FOUSESQUAWK: Obama and Netanyahu-Portrait of Two Men in Their Youth

Monday, May 30, 2011

Obama and Netanyahu-Portrait of Two Men in Their Youth

Netanyahu Obama

Hat tip to Crusader Rabbit and Monkey in the Middle

22 comments:

Anonymous said...: This has to be the dumbest post you've ever made.

And that's saying a lot.; May 30, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Gary Fouse said...: And if you can't see the meaning behind the pictures, you're pretty dumb yourself. The proof has been evident in the 2 year relationship between these two men.; May 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: So what? Everybody has good and bad moments in their youth. One tack to discredit George W. Bush that I thought was poorly conceived was raising the fact that twenty or thirty years earlier, he had a drunk driving arrest. It was true, it was discreditable, but it wasn't the key fact that made clear how incompetent he was to be President of the United States.

Also, we really don't know exactly WHAT the young Bibi was doing with that gun. Many soldiers appear proudly in uniform in some photo or other who indulged in riots, raping civilians, etc. Do I think Netabyahu did these things? No evidence of it - but the photo doesn't mean jack.

P.S. Nothing really wrong with the photo of Obama either. He's relaxed, smiling, and smoking, things most president have done in their younger years.

Really lame, Gary, really lame.; May 30, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: NOTE: My previous post was offered before Anony Mouse's ignorant rant became visible. "So what?" refers to Gary's original post and comment.

As for Anony, there is NO evidence that Barack Obama fought in either regular or irregular forces opposing the military of the United States, so that's a stone cold lie. I don't think Gary meant to lie like that either.

Indonesia under Suharto could reasonably be described as a fascist state, although not based on Islamic philosophy. Suharto was typical of the kleptocracy that sucked American aid by the billion in exchange for anti-communist rhetoric, while indulging in rampant graft enforced by the American-funded military. This is the sort of behavior that drives exasperated civilians to listen to jihadists.

Or did Anony mean to describe Hawaii as an Islamofascist state? When is this creature going to study history before opening his or her mouth?; May 30, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: There is one thing that is clear, one knows the true meaning of war at the highest level, being a solider and then losing his brother Yonatan Netanyahu and one does not.; May 30, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Squid said...: I wonder if that object in Obama's hand is a cig or a joint? We will never know as we will never know the following about BHO:

0bamas' hidden records: Why are these off limits?
1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent's marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 Multiple social security numbers, using current CT. SS# (though he never lived there)

Squid; May 30, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: How about a side-by-side shot with George W. Bush in his college cheerleader garb?

Although I guess he did (sort of) serve in the air national guard, valiantly protecting us from the threat of a Mexican air attack, right?; May 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: Anonymous, that's an honest and well thought out statement. Thank you.

While honor is certainly due to those who have served honorably in the military, risking their life for a cause, or for the safety of their nation, people, and family, it does not follow that ONLY those who have served in the military have sound diplomatic or geopolitical judgement, strategic skill, or sound principles.

Adolf Schickelgruber served more or less honorably in the Kaiser's army, but that didn't make him a good candidate for chancellor. Von Hindenburg commanded that army, but that didn't make him a man who could stand up to Herr Hitler.

As Barack Obama said many times in 2008, we should honor John McCain's service. That didn't make him a good candidate for president. In fact, when a Vietnam veteran, who had been working for Obama's campaign, told me that he had been told "veterans should support veterans," it occurred to me to ask whether they said that in 2004, when only one Vietnam veteran was on the ballot in November...; May 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Gary Fouse said...: Anony, (12:36),

Does George W Bush have more or less military experience than you?; May 30, 2011 at 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Not that I needed any more reason to dismiss or completely ignore Squid's posts, but he just gave it to me anyways.

I'm not even really an Obama supporter but it'll still make me happy when he gets re-elected just because it will drive kooks like Squid up the wall.; May 30, 2011 at 2:11 PM
Squid said...: Anony,

There is a Latin saying: "Ex nihilo, nihil fit". It means: from nothing, nothing is created. The fact that you did react to the Squid, means that the Squid does disturb you.

Squid; May 30, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Miggie said...: Let's see the comparison of life before public service:
Barack Obama :
Graduated Columbia University and attended Harvard Law School. Was community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Benjamin Netanyahu:
Graduated Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1975, an M.S. degree from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1977, and studied political science at Harvard University. Netanyahu joined the Israeli Defense Forces in 1967 where he served as a commander in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, taking part in many missions including the hostages rescue mission from the hijacked Sabena Flight 571 in 1972. He fought in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and achieved the rank of captain before being discharged. (He wasn't just posing as a commando commander, he was one.) Netanyahu served as the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations from 1984 to 1988, member of the Likud Party, and was Prime Minister from June 1996 to July 1999. Etc,, etc.

Of course, having combat experience doesn't guarantee success as a Commander in Chief, but reasonable people would agree it would be helpful.
I doubt if Siarlys would agree that a formal education and experience in diplomacy would be a better indicator of likely prowess for a Chief Executive Officer than a community organizer, but then again Siarlys agrees with very little of anything, especially when he wants to discredit someone.
.; May 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: Squid: the Latin you cite might well be applied to your own posts. I expect in real life you are a decent guy who maintains your home, keeps a nice garden, speaks courteously to your neighbors. But the list you provide is hollow.

Starting with the first item, the Hawaii department responsible for such vital records has interrupted their normal work for the benefit of the taxpayers of Hawaii to respond to requests for Barack Obama's birth certificate so many times, that they had to get a court order authorizing them to prioritize the work they are being paid for by the taxpayers.

There should be a copy of the birth certificate in the hands of every "birther" lunatic in America by now. They simply don't want to acknowledge plain, documented, well-established facts, so they keep trotting out the same old disproved garbage. They are "true believers."

That being well established, the rest of your list is suspect, although most of us have better things to do with our time than to check out vacuous and irrelevant nonsense. If every document on your list is checked out, you would think up another one to ask about. The plain fact is, the constitution does not require any candidate for president to produce that long list of documents. I don't have a college degree at all, and as a natural born American citizen, I could run for president.

Be a man and face a simple truth: you and 47% of those who voted in 2008 did not want Barack Obama to be president. 53% of the voters did. You were disappointed. Instead of accepting the result, and preparing to convince your fellow citizens not to vote that way again, you tried to short circuit the election with endless procedural trivia, which you puffed up and convinced yourself to be a matter of great significance. Sour grapes, my dear fellow citizen, sour grapes.

No, we don't know if he is holding a cigarette or a joint. We also don't know if it is a joint or a cigarette. So what you have is nothing. And as you say, from nothing comes nothing. Don't your roses need some TLC?; May 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Siarlys lied as usual:

"Indonesia under Suharto could reasonably be described as a fascist state, although not based on Islamic philosophy. Suharto was typical of the kleptocracy that sucked American aid by the billion in exchange for anti-communist rhetoric, while indulging in rampant graft enforced by the American-funded military. This is the sort of behavior that drives exasperated civilians to listen to jihadists."

Tell it to the ten thousand odd kuffars slaughtered by your Indonesian Islamofascist brethren in E. Timor.; May 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: Gee, Anony Mouse, your moment of respectable honesty disappears in the flames of thoughtless ignorance out of your own mouth. You REALLY must learn some history before you start calling out who you claim is a liar.

Suharto murdered far more of the people of Indonesia proper, during his first years in power in the late 1960s, than his armies could find to kill in East Timor. In both cases, the motive was anti-communism, not establishing an Islamic caliphate.

In 1965, with encouragement from the CIA, Suharto usurped power from the elected (and admittedly incompetent) Sukarno, and slaughtered anyone who got in his way, one excuse being the sometimes accurate charge of being Maoists.

When Portugal was ready to let go of its colonial empire (after a communist-led revolt in the officer corps), there was an independence movement in East Timor, which was suspected of the leftist leanings most independence movements had at that time. So Suharto had two motives: (1) Indonesia had always claimed to be the big cheese in the archipelago, and if any land were leaving the grip of a European power, it was going to Indonesia, not independence, damn what the people living there wanted, (2) the old anti-communist line gets the U.S. to back off and let them have at it.

Plastering the absurdly ahistorical label "Islamofascist" on General Suharto does nothing to erase all these facts and make your case for you.

Slaughter in East Timor? Yes. Reprehensible? Yes. Oppressive? Yes. Motivated by Islam? Not hardly. When that got started, the same people marching in the streets in support of the independence movement in East Timor were also marching for MPLA in Angola, FRELIMO in Mozambique, the FSLN in Nicaragua, and most had marched to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Keep your causes straight before you pontificate to people who have studied history.; May 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Gary Fouse said...: This reminds me of the Clarence Thomas hearings when, at the end, old Strom Thurmond stated,

"I still don't know what Long John Silver's got to do with all this."

What the hell does Suharto have to do with all this?; May 31, 2011 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: "Slaughter in East Timor? Yes. Reprehensible? Yes. Oppressive? Yes. Motivated by Islam? Not hardly. When that got started, the same people marching in the streets in support of the independence movement in East Timor were also marching for MPLA in Angola, FRELIMO in Mozambique, the FSLN in Nicaragua, and most had marched to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Keep your causes straight before you pontificate to people who have studied history."

E. Timor is an independent country scumbag. Indonesian Islamonazis were slaughtering the kuffars in E. Timor, NOT their fellow Muslims.

I find your desperate attempts to paint Islamonazi 20th century genocides (i.e. in Bangladesh, E. Timor, Armenia/Turkey, Sudan/Darfur) as anything but what they are to be a puerile attempt at Al Taqiyya. You might be able to sell that crap to the
dumb dhimmidiots you usually associate with, but I doubt you'll be able to sell it here.; May 31, 2011 at 3:13 PM
Squid said...: We should let Bibi demonstrate his capabilities as a man in his twenties. I do not see a teleprompter being used by him, as he sounds presidential in the delivery of his opinion. I sincerely feel that Obama could not come close to being this clear in thought and delivery. Of course we will never know, as Obama's past is locked up by his lawyers.

Squid

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lixYEZ9M_dU; May 31, 2011 at 6:36 PM
Gary Fouse said...: Scumbag?; May 31, 2011 at 6:52 PM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: I'll start with Gary, who is at least coherent enough to ask a direct question.

I don't blame you for the ignorant ravings of Anony Mouse. You didn't write his lines for him, and you didn't endorse them. You just refrained from censoring them, which you do for almost all of us, except for one or two other Anonymouses.

It all enters into the discussion with his first remark (the second "Anonymous" comment, the third comment overall, where he implies that:

1) Indonesia was an Islamofascist state
2) Obama was born and entirely raised in that state,
3) The persecution of people of other faiths is the basis of government policy.
He was wrong on all points. It was a misguided attempt to support your initial post. You were, I agree, poorly served by this tripe.

Anony Mouse referenced the invasion of East Timor as an example of Islamofascist slaughter.

At that point, I had the option to ignore him, under the rubric of "Never argue with a fool, people might not be able to tell the difference," or, to refute in detail his misrepresentation of history, in case someone not too well informed might take the poor fool seriously.

I usually try the latter course at least once or twice. Facts are entirely lost on Anony Mouse, who lives in a fantasy world and probably spends most of his time in some version of World of War Craft. At least I have made clear the real history of the wars he cited. They have nothing to do with Islam. They indeed have little or nothing to do with Obama or Netanyahu either.

He is correct that East Timor is an independent nation. At the time the fighting began, it was a Portuguese colony. It's population was not Muslim, it was predominantly Roman Catholic. (Roman Catholic communists, how do you like that blend?) There are many parts of Indonesia's ethnically diverse population who also would like to be independent, like the population of East Timor managed to eventually become.

Most of the other wars Anony Mouse continues to splutter about were indeed Muslims vs. Muslims, whether that fits his personal fantasy or not. He seems to believe that whoever spews out the nastiest insult is telling the truth. I decline to compete on that basis.; May 31, 2011 at 8:49 PM
Miggie said...: Here is yet another example Siarlys' circular reasoning that says absolutely nothing yet seems to make some point to himself that he believes others will follow.

He wrote "No, we don't know if he is holding a cigarette or a joint. We also don't know if it is a joint or a cigarette. So what you have is nothing. And as you say, from nothing comes nothing."

Yet when he sees a picture of Bibi in uniform, he insinuates that he could have participated in riots or rapes but he doesn't have evidence of that. But, according to Siarlys the photo doesn't mean jack. Obviously, Siarlys is ignorant of the fact the man was a combat commando commander. He is determined to diminish the obvious differences in the two young men. Truly demented!

You can't make this stuff up folks.
.; May 31, 2011 at 9:34 PM
Siarlys Jenkins said...: Miggie, I know damn well I was engaging in circular reasoning. That was my entire point. The comment to which I responded was speculative, and taken to its logical conclusion could only run in a circle.

As to Netanyahu, AGAIN, my point was that the photo doesn't mean much. As for the idea that all combat commando commanders are honorable men, I remind you of the name "Ratko Mladic." No, he is not the analog of Netanyahu. He is the first of many examples which disproves your school of thought about the significance of the photo.

I bet you could even find a photo of Bibi relaxing, smiling, and smoking a cigarette, the same year the commando photo was taken. We all have moments of duty and moments of relaxation in our lives, do we not?; June 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM