Sen. Reid stands up to Obama *UPDATED*

Things are not going well for Mr. Obama in Washington.  (Please note the studied lack of an honorific in the way I am referring to the man in the White House.  I don’t think he worked hard enough to earn it.  The things we learn when we listen to our BabBoxer tapes.)  I mean, what in the world is he to think when even Sen. Harry Reid directly opposes him regarding Israel?

The United States needs to back off Israel a little and put some pressure [on] the Palestinians instead, US Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told US President Barack Obama in a letter.

[snip]

Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, wrote that he believes “negotiations will be successful only with a renewed commitment from the Palestinians to be a true partner in peace.”

“Arab states in the region must also act to support the peace process. All parties must recognize Israel’s right to exist, end terrorism, and respect previous agreements made with Israel,” he added in the letter.

Taking an opposite stance to Obama’s, Reid suggested in the letter that dealing with Iran’s nuclear program would aid in advancing the Arab-Israel peace process, rather than the other way around.

“It is… vital (the peace) process not take away from your commitment to deal with the ongoing threat from Iran… I believe that resolving the problem of Iran’s nuclear program will help facilitate the Arab-Israeli peace process,” Reid wrote.

I really didn’t think Reid had it in him. I don’t generally admire him either as a man or a politician.  However, I am impressed by and appreciate his willingness to take a stand against Obama regarding Israel’s security.

UPDATE:  Commenters, so far, aren’t impressed by what Reid did.  I am impressed on two grounds.  First, having built Obama up as the political messiah, even reading polls can’t make it that easy to turn on him.  Second, speaking of polls, the fact that Reid was willing to stand against Obama means that the wheels are coming off the Obama bus.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    Senator Reid is shocked, shocked by Obama’s anti-Israel positions? I am not impressed, just as I am not impressed by my Jewish neighbors second thoughts on Obama. It’s too little, too late now as I watch my country and what it stood for being dismantled brick by brick.

  • Zhombre

    Reid reads polls.

  • Mike Devx

    Book says,
    >> Second, speaking of polls, the fact that Reid was willing to stand against Obama means that the wheels are coming off the Obama bus.

    What is interesting is that Obama’s coattails are not extending very far at all.

    If these politicians care about anything, anything at all, it is their own survival in their cushy, corrupt jobs. They are adept at reading their districts, and Obama is finding it difficult to keep them in line.

    Obama remains incredibly popular personally (please, please don’t ask me why or assume that I agree with it…). But his policies are coming in for more and more criticism. You have to hope that “the People” will eventually realize that there is nothing to Obama BUT his policies. I guess, sigh, they’re going for his American Idol smile, his so-called calm, measured countenance. This early into his presidency, he maintains his personal Teflon among his Democrat and centrist supporters. Hopefully they will, as the months pass, see through his charade.

  • BrianE

    I am now realizing how much I appreciated the Bush approach, which if I understand it, said the two-state solution will go forward when Palestinians are willing to abandon terrorism as a strategy.
    Since terrorism seems to be the preferred lifestyle of the Palestinians, whether directed at the Jews or themselves the issue was how to contain the violence.
    If Barack persists in pursuing Israeli concessions without requiring the Palestinians to catch up, I hope American Jews eventually notice.

    But if you put the state of Israel, specifically as a Jewish state, in historical perspective, this becomes to the Muslims just the latest in a long line of Crusades– first Christian crusades and now a Jewish crusade. If I understand Islam at all, land can never be conceded once captured.
    Is it a coincidence that Islamist beachheads were established in the Balkans and Spain?
    I suspect the Islamist views the Palestinian problem in that perspective, which doesn’t give much hope for peace, but explains their strategy.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    The Bush approach lacked ruthlessness. And now we have Obama, who is quite ruthless, in his own inimical fashion.

  • suek

    “Second, speaking of polls, the fact that Reid was willing to stand against Obama means that the wheels are coming off the Obama bus.”

    Maybe. Maybe not. Reid’s district is Nevada. What’s the black population in Nevada? What’s the R/D ratio?

    No honor among thieves, you know…

    >>now a Jewish crusade>>

    Somehow that seems like a contradiction in terms…

  • suek

    >>If I understand Islam at all, land can never be conceded once captured.>>

    Another reason why muslims and leftists get along so well – similar philosophies…!

  • Deana

    Yes, Danny, it is too late. We are in deep trouble.

    And yet, I have to agree with Bookworm on this one – I am shocked that Reid did this. I assumed it was going to take at least 2-3 years for something like this to happen or longer, if it appeared that Obama could win a second term.

    Before this is over, the messiah is going to be a pariah. And God help me or I will rub it in the face of all those I know who voted for the man.

    Deana

  • Zhombre

    The polls in Nevada are not auspicious for Reid’s reelection to the Senate. He may feel he has nothing to lose by standing up to the President of his own party and being able to say he is a steadfast supporter of Israel’s right to exist.

  • BrianE

    >>now a Jewish crusade>>

    I don’t mean to suggest any similarity to the European attempt to turn back Mohammadism in the series of early Crusades, but to highlight that the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank has nothing to do with the Muslim desire to destroy the state of Israel. I also didn’t use the phrase to offend anyone, since the Crusades, in the attempt to turn back Mohammadism, produced brutal treatment of Jews.

    From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza … were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn’t it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their “ancient” identity and a need for “self-determination” and “human dignity” on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan’s attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!

    http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

  • Zhombre