Fox's Your World onscreen text: "The #1 President On Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?"
SUMMARY: On Your World, during a segment in which Jonathan S. Tobin, the executive editor of The Jewish Exponent, chastised Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for "appeas[ing] the Arabs and try[ing] to pressure Israel not to take military advantage or not to defend itself fully," the onscreen text read: "The #1 President On Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?"
During the August 14 edition of Fox News' Your World, in a segment asking which U.S. president has had the most effective Mideast policy, the onscreen text read: "The #1 President On Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?" Jonathan S. Tobin, the executive editor of The Jewish Exponent -- a weekly newspaper "committed to ... providing the greater Philadelphia region with the best in Jewish journalism every week" -- who was interviewed on the program by host Neil Cavuto, chastised former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for "appeas[ing] the Arabs and try[ing] to pressure Israel not to take military advantage or not to defend itself fully." Tobin then praised President Bush for "having Israel's back" during its conflict with Hezbollah but asserted that the responsibility for any potential Israeli failures during the conflict do not "lie on President Bush." He added that Bush "gave Israel the green light" to continue its military campaign against Hezbollah and "hasn't tried to play the same game that ... President Clinton did with [late Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat, inviting him to the White House constantly and trying to raise the ante for Israel."
From the August 14 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: All right. Well, first, the cease-fire -- now the credit. Many critics were betting that President Bush would fail the test on the Israel and Hezbollah conflict, not my next guest. Jonathan Tobin says that this president's handling of the Mideast is the best this generation has seen by far. He's executive editor of The Jewish Exponent. So, this president is better on the Middle East than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton? Explain.
TOBIN: I think it's pretty easy to see why. Unlike President Carter and certainly President Clinton, who is the immediate past example, President Bush has gotten rid of some of the failed policies of the past, which, whenever there has been a crisis involving Israel and its Arab enemies, has -- the instinct has always been to appease the Arabs and try and pressure Israel not to take a military advantage or not to defend itself fully.
What we've seen in the last month is an example of President Bush having Israel's back. If Israel's military efforts in the last month have not resulted in a resounding victory, and like most Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, I've been certainly rooting for them -- and it doesn't look as if it's been a resounding victory. But the responsibility of that doesn't lie on President Bush. He gave Israel the green light it needed to do what it thought it needed to do and hasn't tried to play the same game that -- with -- as President Clinton did with Yasser Arafat, inviting him to the White House constantly and trying to raise the ante for Israel. That's just not the way it's gone.
...is somewhere laughing.
I'd like to see the formula for deciding the "Best" vs. the "Worst." Is there any look at the long-term effect of these strategies that make him the "best?"
Shoot 'em up/BangBang sounds good if this were a JohnWayne-western; however, in the real world, these reckless attacks serve to create deep-seated hatred, and serve no progressive purpose, outside of economic growth.
Hey!!..maybe that's the goal, in which case, he is the best.
Or the Greatest President?
Hahahaha. LOL. ROFLMAO. D-d-duhbya can't even say "middle east" let alone know what the blazes he is doing over there.
Heckuva job Bushie!
Apparently, the criteria in *this* conversation for "Best President on the Mideast" is: "Siding with Israel to the Exclusion of any Other Mitigating Circumstances or Contrary Evidence".
Please do not take this comment as any kind of "Israel is wrong" or "Israel is right" comment. I'm simply stating that the determination of "best" during this interview appears very one-sided and arbitrary.
What a desperate headline. The lows that FOX has to go to to appeal to their viewers. LOL.
I have a few suggestions for future FOX News headlines :
- The #1 Mostest Intelligent President on Foreign Policy Strategery: George W. Bush
- The #1 Biggest Supporter of Poland: George W. Bush
- The #1 President on Vacationizing: George W. Bush
- The #1 President Doing a Heckuva Job: George W. Bush
Ah, but you forgot the question mark that makes everything all right.
Democrats: Terrorists Lovers?
Terrorists: Are They Planning to Kill Your Mom?
Is George Bush God?
"Is George Bush God?"
That's a ridiculous insinuation and I'm insulted you'd even ask. No, George Bush is not God. All Christian conservatives know this. However, he is the messenger and will create the nececssary chaos allowing Jesus will to return to Earth.
I thought you woulda known that. Sheesh.
I had a question mark following my statement. So, you can't say I was implying George Bush is god.
Next topic: Is There Any Doubt That George W. Bush Is God?
Truly Orwellian. Diplomacy and prudence should now be called appeasement. Gee letting Isreal unleash its military worked out real well didnt it. Hezbollah is now stronger than ever. Isreal has cemented it as a political force as well as a military one. Are they this stupid? Are they not learning any lessons? I think they make decisions on psychological/honor reasons rather than rational/economic reasons.
Other than being correct on the miserable failure of Jimmy Carter's presidency, the rest of this is just more of Fox News Bush cheerleading. Can they be anymore obvious?
When was the last time Egypt attacked Isreal ? Have you heard of the camp David Accords?
No need to reply to this Tommy, I sure once you realize just how profoundly wrong you are, Tommy will slink off into the night.
These crazy younguns.
Could you provide examples of where Carter was that bad.
It would be best to confine the topic to the handling of the Middle East, because that is the topic at-hand.
I think that Bush and Carter had/have different goals in the middle east. It is apparent that Bush is not concerned with the issues of the Muslims in the middle east. And is just fine with letting Isrial fight as our proxy in his "Global War on Terror". In terms of this Bush is the best in the sense that he is the 1st president to have this policy. In the same manner that Hitler was the best at solving Jewish banking issues in Germany.
Could you provide examples of where Carter was that bad.
Thanks!
Good one, leave out his incredible mishandling of the Iranian hostage crisis and how much of that bungled failure has led us to where we are today with Iran.
Not to mention, even after he left office he brokered the unauthorized deal on nukes with North Korea and look where we are with them now - sabre rattling their nukes in our face.
Stick to building houses, now that he's good at.
140 Hostages EVERY ONE OF WHICH CAME HOME. Raygun had what about a dozen six of which were killed? And Carter gave the Iranians NOTHING to get the hostages back. As for N Korea, it was a good deal. IF we had actually come across with OUR part of the agreement, that is a non aggression pact and building those reactors to make up for the loss of power the closing of the one we had them close cost them we might NOT be seeing the problem we have now. Of course it didnt help that President Gump here called their leader a pygmy and threatened to nuke them. I would have to say Bushs ignorance isnt really Carters fault
You are doing nothing to dispell the label that many put on some liberals > appeasement.
Carter made us look weak and ineffectual in both instances. Bush is a failure in many respects, but that in no way elevates Carter in my book.
Because he didnt kill tens of thousands of Iranians? No Americans were killed in that crisis. The appeasement term is tossed around by cretins like you that cannot really justify your preferred I-want-to-get-as-many-Americans-killed-as-possible policy.
I would agree Carter wasnt an effective president. I bet even he would admit that. The Iranian crisis isnt one of the reasons though. The problem was solved through diplomacy. It worked, they were all kept alive and that is the real problem isnt it. Carter just didnt kill enough people for the truly bloodthirsty extra chromasome crowd.
The problem with calling something appeasement is its subjectivity. Some people call anything short of nuclear anihilation of their opponent "appeasement".
Adults have learned negotiation. Sometimes, I agree that negotiation fails. In the case of North Korea. Although it is arguable (as Solon notes) that the negotiations failed not because of appeasement, but us not living up to our own agreement for whatever reasons.
Appeasement is also usually assigned after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20. One man's negotiation concession becomes appeasement when that concession fails to get the desired changes in policy or actions.
Just because you throw around the label appeasement, does not automatically invalidate the art of negotiation as you seem to think. Negotiation has a long history of successes and failures. The successes are somehow rarely if ever labeled appeasement, however. I wonder why?
Open Mind - I think that appeasement is a part of negotiation. You might have said something to that effect in your post, but I want to make it clear that just because something might be labeled as appeasement, doesn't necessarily mean that a person/nation is weak. It's all part of negotiation and diplomacy - something of which the right wing of this country understands very, very little.
When I say "arms for hostages" What's the first thing that pops into your mind?
...but there is some evidence to demonstrate that Carter's failed mission to retrieve the hostages by force was sabotaged by Oliver North, who was one of the CO's on the mission and later one of the architect's of Reagan's Central American contra fiasco. Those helicopters on that mission had sand filters mysteriously missing. It's possible. Hey, I'm not agreeing, I'm just reporting ;)
---"Stick to building houses, now that [Carter's] good at."---
It takes a helluva lot more intelligence and compassion to build houses for the poor than it does to clear brush from one's own ranch-about the only thing Bush that doesn't tax Bush's mental capacity.
Iran wanted Reagan to be President
This is why they waited until Reagan was sworn in before they finally released the hostages.
There was no way that a midievel mindset like the Tehran regime was going to allow a modern-day liberal like Carter to recieve any credit for properly handling that crisis.
Now, an authoritarian figure like Reagan... that was someone that they UNDERSTOOD! That was someone that they could DEAL with!
I sometimes wonder how many of the rockets that Hezbollah has shot into Isreal in this latest conflict were purchased form the Reagan Administration in return for hostages as a part of Irangate.
I was the only person left who knew that!
"This is why they waited until Reagan was sworn in before they finally released the hostages.
There was no way that a midievel mindset like the Tehran regime was going to allow a modern-day liberal like Carter to recieve any credit for properly handling that crisis"
President Carter was responsible for precipitating the hostage crisis in Iran by allowing the ailing Shah of Iran to enter the US for medical treatment.
He was not responsible for the conditions inside Iran that caused the Shah to leave his position. He was not responsible for the kidnapping of our citizens.
American, Iranian relations were based on our accepting the fact that the Shah would become a dictator. We sold him weapons, he sold us oil. In order for the Shah to afford the best weapons and aircraft that the US could export, he had to go against OPEC and raise the price of his crude oil. This was on the main causes of the oil crisis of the mid to late 1970s.
The Shah cracked down on dissent within Iran. He is responsible for bringing about The Iranian Revolution. The students and dissidents who overran our embassy in Teheran were the people who held our citizens captive.
President Carter approved the rescue attempt which ended in failure. It's failure had nothing to do with President Carter. It had everything to do with the weather (a sandstorm, which disabled some of the helicopters) and the inability of the USMC, the USAF and the US Army to coordinate operations. The operation was aborted.
President Carter could have done more militarily to get the hostages back, but that would have risked an all out war with Iran. At the time the nation was in no mood for another protracted war. The Vietnam War had ended just prior to Carter's term. I'd like to say that we were still not over the wounds of that war by then, but, we're not over them today. We probably never will be.
President Carter is an easy target. The right has portrayed him as weak, but they define anyone as week who is not willing to risk American military personnel every time a problem arises. We can't fight our way out of every situation. The only people who think we can are those who've never had to fight themselves.
"You have a good point
If they continue to blame everyone from the mainstream media to Karl Rove to Paris Hilton for their losses, they will continue to lose. When they finally take responsibility, realize it's their candidate's fault they lose and not every other influence on the planet, then maybe they will win.
(holding breath)" :>)
- tommy / Tuesday August 15, 2006 03:13:23 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Or should I assume you are too young to remember the Carter presidency?
I'll give you a hint: it involved Egypt.
---"the miserable failure of Jimmy Carter's presidency"---
The grieving families of the 50,000 to 100,000 dead Iraqis would disagree as to whether it's Carter or George W. "bring 'em on" Bush that is the "miserable failure", as would I and almost every one else on this board.
But of course---Tommy knows that.
Fox is making it increasingly difficult for people like Stephen Colbert to effectively satirize them. It's beyond satire at this point. When reality has already been pushed to Orwellian extremes it makes any further exaggeration pointless. Colbert should just play the clip and throw up his hands.
Okay, I know, comparisons to Nazi Germany are overdone...but where else can we go in history to find appropriate parallels? Soviet Russia, perhaps? With Fox news, we're looking at, essentially, state controlled media. Not even Pravda was this blatant. It has become a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. This is sickening. I'm waiting for the giant, idealized portraits of Bush to be unfurled on government buildings...watch for it.
I used to drive my dad to VA clinics before he died in 2003. I noticed that HUGE photos of Bush and Cheney were always present when you walked in. Reminded me of all them photos of Saddam plastered all over Baghdad. Dictators tend to think alike, eh?
Without having hard numbers to refer to, I think it's safe to say that more people have died in the middle east as a direct or indirect result of U.S. Action under Bush than any other President. Yep, he's #1.
"To me, he looks like Number 2, you know what I mean?"
"Don't ask...It's disgusting."
Great flick reference, wonder how many others got it.
I gotta give the righties something to criticize...
Jonathan Tobin is a stoopid idiot with poopy pants.
Look, they were just asking a question... I'm sure next we'll see "George W Bush: War Criminal?" or "Bush: dumbest president ever?" on Fox too.
Bush: Most Inarticulate President Ever?
Bush: Did He Steal Both Elections?
Bush, a Bin Laden Business Partner?
___ Day Since "Mission Accomplished"
___ Day of the Iraqi Civil War
Did Abramoff Pay Off Most Or All Republicans?
#1 current president.
Like when I tell my only brother that he's my favorite brother.
At least this was a good excuse to bring up Carter.That devil.If we remember correctly, he's the one that DIDN'T negotiate with terrorists.
I don't know how, as an earlier posted suggested, that led us to where we are now in the Middle-East. I would suggest some post-Carter deals, Iran-Contra, for example.
Best president on Middle East matters?
He hasn't done a damn thing, except blow up Iraq.
He's done nothing, nada, zip, zero.
He's had nothing to do with the cease-fire agreement.
But, you know this makes sense, to have FOX declare him the best president and try to convince the rest of us. Neil is a such a fool.
i lol'd irl... i really did, this is hilarious. i'd like to see stewart take this headline on
Decide for yourself...
[link to www.oldamericancentury.org]
It's a pretty compelling argument. Even for the righties.
Mideast is supposed to refer to the mideast of the United States to cluster the rough, hilly North American cities in the former Manufacturing Belt such as: Cleveland, Akron, Buffalo, Erie, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Youngstown (including Sharon-Farrell-New Castle, PA).
The Middle East is a loosely defined term for the historical and cultural subregion of Africa-Eurasia.
Mideast sounds like another Bushism to me.
we use Newspeak. Don't like it? I'll turn you into HomeSec!
I'm proud that I voted for Carter twice, is anyone really proud that they voted for Bush twice? They might say it, but in the middle of the night, do they really believe it?
When looking back at Carter's administration, don't forget his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: a boycott of the 1980 summer olympics and political pressure. The republican response: giving arms to the mujhideen, including BinLaden. At the time, the repubs hammered Carter and praised Reagan, but look what the long-term effects are-9-11.
As for the Iranian hostage situation, to thoughts: 1-that mess was an end product of a CIA coup in the 50's that put in the Shah and his ugly repressive dictatorship (much like Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq that we , both parties unfortunetely, supported) Carter didn't cause the takeover.
2-Compare the deaths in the failed rescue attempt in Carter's administration with the US deaths in Iraq. The end result will be the same in both countries: an Islamic theocracy controlling our gas pumps.
I'm proud that I voted for Carter twice, is anyone really proud that they voted for Bush twice? They might say it, but in the middle of the night, do they really believe it?
--------------------------------------------------
Already, no Republican running for office wants to be associated with Duhbya. Bush voters are getting as scarce as people who admit to having voted for Nixon. Soon no one will admit to ever having voted for the moron.
On the other hand, Carter is a beloved statesman who is highly regarded throughout the world.
knew enough not to talk with his mouth full...That tells you all you need to know about bush.
I remember as a kid reading a Spider-Man comic where J. Jonah Jameson had smeared the headline: "Spider-Man: Threat or Menace?" across the front of the Daily Bugle.
Even as a kid I was incredulous that anyone would be dumb enough to buy into such a false set of choices, but then that was before Fox News was hatched.
Adding "some say" or a question mark after riculously ideologically slanted pronouncements seems to be all Fox requires to soothe their worries that they are delivering propaganda instead of news.
is an ultra-zionist like Sharon or Netanyahu who thinks the best approach to the Palestinian crisis is to let them all die and suffer. You have to understand the man making these statements. He is a loose cannon, unhinged, so immersed in radical expansionist policies that he cannot see the horror this is casuing innocent civilians throughout Palestine (remembeer there?) and Lebanon.
Tobin is a lunatic nutball. Clinton bent over backwards for Israel. All of the proposals he offered Araft for land in the region was totally one-sided in favor of Israel, see Chomsky's detailed discussion of the Clinton legacy in that region in "Failed States."
I fail to see a real policy by the U.S. other than to do nothing to stop the bloodshed. So Tobin is praising Bush because he is content to let thousands of people die, most of whom are innocent civilians? That clearly shows that Tobin is a supporter of mass murder and suffering who needs mental help NOW!
Tobin? Sounds like a hot dog. I am constantly befuddled why people watch this crap. Cable news is a bunch yahoos interviewing other yahoos who don't know what the hell they are talking about.
this way they can just pretend that their on-screen title just reflects "someone's statement" (no matter identifying the "someone").
What a great idea! Maximum deniability.
I can give them some good ideas for upcoming on-screen titles:
Democrats: All Proven Terrorists?
Republicans: The Only Moral Party in America?
John Dean: The Antichrist risen?
Senator Clinton: Covert Muslim Terror Agent?
Fox News: Journalism at it's Best?
according to this poster, a resounding yes.
Although you can find detractors,with their obvious agendas.
Bush: shapeless mass of protoplasm?
Don't put Jimmy Carter and Bush in the same time zone, what to speak of sentence.
Bush: best reader of My Pet Goat since Sparky, the Wonder Chicken?
Bush: IQ of a styrofoam cup?
Somehow, in this weird and goofy world we live in these days you just KNEW that it had to happen...Joe Scarborough did a show on whether Bush is an Idiot. The best Bush blooper reel anywhere. Serious discussion followed with Joe not being so kind to our Dear Leader. I didn't tape it, but if I remember correctly they used a question mark too. Hmmmmm.....
Carter urged Americans to conserve, & to seek alternative energy sources, as a means of lessening our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.
Carter altered long established principles in forign policy, insisting that we support governments that were genuinely democratic, rather than merely relying on claims that they were anticommunist. This caused considerable consternation among many of our traditional allies. This policy demanded that brutal, fascistic, caudillo regimes do more than torture communists alongside the Jeffersonian democrats that they generally prefered.
Carter presided over an historical (& long lived) agreement between Isreal & Egypt that caused BOTH SIDES to make GENUINE CONCESSIONS to the other. The absense of legitimate residual grievances from either side towards the other has allowed each to treat the other as primarily a TRADING PARTNER.
But, other than that, what did he ever do for us?
Eh, Tommy?
says that Carter was responsible for the Irananian Hostage crisis because he allowed the Shah of Iran to come into the US for medical treatment- against the wishes of the radicals in Iran. In other words, Carter should have let the Iranian radicals dictate policy and refused to let the Shah in.
In other words, Carter should have APPEASED the radicals. Because he refused to, he's responsible for the actions of the radicals.
If Bill Clinton had killed Osama Bin Laden in August 1998 and 9/11 had happened anyway, Worrierking would today be blaming Clinton for 9/11 because "we angered Muslim racials with Clinton's rash actions." There's no point in trying to win an argument with someone like this.
Worrierking, when did you join the Blame America First crowd?
I wasn't trying to blame Carter. I was defending him. I said that he was responsible for precipitating the taking of the hostages not that he was responsible for them being taken. His allowing the Shah in for treatment was a humanitarian act. I voted for President Carter, twice. I've never regretted my choice.
Sorry if I confused anyone.
that with the neocons' much-professed love of all things military (provided someone else goes and does the fighting), that they would have nominated GW's father as the biggest success among U.S. presidents regarding the middle east. After all, with Operation Desert Storm, there was a clear reason for the conflict, a definite stated goal, a genuine coalition with other nations, a quick victory, and relatively few deaths. In the aftermath, GHW's popularity rating shot up to the 90% range, which only eventually eroded due to his inept handling of the economy.
I don't mean to cheerlead GHW Bush, or his middle east war--I'm just surprised that so many neocons seem to have forgotten about it completely.
This is absolutely bizarre that anyone would even suggest that Bush is the best President on any issue... except perhaps incompetence.
Funny, though, how Bush's handling of the Israel/ Hezbollah issue is lauded... yet the end result is that Hezbollah came out of it, as George Will pointed out, enhanced in prestige. Rather than being just a sub-state of Lebanon, Hezbollah is the tail that wags the dog.
And just for the benefit of my conservative friends the above comments are not intended, nor should they be construed, as rooting for Hezbollah.
"And just for the benefit of my conservative friends the above comments are not intended, nor should they be construed, as rooting for Hezbollah."
there's no point saying this. Any person with half a brain knows that without you having to point this out. For those that don't understand this, they'll interpret your comments as pro-hezbollah no matter what you say, it's part of their reasoning: those who don't agree with us root for terrorists.
I think there are plenty of people in the Mideast who would disagree.
Probably a lot of people in the Middle East as well.
Bush Presidential Library = Phamplet carousel in the lobby of the Crawford Wal-Mart,
and even that will be only be half full, or is it half empty---I always get those mixed up...
SeattleJohn
to a simple question. NO. That's all folks.
Cheney: Tool of the Energy Industry?
Gonzalez: Fan of Torture?
Rice: Gangsta Rap Afficionado?
Rumsfeld: Senile?
Snow: Master of Lies?