors are . He has made a number of errors in his 1st 6 months .

---

The pattern I'm also seeing is we have a campaigner-in-chief instead of a president.