Monday, June 07, 2010

Why was the White House so quiet on Helen Thomas?

I mean, Obama is the guy who passed judgement on the entire Cambridge Police department based strictly on media reports, and his Administration could not wait to jump all over Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, calling it racist and regrettable (orwas it regrettably racist?) before even reading the damn bill. So why so quiet when a high profile White House correspondent - a favorite of the president, no less - spouts such vicious anti-Semitism?

Jennifer Rubin, on another subject, hits close to home - she quotes Desmond Tutu, speaking at Ford's theatre:

We cannot accept, unless we want to destroy ourselves . . . the blockade of Gaza,” Tutu said in an invocation calling for peace and recognition of human rights across the world “but especially that critical part of the world, the Middle East.”

...and she brings it right back to Helen Thomas:

It is the Mary Robinson-Desmond Tutu-J Street mentality that finds great favor with this president, who showers attention on and doles out accolades to those who share his view of Israel as oppressor, victimizer, and obstructionist.

And that answers the rhetorical question that the title of this post asks. Why was Obama silent on Helen Thomas' anti-Semitism?

The same reason he never felt a need, until politically expedient, to disavow his mentor's (the despicable Reverend Wright) numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks.

Because he agrees with them.

You see? Barack Obama does have principles he will not sell out, after all...they just weren't the same ones he highlighted during his campaign...

No comments: