Barack Obama experienced the sobering realities of re-engaging with the Middle East peace process on Thursday when the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, openly challenged his line on Jewish settlements.
Mr Obama said he had told Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, that settlement expansion in east Jerusalem and the West Bank on land the Palestinians want for a future state was not "constructive" or "appropriate".
But he did not repeat his previous call, issued in 2009, that building must cease, pleading instead for resumed talks on the "core issues" of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state and providing security for Israel.
"That's not to say settlements aren't important. That's to say if we solve those two problems, the settlement issue will be resolved," Mr Obama told a press conference in a rambling answer in which his normal fluency seemed to desert him.
Referring to Palestinian demands for a building freeze before re-starting talks, he admitted that settlements were "frustrating".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9946213/Flustered-Barack-Obama-on-the-back-foot-over-Israeli-settlements.html
Twinsdads thoughts...
If you think you are frustrated Mr. President, try being a citizen of the quasi police state you are running here in your version of "America" Drones, guns, food, TSA. all out of control... and much more, environmental bull shit wasted money, lies built into Obamacare and you are clueless on foreign affairs in every corner of the globe, the frickin teenager running N. Korea is a better "leader" that you are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9946213/Flustered-Barack-Obama-on-the-back-foot-over-Israeli-settlements.html
Twinsdads thoughts...
If you think you are frustrated Mr. President, try being a citizen of the quasi police state you are running here in your version of "America" Drones, guns, food, TSA. all out of control... and much more, environmental bull shit wasted money, lies built into Obamacare and you are clueless on foreign affairs in every corner of the globe, the frickin teenager running N. Korea is a better "leader" that you are.
TD, I've read a lot of your comments, some of which, I agree with quite a bit. That said, I believe it nearly impossible to ever see a candidate who would address what you are looking for. Here, you blame Obama for his incompetence and whatever else, but I feel like he has just become a punching bag for basically continuing much of what was already well under way before his presidency. The drones, the TSA, inflation on food, all of these were well out of control before Obama was anointed King. To chastize him not stopping everything single thing you find objectionable is fair enough I guess, but it's not really realistic. Would Romney and Ryan have dismantled the FED? Nope. Would they have ended the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington? Nope. Would they have tried to crack down on the influence of money from Lobbyists? Stopped drone strikes?
ReplyDeleteMy biggest disagreements with you TD is that you post in a manner that suggests you believe bad shit only happens when Democrats are President. Do you seriously submit the world outside America considered George W. Bush a great statesman when he was President? You seem to hone in on the figurehead rather then the process which is where I believe the real corruption lies. Directing all your angst at Obama for shit that has been happening for decades will not solve anything.
Max,
DeleteLike you, I don't think some of the policies and practices ante-Obama would have been cancelled by Romeny. The thing is, though, that our F-i-C criticized soooo many things before he was put into office that he has since about-faced, yes? Not the least being his remarks about debt and deficit spending.
I fully agree with you on the general notion that many of us would never be fully satisfied with the occupant of 1600 PA Ave. For sure, I was not completely satisfied with Bush. Thjere is little about this fool that impresses me, except for some ability to be able to continually say things, with a straight face, that fly in the face of reason, are completely the opposite of prior positions, or are clearly naked pandering. And, of course, there is that 'buck stops here . . .
somtimes' variation on HST's proverb.
Jean
What it comes down to for me is pretty simple, is the country better or worse off when a president leaves. Bush left it much worse then when he found it. Some people are very invested in calling Obama names, just as some on the left were intoxicated with all their clever names for Bush. What's best for a majority of the people in this country does not always square with my personal beliefs. Obama is going to make cuts to programs I believe in, and he is going to do it solely to kiss the ass of obstinate Republicans who, judging by past behavior, could really care less about paying our bills. But, that's what Obama has to do to keep the ball moving forward. Most on the right that I see comment here have a pretty airtight view of the world. Anyone not doing things their way is a fool and anyone who circumvents them is the most vile creature every created.
DeleteLook at Rand Paul right now. He is firing off quite a few soundbites and is the right wing answer to Obama. Everything he is doing and saying right now is scripted and will be the basis for his future campaign commercials. Do you think if he wins there will not be a single thing he goes back on? To be an adult is to accept the world is not so black and white. Some things will be better when Obama leaves, some things worse, namely the middle class. I'm not the least bit happy about that.
Max,
DeleteWell, we'll see where we are in just under four years, won't we? You mention cuts to programs you favor. I'm still waiting on this issue of $100B+ in wasteful spending. Moving the ball forward suggests that is, per se, a good thing, no? I'm not so sure.
I share your dim view of those who consider theirs as the only way, but don't have as much of a problem with have a firm view on any one particular issue.
Rand Paul: I think the problem the idiots on the right don't seem to understand is that to wrest the WH from the left, the republicans need to put up a candidate who will attract more from the center. Pushing candidates who are further right of center will have a better chance of LOSING supporters. Men! Exasperating.
Yes, I do think we've had more than enough of a democrat in the WH.
I agree about the middle class being worse off. We are, so far. We don't see it getting better any time soon.
Jean
" Pushing candidates who are further right of center will have a better chance of LOSING supporters. Men! Exasperating."
ReplyDeleteAn admission that the Republican party is the party of men, no? Moving the ball forward is not a good thing per se. It's just moving the ball forward which really doesn't mean a whole lot if you aren't achieving a goal. These days, I believe we mostly govern by fear. Fear of being attacked, fear of something being taken away, fear, fear fear fear. In that paradigm, there is really no hope that things that are important to me will be taken care of. So, my only choices are to vote for the message of total fear, or something that at least sounds optimistic. That would be that silly hope thing, no? Likely, we get a Republican anyway. They won't fix anything you want fixed either, but you will probably feel better anyway because at least it's not a Democrat. Important, yes?
Max,
DeleteObama now. Bush before, who was handed a popped bubble, Enron, and the dreadful attack. All things considered, we did better, and felt better about the country, under Bush. The financial mess was gestating for a long time.
From what I have read, and recall (a little bit), Clinton, at least, worked with republicans, even though his motivation may have been self-aggrandizement. Obama is all ego.
Jean