NOPE!
Just in case you don't believe me, Accuracy in Media notes the following in an article dated May 17, 2011:
The Arab-funded Al-Jazeera is hosting a two-day inaugural “Al Jazeera U.S. Forum” in Washington, D.C., featuring Bob Woodward of The Washington Post among the celebrity journalists. But of particular interest is Politico’s revelation that Republican Senator John McCain showed up at the opening night of the forum to praise the channel’s coverage of the Middle East.
I don't know how fair this article is. All I know is that John McCain's passionate words of support for Israel have always come with the asterisk that comes with cooperation with the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby. If he's showing up to praise Al-Jazeera, what does that say about his confrontation of Barack O'Bama's proposed U.S./Israel policy when he was running for President in 2008?
While I'm at it, let's note that Senator McCain was a loud proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Libyan Civil War. Who benefits from that war? Let me give you a hint.
Upon the start of U.S. Armed Forces intervention against Libya, Saudi Arabia "re-assured" the U.S. and our allies that they would "make up" any deficit in petroleum production caused by the Libyan "unrest". This might sound like a generous offer but think about it! With prices for petroleum skyrocketing past $100/barrel, Saudi Arabia is CASHING IN on the war against Libya. "Such a deal I have for you!"
As the Libyan war drags on and the Saudis get richer from it, Americans continue to struggle with rising gasoline prices. American politicians from both parties run to make kissy-face with the Saudis and their Persian Gulf OPEC conspirators. Just to make sure you don't notice, the President offers a "bold new policy" dealing with the War Against Israel.
See how it works?
*UPDATE*
My friend Debbie Schlussel has informed me that Accuracy in Media is anything but. I've known Debbie for a long time and I trust her judgment on this. Debbie's views aside, the nature of the headlines on their website are too loaded to be automatically accepted as objective. That is why I made sure to qualify my column with "I don't know how fair this article is."
If someone can confirm that Sen. McCain and Nancy Pelosi attended the Al-Jazeera U.S. Forum and offered praise for that news organization, please let me know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but for now, I have to question the accuracy of the claim and seek additional confirmation that Sen. McCain's participation actually occurred as it was described by Accuracy in Media.
*UPDATE*
In retrospect, I have to be fair so let me extend my comments a little to clarify one point that came up yesterday during a lunchtime conversation with some Friends of Israel. While it seems likely that Sen. McCain's diplomacy would have been very similar to President O'Bama's had the former been elected, I believe there would be one significant difference. That difference becomes clear when you go down to the column below to read my entry regarding the President O'Bama's scapegoating of Israel.
President Bush pressured Israel for political and territorial concessions. That much was made clear by his Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice. However, when President Bush spoke of Israel, he always presented the Jewish State in the most positive terms. President Bush routinely acknowledged Israel's past territorial concessions and the risks it had taken for peace. Moreover, President Bush was willing to acknowledge that these risks often failed to bring about the expected results. President Bush routinely rallied American public support for Israel.
In observing Sen. McCain, I can say that I've personally witnessed him doing the same thing. Had John McCain been elected President, the policies probably would have been much the same. The difference would be that the President's "bully pulpit" would rally public support behind Israel and avoid scapegoating Jews for his diplomatic failures throughout the Muslim world.
I won't elaborate on how this differs from President O'Bama's public presentation of the War Against Israel. I've already done that in a column below. I just thought I'd take a moment to put my comments in perspective regarding Sen. McCain.
*UPDATE*
My friend Debbie Schlussel has informed me that Accuracy in Media is anything but. I've known Debbie for a long time and I trust her judgment on this. Debbie's views aside, the nature of the headlines on their website are too loaded to be automatically accepted as objective. That is why I made sure to qualify my column with "I don't know how fair this article is."
If someone can confirm that Sen. McCain and Nancy Pelosi attended the Al-Jazeera U.S. Forum and offered praise for that news organization, please let me know. It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but for now, I have to question the accuracy of the claim and seek additional confirmation that Sen. McCain's participation actually occurred as it was described by Accuracy in Media.
*UPDATE*
In retrospect, I have to be fair so let me extend my comments a little to clarify one point that came up yesterday during a lunchtime conversation with some Friends of Israel. While it seems likely that Sen. McCain's diplomacy would have been very similar to President O'Bama's had the former been elected, I believe there would be one significant difference. That difference becomes clear when you go down to the column below to read my entry regarding the President O'Bama's scapegoating of Israel.
President Bush pressured Israel for political and territorial concessions. That much was made clear by his Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice. However, when President Bush spoke of Israel, he always presented the Jewish State in the most positive terms. President Bush routinely acknowledged Israel's past territorial concessions and the risks it had taken for peace. Moreover, President Bush was willing to acknowledge that these risks often failed to bring about the expected results. President Bush routinely rallied American public support for Israel.
In observing Sen. McCain, I can say that I've personally witnessed him doing the same thing. Had John McCain been elected President, the policies probably would have been much the same. The difference would be that the President's "bully pulpit" would rally public support behind Israel and avoid scapegoating Jews for his diplomatic failures throughout the Muslim world.
I won't elaborate on how this differs from President O'Bama's public presentation of the War Against Israel. I've already done that in a column below. I just thought I'd take a moment to put my comments in perspective regarding Sen. McCain.
No comments:
Post a Comment