I think liberal Jews should take note who is joining Obama on his trip Israel.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, is no friend of Israel.

Here are some highlights from Sen. Hagel's activities in the Senate....
Does this sound like a friend to Israel??

In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

In October 2000, Hagel was one of only four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

If this is the type of advise Obama listens to, I really doubt Israel will have a friend in the White House, if Heaven Forbid, Obama is elected.

wonder if he smelled an ambush...

You think Mcain would be willing to have a debate with Obama before the "society of ublic defenders" or the public defenders office, or anything else that tends to bend liberal/democrat. If you say yes you are deluding yourself. Its a debate. It needs to be a good representation of the political cross-section of the U.S. Not a good representation of a cross-section of people you admire. Hes not saying he doesn't have tremendous love and respect for the military(he might not, but hes not saying that) hes saying the arms services tend to sway over-whelmingly republican and im not gonna run a debate there. Its not devoid of substance and character, its very smart politics. If he refused to campaign and visit those people--that would be irresponsible and somewhat devoid of character--but thats not what this is, and if u werent so tied up with ur hate for Obama, you'd agree. Coming from someone who hasnt yet figured out yet who hes voting for.Brad

Brad,

I think the choice is fairly simple.

If you want someone with a socialist outlook....someone who hates the wealthy, and we are not talking millionaires here....someone who believes big brother goverment has all the answers....and someone who wants to talk to terrorists in a naive view that he will win them over...
Then Obama is your man.

McCain, has his flaws to be sure, what politician doesnt, however, at least with McCain I know he doesnt share the same backward values as Obama.

Especially when it comes to Israel...

Anyone who considers themselves pro-Israel is in denial if they believe Obama will be supportive towards Israel....Just read my post above for enough reasons to be suspicious of Obama and his policies.

Just got a newsletter from RJC that Hagel won't be accompanying Obama on his trip to Israel.

This doesn't change a whit my deep fears of Obama's election, both for our country and for Israel.

Brad:

1. Barack Obama stated that was willing to meet and debate John McCain "anytime, anywhere." Foolish me, I believed him.

2. It's ironic that Obama is anxious to meet with every tyrant on planet earth without preconditions but can't bring himself to face his presidential opponent before America's military. This is at odds for a man who aspires to be Commander-in-Chief.

Robert, thank you very much for the link.

GW:

You're very welcome, my distinct honor.

With regards to point number 1--correct that was foolish of you. Thats just regular political rhetoric and it doesnt bother me that he is attempting to meet somewhere else as opposed to what his statement would mean at face value.

With regards to statement number 2 i dont exactly follow the logic. He didnt say he'd meet Iran wherever they wanted to--anytime anywhere-he said it about Mcain. Im sure your point was something about let him talk in front of the military--or debate in this specific case--but as i pointed out before I seriously doubt hes not speaking to the military at all. Im sure hes had some campaign appearances there--though not as many as Mcain bc the military is part of the republican base. I disagree about the last point. Its fine that he doesnt want to have a debate in front of the military. If he didnt want to speak at all in front of the military--well that would be "un-commander in chief like".My opinion

With regards to Lance's comment--correct there are reasons to be suspicious, but right now its not the American government that are the reason that Israel is in so much trouble--its the israeli government. If a good government was elected there, id be happy with whomever the American people choose here. Would mcain be better for Israel? maybe--i'd even say probably, but more important is who Israel elects, and the American president has a much greater affect on what goes on here then over there, so for me it interests me who is going to be better for America. Not that Israel issue isnt unimportant

Brad:

Obama stated that he would meet with the Iranians "without preconditions." That's a pretty definitive statement. You can parse his statements anyway you want, but Obama is an arch-leftist who has not a clue regarding national defense. He's already formulated a surrender in Iraq before going to the country, and before being briefed by our generals. This is the true sign of idealogue who will not let facts get in the way of his thinking.

I'd also like to point out that McCain has invited Obama to participate in 10 townhall meetings. Obama has declined. The reason? When Obama is off the teleprompter he says stupid things endlessly.

Yesterday, McCain had the courage to speak before the NAACP. A group whose members will overwhelmingly vote for Obama.

Obama's refusal to speak before the military is not good politics, it's a confession that he's unable to cope with other than his natural constituency. In short, he's a light-weight. And our troops have received the message loud and clear.

fantastic and brave appearance by Sen. Mcain, but he didnt schedule a debate there. A debate is by its very nature going to be--testy. When you are debating it helps you when the crowd is on your side. Id be shocked if Mcain would agree to debate in front of the NAACP. Wont happen. They both need/want neutral audiences, its as simple as that. Everything else you say might be true or not true, but, to me, theres no proof of Obama's lightweightedness or his duplicity or his lack of love for the the military from his being unwilling to debate in front of them. My point was that the leap of logic was false in my opinion