Author Topic: The Obama-Khalidi Connection  (Read 2540 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« on: October 05, 2008, 04:03:08 PM »
Heads up for Hannity's show 9 pm Sunday about this scary Obama connection


The Obama-Khalidi Connection

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes will discuss the close relationship between
Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi - Palestinian supporter and the professor
at Columbia University - on a special broadcast of ''Hannity's America'' which
will air Sunday night at 9:00 PM eastern time
. Khalidi is a former professor at
the University of Illinois and was a close friend of Barack Obama and his wife
Michelle. Khalidi himself has given vocal support to suicide bombers and worked
for the PLO. Khalidi also have ties with Ayers. Very scary stuff.




"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2008, 07:07:18 PM »
Yeah, riiiiiiiight! Al Qaeda has connections with the Weather Underground.


Stupid drivel.
Not even worthy of one of your many exclamation points.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2008, 09:37:13 PM »
xo watch this very important show before you trash it!
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2008, 09:45:39 PM »
Quote
Al Qaeda has connections with the Weather Underground.

Where did you get that?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2008, 11:05:58 PM »
If Obama has some sympathy for the Palestinians, I say, way to go!

I think Zionism sucks.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2008, 01:28:59 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Khalidi

<<Rashid Khalidi (born 1950), an American historian of the Middle East, is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs.  . . .

<<. . . Khalidi was born in New York to a Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother.[1]
<<He received a B.A. from Yale University . . .  and a D. Phil. from Oxford University in 1974[3] and spent many years as a professor and director of both the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago before joining the Columbia faculty. He has also taught at Georgetown University, Lebanese University, and the American University of Beirut.
<<Khalidi is married to Mona Khalidi,[4] former President of the Arab American Action Network.
<<Khalidi’s research covers primarily the history of the modern Middle East. He focuses on the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean, with an eye to the emergence of various national identities and the role played by external powers in their development. He also researches the impact of the press on forming new senses of community, the role of education in the construction of political identity, and in the way narratives have developed over the past centuries in the region.[3] Michael C. Hudson, director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown, describes Khalidi as "preeminent in his field."[8] He served as President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1994. Khalidi is currently editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2008, 02:24:18 AM »
I look on Obama's reaction to Pipe's "exposé" of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi as a test of his honour and his integrity.  If he attempts to distance  himself from Khalidi in order to placate Pipes and the Zionist lobby, I and many of his base will be thoroughly disgusted with him.

At issue are:

1. the ability of the Israel Lobby/Zionist Lobby to dictate the standard of acceptable political discourse in the United States.  Without attacking "the Jews" or "Jewish media influence," or Fox News as "a tool of the Jewish Lobby," Obama has to indicate that American foreign policy cannot continue to be held hostage to Israeli interests.

2. the threat to freedom of speech and freedom of association posed by well-heeled special interest groups such as the Israel Lobby, whose agents always seem to be standing ready to launch well-funded smears of any American politician who does not follow to the letter the Lobby's dictates on whom he may or may not associate with.

How to deal with Pipes

- a recognition that Middle East passions run high in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
- both sides have suffered terribly; suicide bombers, blah blah blah; and the Palestinians blah blah blah
   in recounting the obvious suffering on both sides, it is absolutely crucial that Barak indicate and enumerate the suffering of the Arabs in graphic terms: use actual numbers: so many million  homeless refugees, so many children killed by bombs and missiles; [meaning the Arabs aren't the only ones who bomb civilians] 

While ostensibly, Barak must appear even-handed by devoting the same amount of TIME to each side's losses, this is his crucial opportunity to educate the American sheeple to the fact that the Arab casualties are running two to one or more against the Israelis.  That's why he has to use numbers.  Also has to make the CAUSE of death of Palestinian children clear - -guided missiles, tank fire, etc. so that nobody can think this was accident or mistake.

- once he sets the stage of casualties on BOTH sides, then he tells how <REAL NAME>  - -  an eloquent and well-informed advocate of the Jewish nation's causes - - "deeply moved" him by his or her account of the terrible suffering of the Jewish people.  This accords some measure of legitimacy to a partisan who happens to be partisan on the Israeli side.  THEN he says how Rashid Khalidi - - an "eloquent and well-informed advocate of the Palestinian people's ALSO caused him to be "deeply moved" by accounts of Palestinian suffering.

- having thus established the legitimacy of both the Israeli and the Palestinian spokesmen, he can now talk about how much he's learned from listening and being able to listen to people from BOTH sides of the conflict.  America so wonderful, etc.  And how sad it would be for ANY foreign interest to dictate to Americans and their elected representatives which side of any foreign conflict they can or can not hear.  It would strike at the very foundations of our freedom.

- a ringing defence of Rashid Khalidi:  he's a scholar, a professor (list some of his more noteworthy academic achievements)  BUt more, much more than that, HE'S MY FRIEND.  And he is no terrorist.  And it'll be a cold day in hell my friends when ANY foreign power can tell me, righ here in America, who I can befriend and who I cannot.

Do Rashid and I agree on everything?  Of course not.  But this I know:  Rashid Khalidi - -  Professor Rashid Khalidi, of Columbia University - - IS NO TERRORIST.  And if John McCain or Sean Hannity or Daniel Pipes takes issue with any opinions of my friend Rashid Khalidi, they can debate him live in any forum in the land.  THAT'S the American Way.  Honest debate in a fair and open forum.

But to use the Professor's opinions on a conflict that is so foreign to America but so close to his heart, as a means of getting at ME, in the course of a Presidential campaign - - that is LOW, people.  That is NOT the American Way.
======================================================================

What does he have to do?  1) not back off an inch from Prof. Khalidi; 2) DEFEND Prof. K. clearly and unambiguously but without offering any detailed defence; just a bold statement, "I know Prof. Khalidi, I"ve known him for ___years, AND HE IS NO TERRORIST.  3) challenge his (Barak's) accusers to debate Khalidi in public if they have a beef with him.  [This is a way he can put a bit of distance between himself and Khalidi without appearing to be running away from him AND AT THE SAME TIME, put his accusers on the defensive.  3) Make the accusers look un-American by showing that they have a foreign-based agenda and are willing to sell out American values in its pursuit.  Very subtly, though.

This way Obama appears courageous, strong, steadfast and patriotic and his accusers come off looking like the assholes they are.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2008, 02:31:02 AM »
Not sure if anything is here CU other than the way things worked in Chicago.

There seems to be an interconnected web with foundations and activist groups and Obama was on the board for quite a few but i'm just not sure how much dog hair he picked up on his tux.




BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2008, 02:32:21 AM »
I look on Obama's reaction to Pipe's "exposé" of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi as a test of his honour and his integrity.  If he attempts to distance  himself from Khalidi in order to placate Pipes and the Zionist lobby, I and many of his base will be thoroughly disgusted with him.

At issue are:

1. the ability of the Israel Lobby/Zionist Lobby to dictate the standard of acceptable political discourse in the United States.  Without attacking "the Jews" or "Jewish media influence," or Fox News as "a tool of the Jewish Lobby," Obama has to indicate that American foreign policy cannot continue to be held hostage to Israeli interests.

2. the threat to freedom of speech and freedom of association posed by well-heeled special interest groups such as the Israel Lobby, whose agents always seem to be standing ready to launch well-funded smears of any American politician who does not follow to the letter the Lobby's dictates on whom he may or may not associate with.

How to deal with Pipes

- a recognition that Middle East passions run high in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
- both sides have suffered terribly; suicide bombers, blah blah blah; and the Palestinians blah blah blah
   in recounting the obvious suffering on both sides, it is absolutely crucial that Barak indicate and enumerate the suffering of the Arabs in graphic terms: use actual numbers: so many million  homeless refugees, so many children killed by bombs and missiles; [meaning the Arabs aren't the only ones who bomb civilians] 

While ostensibly, Barak must appear even-handed by devoting the same amount of TIME to each side's losses, this is his crucial opportunity to educate the American sheeple to the fact that the Arab casualties are running two to one or more against the Israelis.  That's why he has to use numbers.  Also has to make the CAUSE of death of Palestinian children clear - -guided missiles, tank fire, etc. so that nobody can think this was accident or mistake.

- once he sets the stage of casualties on BOTH sides, then he tells how <REAL NAME>  - -  an eloquent and well-informed advocate of the Jewish nation's causes - - "deeply moved" him by his or her account of the terrible suffering of the Jewish people.  This accords some measure of legitimacy to a partisan who happens to be partisan on the Israeli side.  THEN he says how Rashid Khalidi - - an "eloquent and well-informed advocate of the Palestinian people's ALSO caused him to be "deeply moved" by accounts of Palestinian suffering.

- having thus established the legitimacy of both the Israeli and the Palestinian spokesmen, he can now talk about how much he's learned from listening and being able to listen to people from BOTH sides of the conflict.  America so wonderful, etc.  And how sad it would be for ANY foreign interest to dictate to Americans and their elected representatives which side of any foreign conflict they can or can not hear.  It would strike at the very foundations of our freedom.

- a ringing defence of Rashid Khalidi:  he's a scholar, a professor (list some of his more noteworthy academic achievements)  BUt more, much more than that, HE'S MY FRIEND.  And he is no terrorist.  And it'll be a cold day in hell my friends when ANY foreign power can tell me, righ here in America, who I can befriend and who I cannot.

Do Rashid and I agree on everything?  Of course not.  But this I know:  Rashid Khalidi - -  Professor Rashid Khalidi, of Columbia University - - IS NO TERRORIST.  And if John McCain or Sean Hannity or Daniel Pipes takes issue with any opinions of my friend Rashid Khalidi, they can debate him live in any forum in the land.  THAT'S the American Way.  Honest debate in a fair and open forum.

But to use the Professor's opinions on a conflict that is so foreign to America but so close to his heart, as a means of getting at ME, in the course of a Presidential campaign - - that is LOW, people.  That is NOT the American Way.
======================================================================

What does he have to do?  1) not back off an inch from Prof. Khalidi; 2) DEFEND Prof. K. clearly and unambiguously but without offering any detailed defence; just a bold statement, "I know Prof. Khalidi, I"ve known him for ___years, AND HE IS NO TERRORIST.  3) challenge his (Barak's) accusers to debate Khalidi in public if they have a beef with him.  [This is a way he can put a bit of distance between himself and Khalidi without appearing to be running away from him AND AT THE SAME TIME, put his accusers on the defensive.  3) Make the accusers look un-American by showing that they have a foreign-based agenda and are willing to sell out American values in its pursuit.  Very subtly, though.

This way Obama appears courageous, strong, steadfast and patriotic and his accusers come off looking like the assholes they are.

Perhaps he should sue him. Absence of litigation is an admission of guilt or so i have heard.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2008, 02:45:36 AM »

<<Perhaps he should sue him. Absence of litigation is an admission of guilt or so i have heard. >>

Why sue when the issue is really a God-send for Obama?  If he plays it right he can paint his opponents, as soon as they take up Pipes' bullshit, as un-American servants of foreign interests and prove to the electorate that he is tough, doesn't back down, stands by his friends, represents American values and the American Way and that McCain is just spoiled produce from an earlier century that's way past its Best Before date.

Handled right, this is a great opportunity for Barak.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2008, 03:29:21 AM »
His ooponents aren't taking it up. Hell, even his opponents surrogates aren't taking it up yet.

This is like coming home from work and smelling coookng in the kitchen.

There is something in this web, but it isn't done yet.

Who paid Obama's way to Harvard? Anyone know?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2008, 09:59:57 AM »
Who paid Obama's way to Harvard? Anyone know?


Obama graduated summa cum laude. I suggest that indicates a scholarship.

Who paid Palin's tuition to the many colleges she attended?

Who paid for McCain to run for the Senate the first time?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2008, 10:11:13 AM »
<<Who paid for McCain to run for the Senate the first time?>>

My guess?  Charles Keating.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2008, 10:23:11 AM »
My guess?  Charles Keating.

Not likely since his donation came after McCain was elected, and McCain also divested himself of the money after their meeting.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Knutey

  • Guest
Re: The Obama-Khalidi Connection
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2008, 10:23:33 AM »
His ooponents aren't taking it up. Hell, even his opponents surrogates aren't taking it up yet.

This is like coming home from work and smelling coookng in the kitchen.

There is something in this web, but it isn't done yet.

Who paid Obama's way to Harvard? Anyone know?


Hey ! I bet it was the Saudi's! The same one that brainwashed the Bushidiot to be the Manchurian candidate!



Well he might not need their help. He can fuck it up all by hisself as Sarah Palin might say.:
2-11-06

Is George Bush “The Manchurian Candidate?”

By Robert Buzzanco

Mr. Buzzanco, Professor of History, University of Houston, is the author of several books and articles on Vietnam War.

If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage America and undermine its global position–diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deficits, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U.S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth–they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration’s policies on these issues of war, terrorism, and global economics have.

Indeed, if one is an “enemy” of the U.S., then he/she would have to be heartened that Bush has pursued this agenda and would have to be elated that the war in Iraq continues today. Given enough rope, Bush may hang not only himself, but American influence and credibility, and the global economy. Like a “sleeper” agent, or Laurence Harvey’s famed character, Sgt. Raymond Shaw, in The Manchurian Candidate, George W. Bush, the ultimate insider, is doing more to damage America than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hassan Nasrallah, the Syrians, the Iranians, or any other enemy du jour, ever could.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the United States had the sympathy and respect of much of the world. The outpouring of goodwill was unprecedented in the post-Vietnam period, and the United States stood alone as a military and economic power. When Bush responded to the September attacks a month later with the invasion of Afghanistan, where al Qaeda leaders were hiding out, the world community and U.S. populace supported him.

But, beginning in mid-2002, when he returned to his obsession with Iraq, the worm began to turn. Using politicized intelligence and outright lies, the Bush administration, congress and the media all went along with the invasion of Iraq, beginning in March 2003. Consequently, in what we can now see was a remarkably short time, the amity and power accrued after 9/11 melted away.

Although today much of the criticism of Bush and his policies comes from liberals, and Bush is quick to take shots at the “cut-and-run crowd” or “Defeatocrats,” what’s most striking is how much harm his military and economic policies have done to our national interests. Indeed, the number of conservatives now publicly repudiating Bush is testimony to how far he has strayed from the values he claimed to profess himself with regard to keeping America strong. If anything, George Bush has pursued a program inherently hostile to the conservative ideals he boasted about when running for office, and we have all suffered as a consequence.

Bush’s legacy is already particularly troubling with regard to America’s credibility and image in the world, our national security and the so-called war on terror, and the U.S. and global economy. In these areas, U.S. policies, in particular since September 11th, 2001, have left us precarious and vulnerable.

The U.S. standing in the world has probably never been lower than it is now in the wake of the dismal war in Iraq. Not only is anti-Americanism rampant in the Middle East, but U.S. enemies like Bin Laden and Nasrallah now dominate the political discourse of the region with great credibility on the so-called Arab Street. Even in Europe, the American image and influence is fading, and travelers may feel uncomfortable abroad, or, more seriously, American tourists and businesses fear boycotts or actual violence, as in Madrid or London in the past few years, and that seriously dampens the U.S. ability to influence other nations.

Ironically, Bush claimed to have launched the war in Iraq to protect American security, but it has had the opposite effect. American troops are stretched thin and lack adequate supplies, and the U.S. is facing its worst manpower crisis since the Vietnam era. Meanwhile, the number of military officials publicly speaking out against this administration’s war in Iraq is staggering, discomfiting and unprecedented.

Even more frightening, Bush has actually increased the global threat of terrorism. In October 2002, well before the invasion of Iraq, the Central Intelligence Agency warned that military action in the Middle East would foment serious resistance and actually recruit more terrorists. By going after Iraq, the Agency warned, the U.S. would be ignoring the “root causes” of terror–such as continued crisis in Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and internal dissent in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries–while getting tied down in a peripheral area.

By 2004, that prediction had come true, with even the CIA Director Porter Goss admitting that Iraq had become a “cause for extremists” as daily attacks in Iraq had already more than doubled over the previous year. Just this past Spring, the State Department was more bleak, identifying over 11,000 terrorist incidents in 2005 which killed almost 15,000 people, a four-fold rise over 2004 and were mostly the work not of al-Qaeda but new, smaller and “difficult to detect” groups, which were able to exploit the war to entice new members.

While Bush’s policies in Iraq daily bring reports of Iraqis and Americans killed and abducted, some of the worst consequences are yet to be fully felt, namely the potentially devastating economic effects of the war. Bush and Rumsfeld promised a war on the cheap, somewhere in the area of 100 but no more than 200 billion dollars. Already, those figures have been surpassed and economists are now estimating that the costs of operations in Iraq, along with costs for rehabilitating wounded American soldiers and reconstruction, could easily reach the one trillion, or more, mark.

Despite these huge appropriations, Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker charged this past September the army did not have enough money to fight the war in Iraq. More ominously, as the war in Iraq drags on, the U.S. position in the global economy has become more precarious. To pay for the war in a period of massive tax cuts for the rich, Bush has borrowed more than any president in history and run up record deficits, a strange approach for an alleged conservative. The U.S. debt ceiling has risen to a stunning $9 trillion, the current accounts deficits rose above $200 billion, and trade deficits jumped to record highs, as have gas prices at home.

Much of the U.S. debt is held by China, whose own economy has erupted and now presents a serious challenge to U.S. influence in markets all over the world. In fact, China has just reached $1 trillion in currency reserves, more than one-fifth of all global reserves. While the U.S. is spending about $8 million per hour in Iraq and its foreign reserves are being depleted by about $80 million per hour, the Chinese are hourly adding $30 million. China could now purchase all the gold sitting in the vaults of the world’s central banks, twice over, according to the Economist.

Obviously, the U.S. is in a much more delicate and dangerous position today–politically, militarily, and economically–than it was prior to the Iraq invasion. National prestige and national security have suffered, and the economic impact will be felt for years. At home, the emphasis on Homeland Security and the Orwellian-titled Patriot Act have restricted our freedoms and liberties. The United States, its soldiers, and its people have suffered because of this war, because of Bush’s entire program. Meanwhile, American enemies and rivals–in the Middle East, in China, and elsewhere–have more power, prestige, and wealth than any of us could have imagined just a few years ago.

Given these conditions, there is now great reason for all Americans, including, if not especially, Republicans and conservatives, to demand an end to these policies in Iraq and at home that are making life more dangerous and costly. Some years ago, during the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon said that “Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.” It seems like George Bush has accomplished precisely that all these years later.

http://hnn.us/articles/32618.html

You seem to be willing to believe any and all Bullshit about O , but give the proven criminal a pass.