Jesse Jackson: Obama will rid United States of 'Zionist' control

[Shaktimaan]

By Haaretz service

The New York Post reported Tuesday that the Rev. Jesse Jackson said the United States will rid itself of years of "Zionist" control under an administration headed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The daily quoted the veteran civil rights leader on Tuesday as having said that although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they will lose a much of their clout when Obama enters the White House.

Speaking at the first World Policy Forum event in Evian, France, Jackson promised "fundamental changes" in U.S. foreign policy. He said the most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson said that Obama "wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy." He went on to criticize the Bush administration's handling of Middle East diplomacy, telling the Post, "Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1028665.html


and here's a link to the original Post article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0

[liberal texan]

1. This can't help

[FrenchieCat]

3. Well, I think after Jesse's statement that he wanted to do something

to Barack's nuts, makes any further statements from Jesse Jackson totally his, and nothing to do with Barack.

[liberal texan]

10. good point

[goclark]

25. Shut up Jesse, shut up! nt

[Potomac Will]

33. This can't help: Jackson's Remarks An Obvious Ploy

Jackson's remarks were an obvious ploy that should hasten his retirement from public life.

The great southern writer, Robert Penn Warren, once wrote an essay titled "Who Speaks for the Negro?" Jesse Jackson came to thinking his name was the answer to that question, a question that Jackson himself has helped make an anachronism by helping to increase the number of black elected officials.

Now, he should retire and write his memoir before he has thoroughly disgraced himself.

[Dollface]

2. Well that's just great. There goes Florida.

:banghead:

[FrenchieCat]

4. Why?

Did Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama morph into each other? Last I checked, Jackson was going to smash Barack's balls.

[Omnibus]

31. Don't worry about Florida.

http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html">The Great Schlep has it all under control.

Our Sarah > Their Sarah.

[sabbat hunter]

41. Actually

the Jews of florida (at least a great number of them) are really frightened by Palin. It was her getting the VP nod that pushed many to Obama (including my parents)

[aquart]

5. Oh, Jesse, Jesse.

He knows that "kike" blew him out of the water. This is what I call carrying jealousy too far.

[funflower]

6. Amir Taheri is a neocon operative trying to scare Jewish retirees in Florida and

racists all over the rustbelt.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amir_Taheri

[Phred42]

7. What a dumbass thing to say....

at this point....if he really said it

[ClarkUSA]

8. As I recall, Haaretz or The Post were in the tank for Hillary during the primaries.

Unless there's video, I doubt this will become a news story.

[funflower]

14. The Post is a Murdoch mouthpiece. All of the neocons wanted to run against Hillary.

They had their campaign against her planned for years.

[ClarkUSA]

15. You're absolutely right.

And now that they've been foiled, it's time to frighten Jewish voters in Miami to try to throw FL into McCain's column.

[funflower]

22. I suppose their tactics will get more blatant.

Time for a neocon "Hail Mary."

[ClarkUSA]

39. That's bound to be a given...

I trust that Obama's FL campaign team is on each and every BS guilt-by-association charge the GOP
and their neocon friends in the media is going to throw against Obama.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. Jesse Jackson is not Barack Obama, and he does not speak for the

Obama/Biden campaign. I can't help but notice the "concern" from so many non-donating DU'ers.

[liberal texan]

13. not concerned

just annoyed

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. I say concerned, you say annoyed. I say we agree to disagree. Had

the o.p. bothered to check, there's already a thread on this topic, and it's bullshit, just like this one.

[Shaktimaan]

19. actually, I did bother to check,

and I didn't find any other threads.

At any rate, so sorry to have wasted your valuable time. And thank you for your insightful commentary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. You're quite welcome.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7450942

[stillcool]

11. ah..It's a New York Post story..

picked up by haaretz. I'd like to see video of this 'speech'.

[Union Thug]

12. Considering Obama's recent expressions of love for Israel, I hardly think Jackson can be taken

seriously - even though I wish that he was right about changing the policy "of putting Israel's interests first."

[still_one]

16. screw Jackson. The SOB said Obama put African Americans down

because he "talked down to them"

Bullshit. What Obama said was he encouraged education


Then there was the incident on faux with Jackson

I am convienced that Jackson is a jealous jerk who can't stand it that he isn't up there

[PFunk]

17. Typical neocon fake BS.

Divide and conquer folks.

[spag68]

20. New York Post

Here in NY we know not to take the Post seriously. The Onion has more credible stories then the Post. Sometimes they have people on the street at subway entrances giving the thing away. I don't take it unless it's raining, you know to cover my head.

[Shaktimaan]

27. As a fellow NY'er,

I can corroborate your opinion of the Post. It's a crappy paper.

That said, there's a huge difference between printing crappy news and printing fake news. It would be a pretty big deal if the Post printed quotes like this without checking them. To my knowledge the Post isn't known for making gross errors like that. (No more than any other paper is anyway.)

Barring some kind of evidence to the contrary, I would give the Post the benefit of the doubt for accuracy, (if nothing else), for this quote. Especially since Haaretz picked it up afterwards. I mean, if Haaretz trusts their accuracy then why shouldn't we?

[Berry Cool]

36. The Post prints flat-out lies on Page Six every day.

Ask Keith Olbermann.

You're way too trusting of Rupert Murdoch's minions.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I'm not a NYer, but Murdoch rags aren't known for their accuracy amongst other things...

I've never seen the NY Post but I'm guessing it's one of those papers with page 3 girls, sensationalistic headlines that sometimes involve racist stereotyping (that's when the headlines aren't trumpeting away with a conservative bias), has no editorial integrity at all, as Murdoch's editors will kill stories that it doesn't print things that Rupert doesn't like (eg you won't find Rupert putting up with any criticism of China!) and less credibility than a garden variety gossip blog on the net? If you tick yes to any of those, then it's the kindred spirit of the Daily Telegraph here, which is part of Murdoch's empire here...

I'll muzzle my strong dislike for Rupert Murdoch and point out that questions about accuracy do come into play when it comes to the author of that article. He's been busted fabricating things in his articles before.

On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published two pieces, one by Taheri, claiming that the Iranian parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public." Numerous other sources, including Maurice Motamed, the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament, refuted the report as untrue. The Associated Press later refuted the report as well, saying that "a draft law moving through parliament encourages Iranians to wear Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity but does not mention special attire for religious minorities, according to a copy obtained Saturday by The Associated Press." <8> Reuters also reported that "A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities."Taheri insisted that his report is correct and that "the dress code law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians", claiming that that "special markers for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism are under discussion as a means to implement the law".

The National Post retracted the story several hours after it was posted online. The newspaper blamed Taheri for the falsehood in the article,and published a full apology on May 24.<13> Taheri stood by his article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri

Now the only thing I know about Jesse Jackson is that he's a civil rights leader, but if Jesse Jackson did say exactly what he was quoted as saying and there was a past history of making antisemitic comments, then clearly what he said means something different than the *the vast majority of elected US politicians are self-proclaimed Zionists and as elected politicians they do control US policy* thing I'd think of if someone with no history of antisemitism said it. Coz when some folk talk about Zionists you can tell by the way they talk (or in the case of the net use really ugly big font and link to bizarro websites that seem to have issues with Jews) that they're meaning to say Jews, but there's many other people who actually mean *Zionist* when they say *Zionist* and they're not being antisemitic, so I'm not sure what category Jesse Jackson falls into...

btw, have I mentioned lately how much I detest Rupert Murdoch? :)

[still_one]

21. If ture, this isn't the first time that Jackson tried to undermine Obama's campaign

Jackson is a jealous has been, and NEVER was able to even be even close to a shadow of Martin Luther King

[Miss Chybil]

24. Is this before, or after, Jackson cuts his nuts off? nt

[Alamuti Lotus]

26. nice idea I suppose, but highly unlikely

And anyway, both McCain & Obama camps (slight "WTF?!" moment there..) reflexively leap to defend Obama's firm commitment to Mini-Me:

Obama's campaign responded to Jackson's statements Tuesday by stressing that "Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. is not an adviser to the Obama campaign and is therefore in no position to interpret or share Barack Obama's views on Israel and foreign policy."

"As he has made clear throughout his career and throughout this campaign," Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi stated, "Barack Obama has a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship ... As president, he will ensure that Israel can defend itself from every threat it faces, stand with Israel in its quest for a secure peace with its neighbors, and use all elements of American power to end Iran's illicit nuclear program. No false charges can change Barack Obama's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."

John McCain's spokesman, Tucker Bounds, also reacted to Jackson's comments on Tuesday, saying: "Literally, nobody knows what Barack Obama's policies would be if he were elected president, but it's very concerning that people believe he will not be a friend to Israel."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127963

[Shaktimaan]

30. Uh-huh, so just for the record here...

you believe that US policy is currently being controlled by Zionists, as it has been for decades now...
yet it would be nice if non-Zionists were to gain control of America's policy?

Why would it matter if the people in charge of our policy-making are Zionists or not?

[Alamuti Lotus]

32. So just for the record here..

I'll take a double shot of whatever you drank to come up with that--always up for new and such obviously potent hallucinogens. There was, in fact, very little to use as a jumping off point for any such sentiments there. The more important point that you neglected to acknowledge on was the quick bi-partisan snap to attention in defense of an inevitable expectation. It is perhaps touching to see that the erstwhile warring camps may be brought together by our current subject.

Now, to provide some actual jumping off points... I don't think US policy is currently, or previously, controlled by "Zionists"; the anti-Semites idiots and other conspiracy seekers give the Zionists and its forerunners far too much credit, doing themselves a disservice in misdirecting such energy. The wild imaginations of the sort doesn't interest me, sorry. The fact that a few generations of the ruling oligarchy, that has always existed and probably always will in some form or another, see fit to zealously push forward a number of very bad ideas (one of which being our subject here) has much more simple origins and explanations than what they have variously come up with. (largely intertia, which is the dumbest reason for just about everything that happens anywhere)

The fact that I find it unlikely that any dominant US political grouping wouldn't support our subject shouldn't be something that you foam at the mouth about..... You may be coming on a bit strong, seeing absolutely anything as a red flag fit to charge at--it's not endearing.. :shrug:

[Shaktimaan]

35. interesting post.

Hallucinogens you say? Well, let's see... all I did was ask a question to confirm your position. It wasn't too hard to arrive at, I don't think it required any great leaps on my part. The op was about Jackson's belief that US policy was controlled by Zionists and his hope that this situation would end, to which you replied, "nice idea I suppose." Is it so incredible for me to have assumed that you meant to agree with Jackson's statements?

At any rate, I gave you the opportunity to correct and you did. You said, "I don't think US policy is currently, or previously, controlled by "Zionists"

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I personally disagree. Since the past few presidents, (who control US policy) have themselves been Zionists it is technically correct to say that US policy is controlled by Zionists. But on its face it's like saying that US policy has been controlled by people who agree that France should continue to exist. Big deal. Jackson meant something else by saying "Zionist" of course.

The fact that a few generations of the ruling oligarchy, that has always existed and probably always will in some form or another, see fit to zealously push forward a number of very bad ideas (one of which being our subject here) has much more simple origins and explanations than what they have variously come up with.

So, what is it that you think is a bad idea then? Zionism in general? Or the degree to which the US has been supporting Israel?

The fact that I find it unlikely that any dominant US political grouping wouldn't support our subject shouldn't be something that you foam at the mouth about..... You may be coming on a bit strong, seeing absolutely anything as a red flag fit to charge at--it's not endearing..

Was I foaming?

I find this statement of yours funny considering how you assumed me to be in a state of hallucinogenic mania because I made an assumption that you considered unfounded. Now, I didn't make any comment at all about your opinion that US political groups will probably continue to support Israel, much less foam about it. I happen to agree with you.

But I'm more interested in discussing your thoughts on US policy regarding Israel. It is one thing to have issues with aspects of America's Israel policy, it is something else to oppose Zionism on principle. So I'm curious, which is it? (Or is it something else entirely?)

By the way, considering that my post was all of two questions long, (one of which merely sought clarification of your post), I think you might be jumping to conclusions by assuming that I "see absolutely anything as a red flag fit to charge at." Especially since I didn't criticize anything you wrote at all. Have you considered easing off on the hallucinogens? Just a thought.

[raysr]

28. Great idea

maybe not mention it until after the campaign.

[Shaktimaan]

29. what's a great idea?

Ridding the United States of Zionist control?

[davidinalameda]

34. I heard this story on Hannity's radio show

it's hard to tell who's more disgusting-Hannity for promoting this or Jackson for saying it

[ladjf]

38. Jessie, please shut up. nt

[LeftishBrit]

40. If Jackson said this, then he wants Obama to lose..

and given the surgical operation that he recommended for Obama, this seems like a distinct possibility.

If he didn't say this, then it was manufactured by someone else who wants Obama to lose.

'Zionist control': either this means that America is secretly controlled by Jews/Israelis, in which case it's a ridiculous and antisemitic theory; or it means simply that most voters are Zionists and that the dominant American viewpoint is Zionist. The latter is probably true, if 'Zionist' simply means supporting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. But why would anyone expect Obama to change, or wish to change, that?

[Vegasaurus]

43. He won't change it.

Obama and Biden are committed to Israel and her protection.

[azurnoir]

42. Obama and Jackson BOTH refute comment

Obama, Jackson disavow column about Israel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3545550

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Not really.

Jackson refuted the comments, though didn't clarify what he actually said. Obama's camp simply declared Jackson is not an adviser, which is thankfully true.

[Tarc]

45. This is a crock of shit. Note the source; the New York (Com)Post

Just McCain's vain and desperate sycophants trying to whip up hysteria out of thin air.

Don't give the the time of day by posting this fairy tale on the DU, please.

[Shaktimaan]

46. Suuuure it is.

That's why Obama has been issuing statements distancing himself from Jackson over it.

The Post is crappy. But they aren't known for constructing quotes out of thin air. So unless you have some kind of evidence to refute this, I believe it. It isn't like Jackson has never uttered anti-semitic statements before.

[Tarc]

47. It is called "taking quotes out of context", kiddo

Reading comprehension. Pick it up sometime.

[Shaktimaan]

48. Reading comprehension?

Since when is the making of baseless claims unsupported by any written text considered "reading comprehension?"

If Jackson's quotes were taken out of context then what was the proper context? I don't recall seeing him issuing a statement to that effect yet.