Reagan v. Obama
Rob Long ·
May 20, 2011 at 12:04pm
In yesterday's speech on the Middle East, President Obama called for Israel to pull back and live within its pre-1967 Six Day War borders.
Here's what Ronald Reagan said about that: (hat tip to Richard Miniter)
“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982
Reagan wins that matchup. No contest.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
See: REWARDING EVIL… Obama Gifts Hamas With Most Sacred Sites of Christianity
[East Jerusalem] Gifts to Hamas:
The Garden of Gethsamene
Chapel of the Ascension
The Tomb of the Virgin
The Tower of David
The Wailing Wall
The Via Delarosa (the final steps of Jesus Christ)
The tomb of Jesus Christ
The Church of St. Anne
The Church of the Flagellation
The Church of All Nations
The site of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Jun '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
Again.
Aug '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
Must admit to being somewhat confused, can Obama give away something that is not his ? Israel's GDP is probably around 200 bn, and we give them 2.3 bn in "security aid".
Does that one percent buy that kind of juice ?
Guess I should ask Judith how this works.
Dec '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
Well, "to be perfectly clear", Obama was not. He very purposefully (my opinion) said, "...based upon the 1967 borders...." I don't think it was an accident that he obfuscated and left out the perfectly clear part, "pre-1967 War, or "post-1967 War".
Whenever he says he wants to be clear, he chooses not to be, because he is a weasel and a scoundrel. He said something just unclear enough to give him plenty of wiggle room.
Mar '11
Re: Reagan v. Obama
Fortunately, Mr Netanyahu seems to be giving Mr Obama a much-belated education today (I dunno what he was doing all those years at Columbia and Harvard - oh, wait!).
Israel is fortunate that it has such a good leader when the USA has such a bad one.
BTW, I had no idea Rob is a Reaganite.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 1:15pmJan '11
Re: Reagan v. Obama
The first rule in strategy and negotiation is to appreciate what your counterpart needs, or how they will benefit from what you propose. If nothing, then don't bother proposing it, because they're not going to agree to it.
How did Obama think Israel was going to respond?
Aug '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
Seems like only a couple of months ago you couldn't get away from all the fuss about Samantha Power-where has she gone?
Dec '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
This is more complicated than it need be (again, I believe purposefully), but here is a (now deleted) quote from an AP source, via the infamous Charles Johnson:
"...based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war. ..." That, specifically, is not what Obama said. He only said "1967 lines".
Further from that site:
"When people refer to the "1967 lines" they're always talking about the post-war armistice lines. Whoever wrote this sentence needs to have their journalism examined."
Who says?
It's all been deleted at AP and LGF, now, but whom amongst us assumes that "1967 lines" has a more precise meaning? I found this in the comments of a short, but interesting post, here.
All I know is that when Obama (or Nixon) says they want to be clear, get out your magnifying glass and several dictionaries.
Mar '11
Re: Reagan v. Obama
He's pretty slick with frittering away money that isn't his. Once you get used to it, it's probably pretty easy.
May '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
CJRun: Well, "to be perfectly clear", Obama was not. He very purposefully (my opinion) said, "...based upon the 1967 borders...." I don't think it was an accident that he obfuscated and left out the perfectly clear part, "pre-1967 War, or "post-1967 War".
Whenever he says he wants to be clear, he chooses not to be, because he is a weasel and a scoundrel. He said something just unclear enough to give him plenty of wiggle room. · May 20 at 1:04pm
CJRun, excellent post. Very perceptive.
Also, this feels familiar. Doesn't he have a pattern with doing this?
May '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
I think the GOP presidential candidates should unequivocally state their support for the existence of the state of Israel, unlike Obama's stance. This should be a primary issue when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East. You know that Obama will hit them over the head with "I killed OBL." But Obama must be presented as clearly and simply as possible as a weak appeaser willing to erode the sovereignty of Israel and the US's long-standing ties with it in order to make nice with the Palestinians.
Edited on May 20, 2011 at 9:01pmOct '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
She may have been involved in this decision as a member of the National Security Council. She apparently recommended sending American military forces to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palastinians. She does not appear to be a friend of Israel.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_rise_of_samantha_power_and.html
Mar '11
Re: Reagan v. Obama
Al Kennedy
She is probably still there, behind the scenes. Mr Obama's speech about Israel was strongly influenced by her (more so than by his Monster Secretary of State).
Mr Obama's face during Mr Netanyahu's Oval Office lecture was priceless - is it too much to speculate that he was wondering how bad was the advice he had been given by Ms Power? The bust of Churchill in his office was vocal in it's absence, btw.
Well, her advice was in line with what he learned at Columbia, so now he must really be confused.
Can't wait for Mr Netanyahu's speech in front of Congress...
Edited on May 21, 2011 at 12:06amAug '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
My thoughts entirely, Al Kennedy and David Williamson. I have commented before that the "Clinton is a monster" faux pas (alleged ) was a ploy to get her off the campaign and thereby out from under the noses of Jewish Democrats while inflicting some damage on Clinton. I never doubted that she'd be right back in there exercising her influence on Obama once he was elected. Mind you, I'm not sure her very public push for intervention in Libya has worked out too well., hence, I suspect, the low public profile now.
Re: Reagan v. Obama
To Obama's speed-dial. Her fingerprints are all over his Mideast policy.
May '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
The rank disgust this man has for Isreal is undeniable. He always has to make sure that when he slaps the Arabs on the wrist, to puch Isreal in the face. He supported the Ground Zero Mosque but was angry about the building of housing in the Isreali settlements. He is now calling for the old borders. I wish he would stop pretending that he cares for Isreal's future just like I wish he would stop pretending that he cares for this country's future. The only way for Isreal to ensure it's own future and create sustained peace is to finally quit caring about world opinion, conquor it's neighbors, claim the land in victory, and grow it's borders. A country that size can only sustain this kind of torment so long. Peace isn't created without hostility.
Oct '10
Re: Reagan v. Obama
I was curious about some of the contemporary writings and love the way you can search the Time Magazine back issues. It didn't take long to locate this take from June 1967:
For months and perhaps years, debate will rage about the borders of Israel and about how much (if any) of its conquered territory it has a right to keep. That debate, while important, is secondary. The real issue is not Israel's specific size or shape but its basic right to exist. Most of the world has accepted and acknowledged that right, but not the Arabs. After their disastrous defeat, the Arab leaders still proclaim that their ambition is to build up enough strength to eradicate the state of Israel some day, even if it takes generations.- On Facing the Reality of Israel
Nothing in there has changed at all and this could have been written today. Except that it is the current fashion to substitute "Palestinian" wherever "Arab" used to appear.