Oba-moshiach

Many are probably aware of the curiously strong pro-Israel speech offered by Obama to AIPAC yesterday. This is the same guy who put Brzezinski and Powers on his team, member of the fanatic Wright’s church? He’s now going to be the Savior and Protector of Israel?

Who’s skeptical (besides me, that is)?

Doug Ross is. From his blog:

Now compare and contrast:

Obama at AIPAC:

…I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran… First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO…Lie. Obama opposes all missile defense technology.

Obama at AIPAC:

There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran… while I don’t want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.Lie. Barack Obama told a crowd of 75,000 last month that Iran is not a threat.

The rest is here, and it’s not any prettier.

Nod: Astute Bloggers

UPDATE: LYING BASTARD Alert™, courtesy of Jihad Watch:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel’s capital to remain “undivided,” his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

[…]

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.”

“Two principles should apply to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

[…]

“It [the “clarification”] means he used the term inappropriately, possibly [possibly??] to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn’t really believe,”

Apparently when Obama was talking about CHANGE all this time, he’s been referring to CHANGING his position every day or so.  THAT’s the only change I can believe in coming from his direction.