Comments on: Israeli Generals Endorse Obama

By: Dissident Voice : War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History

Dissident Voice : War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:56:17 +0000

[...] in the White House. On the eve of the last American presidential election Israeli Generals had been filmed denouncing President Bush for “damaging Israeli interests for being overwhelmingly [...]

By: Gilad Atzmon - War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History | Sabbah

Gilad Atzmon - War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History | Sabbah — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:17:02 +0000

[...] in the White House. On the eve of the last American presidential election Israeli Generals had been filmed denouncing President Bush for "damaging Israeli interests for being overwhelmingly [...]

By: War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History | WTF?! Obama

War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History | WTF?! Obama — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:14:08 +0000

By: Gilad Atzmon – War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History | Palestine Think Tank

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:00:59 +0000

By: Yossi Preminger

Yossi Preminger — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:24:41 +0000

Thanks for reminding me that the left, just like the right, has special clauses which allow for lower ethical standards during election times.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:38:07 +0000

@Yossi Preminger:

their statements were edited according to criteria decided BEFORE they were interviewed

Aw c’mon. That happens all the time in filmmaking. The filmmakers had a concept of what they wanted their film to be and say beforehand. Big deal.

Now, if you could prove that the film makes the interviewees appear to say or believe things that they didn’t say or don’t believe, then you’d have a legitimate complaint. If you could show fr. the full transcript of interviews that the editing did violence to the interviewees actual real, full statements, again you’d have a case. Until you can do so, you’re tilting at windmills.

No one claims this is a documentary. It is a campaign video produced by an independent campaign group. Again, what are you “on” about?

By: amir

amir — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:29:12 +0000

The problem isn’t with the content of the film. Everybody has a right to support Obama and to be in favor of a dialogue with Iran. Those are legitimate positions.
The problem is with the Obama supporters who sought the involvement of foreigners in the election (generals no less – imagine if someone made a movie of Pakistni generals telling us who they support in the election) and the deceitful way in which they got at least some of them to participate. If those same people donated 100 dollars to Obama’s campaign, Obama would, by law, have to decline the donation. But this video is worth a lot more than 100 dollars. So where is Obamas voice in this whole sorry affair.
But you especially should denounce this film after what you said in the prior post.

The other point is that you have written a lot about the JRC anti-Obama add. But your argument is not convincing. Being Anti-Israel or Pro-Palestinian is an opinion. You call just about anyone an Islamophobe, but to qualify as anti-Israel you want proof that that person literally called for the destruction of Israel and the killing of all its Jewish inhabitants before earning that title. Most of the people the adds refer to were close to Obama at one point, but Obama distanced himself from them only because they hurt his campaign. When Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright do you really think its because he learned something about him that he didn’t know over the previous 20 years? Give me a break. The voting public has a right to know what the real Obama thinks, and not the one trying to win an election. One way of finding this out is through the people he has associated with in the past. Having said that, I still like Obama. I won’t vote for him, probably, but I like him.

By: Yossi Preminger

Yossi Preminger — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:09:33 +0000

This is a bit worse than lack of candor. The people in question probably tried to keep their statements balanced only to find that their statements were edited according to criteria decided BEFORE they were interviewed. This is not a documentary. If this were a documentary, you’d say it’s the type of documentary Fox news might produce. I highly recommend reading Al Franken’s book about right wing propaganda, you’ll see they use these tactics regularly and you’ll be rightfully outraged.
Remember the picture of Obama wearing a turban ? Fair game, or dishonestly used out of context ?
Creationists use these tactics quite often too. You’ll find them cherry picking scientific articles for statements which, when “properly” presented, seem to imply that the scientist in question expresses doubt about evolution.