Fox allowed Ralph Reed to repeat Bush's false claim that "Obama has said that he will embrace Ahmadinejad"
SUMMARY: On The Big Story, Ralph Reed repeated the false claim that Sen. Barack Obama "has said that he will embrace [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," a claim President Bush made recently on Fox News Sunday, which was not challenged by Chris Wallace. John Gibson did not rebut Reed's assertion.
During the February 12 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, former Christian Coalition of America director and Republican strategist Ralph Reed repeated the false claim that "[Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] has said that he will embrace [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," which President Bush had made in an interview with Chris Wallace two days before. On the February 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Bush told host Chris Wallace: "I certainly don't know what he [Obama] believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." While Wallace failed to challenge either false claims -- Obama did not say that "he's going to attack Pakistan" either -- Big Story host John Gibson similarly failed to challenge Reid's repetition of Bush's claim regarding Ahmadinejad.
Obama has not said he would "embrace Ahmadinejad," as Bush and Reed asserted. As a February 11 Washington Post article on Bush's comments reported: "Obama said he would be willing to meet with rogue leaders such as Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to talk through differences, but he did not embrace him." Indeed, during the July 23, 2007, CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina, a participant asked the candidates:
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
Obama replied:
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
While discussing Bush's comments on the February 11 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, commentator Jack Cafferty said of Wallace: "[T]he guy conducting the interview over there on the 'F' word network never called him [Bush] on it, never challenged him on it, never said he [Obama] didn't say he was going to embrace Ahmadinejad. He just let it go." After co-host Wolf Blitzer responded, "He said he'd have a direct dialogue with Ahmadinejad," Cafferty replied: "That's not embracing, that's having a meeting with him. There's a whole difference."
From the February 12 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with Gibson and Nauert:
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (guest co-host): Well, Ralph, let's talk about some of the strengths as you see them for McCain. I mean, he has been around a lot longer than Barack Obama. He's had his name on a lot of numbers of legislation, some very controversial. But he is a man with credible experience. How is he going to strategically be able to shift the dialogue, as we approach the general election, to the issues that matter to this country and not just the personality of politics?
REED: Well, the first thing that John McCain is going to be doing, of course, is he's going to be beginning every day, praying that Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. Because she starts off with 47 percent of the American people saying they're not going to vote for her under any circumstances. That's a race I'm sure he wants much more.
If you look at the AP/Ipsos poll, he's trailing Barack Obama by six in that poll, by eight in another poll, whereas he's essentially tied with Clinton. But if he does end up with Obama, I think you make the election about national security. You make it about experience. This is somebody who wants to raise taxes. He wants government-run health care.
Obama has said that he will embrace Ahmadinejad. He's said that he will begin an immediate and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. And he said he would meet with [Cuban President Fidel] Castro in the first year of his administration with no preconditions whatsoever. I've got to tell you, that's not going to sell with Hispanic voters in South Florida.
And I think he's got a lot of other vulnerabilities as well. I think what you do if you're McCain and you do end up with Obama is kill him with kindness. Acknowledge that this guy is a star, that he's a great talent, and that he's articulate and eloquent. He's simply not ready to be president and his values are out of step with where the American people are.
JOHN GIBSON (co-host): We're going to have to leave it there. Ralph Reed, thanks a lot, and Steve McMahon. Thanks to our Republican strategist and Democratic strategist. See you guys later.
talking about? Great link, MM. Fix it!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I would like to say only on Fox, but really that isn't true. The networks of today have no responsibilty, or obligation to serve the public, they need only please their board of directors, and in a greater sense the corporate agenda of profit above all other priorities. Short sighted profits today for it will be somebody else tomorrow.
In comes Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition Super Star fallen like a pile from a old nags ass. Abramoff's punk who was one of the screaming thugs at the doors of the election office in 2000, desparate to stop the vote from being counted.
Ralph Reed, the political analyst? He's little more than a college educated gangster who has always let others do his dirty work in God's name. It's so great to be a Republican, white, and a Bushie. Thank God for the voters of Georgia. This pecker wood should be in a jail, or if he were a real gangster, in his grave.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
That's exactly who Fox turns to for "reasoned" debate and analysis. Unreasonable party hacks.
I've also noticed the appearance of Delay, Santorum, and George Allen. Who cares what these failed politicos have to say? What's next, a round table of Ney, Foley, and Cunningham?
Talking to, and figuring out where everyone stands, is not the same as embracing someone or another country for that matter. I like how a lot of republicans look at things in terms of total black and white, and there is no middle ground, or room for movement. When did this happen? I know that a lot of it happened during the neocon movement and all, but how in the world? As others have said, Reagan, the poster boy that all republicans worship for some reason, used to talk to our enemies. Bush I did as well. Hell, Nixon went to China for crying out loud. And so on, and so forth. When you don't talk to countries and leaders of said countries that we are at odds with, that isolates them further, and makes them afraid, I think, of the possibility of the the US using force on them for some reason or another.
As far as Pakistan, I don't believe Obama said anything about attacking the country, en masse, but rather made statements that if he had good solid intelligence about potential high level terrorists (Osama I'm pointing at you) that were within Pakistan, he would mount efforts and send in force to get them out, or kill them where they were. Whether that be cruise missiles launched from a destroyer, or a special ops team infiltrating and taking them down, I would applaud those efforts, and Pakistan would have to get over it, because hey, you're harboring (whether you know it or not) terrorists. Thing is, send in say, Delta operators, nobody would ever know who it was that went in there and took them down. There is a reason why these things are known as "covert" operations.
This item is the middle of three, presently the most recent ones that are published by MMFA, and all concerning Mr. Obama (the other two having Fox air someone calling him a "halfrican", and a Fox radio guy airing "side by side" speeches by Mr. Obama and by Hitler).
It's becoming fairly clear now, and without a doubt, how much more these people are going to enjoy running against Mr. Obama for control of the administration of our Federal Government, than they would have "enjoyed" running against Mrs. Clinton...
...and "enjoyed" is nowhere near a right way to describe how they feel in trying to slander and destroy the reputation of Mrs. Clinton... it's more like they are frustrated in those attempts, or are made weary as they fire away at her (to little success)...
Or maybe you'd say they themselves were stung and embarrassed and angered, as Mrs. Clinton LAUGHED right in their stupid insulting self-serious faces...
LAUGHED right in their faces, because she is by now (after all these years) immune to them, and their insults... even her reputation (truly) is not harmed any more by what they say against her presently, because we've all heard it so many times before... and in fact, as Fox et al hack away at her, it is more like them who are harmed by it, than her.
And this is joyfully puncuated when Mrs. Clinton LAUGHS right at their faces, and they burn and seethe and can't over that sting (as you all saw played out, a few months ago).
This is the point: That Mr. Obama is not going to do nearly as well against these character assassins, as Mrs. Clinton has now long-proved she is able.
In this matter, I would characterize Mrs. Clinton (and her husband the former president) as FIRE-PROOF, and Mr. Obama (and his wife too I guess) as dried tinder just ready to be burned...
And that's without even alluding as yet to cocaine, which as you will see I'm sure, is a card that slimy side of the political table is holding close to their vest, and will play with a brilliant flourish when the time is right, probably with eye-witness testimony and who knows what other spectacular evidence or details.
Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are for some time now immune and for all intents and purposes FIRE-PROOF from such stuff... such stuff as will burn Mr. Obama terribly, in the dry months of July and August, and September and October too...
I'm a betting man. I'm weighing all things, and I'm seeing that the recent "media" campaign to promote Mr. Obama is paying off, and their incessant coverage of him in "glowing" and "inspirational" and "hopeful" terms (did chris matthews really say a shiver went up his leg at hearing Barak speak?), has had great success...
And we know the "media's" interests to be our own, and for them to work always honestly and sincere and without manipulation of us, right?
It's paying off. They may actually have worked what I would have thought tremendously difficult at the least, and have stopped Mrs. Clinton from gaining the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, and instead to see it go to Mr. Obama.
I'd have never guessed even two months ago, that that could be done.
Brilliant. Successful. "Mission Accomplished".
I'm a wide-awake eyes-and-ears-open realist, and can accept and appreciate facts and reality as well as anybody, and I consider Mr. Obama at this time (as I said, I'm a betting man) to be at least a fifty-fifty shot to gain the nomination...
Which if that then happens, I make him a 3:2 underdog against Mr. McCain in the General Election, and therefore make Republicans a 3:2 favorite to capture (and continue) the administration of our Federal Government.
Because when they get through burning this young man in the "media", this young man that truly we don't know much about (starnge how they're not playing the "cocaine card" just now, despite how there seems to be no doubt about it, even an admission of the facts), when they finish burning him and his wife, all August and all September and all October, you won't even recognize him anymore... he'll be toast, like John Kerry was.
I'll bet money on it.
Obama is laying waste to to the Clinton machine and shows no signs of stumbling under the weight of Republican slime machine.
Moreover, Obama has something Kerry never had, he has the overwhelming support of an effetive and dedicated grassroots/netroots movement.
He's just a guy, one guy. He's gonna need help in those dry months, as will Clinton if she can regain her composure. It will require monumental efforts by the people to beat back the advancing Republican smear gangs, but this time around Repubulicans won't know what hit 'em.
Best to hedge your bets at this particular moment.
The fact is, he has proven to be far more effective in out maneuvering the Clinton machine than anyone could have predicted. She was the presumptive nominee. Hillary was supposed to have this nomination wrapped up by now, she was miles ahead not that long ago. Obama just keeps closing the gap.
We'll see how it goes in PA and OH.
More and more often, though, in state after state, whenever the two candidates have the opportunity to present their argument to the voters, Obama persuades more of them that he should be the next president.
We'll see. I prefer Obama slightly as it stands now, but I can get excited about Hillary if she gets the nomination.
And don't forget about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, who will most likely both attend the Convection, and cast their votes for the nominee... Democrats in those States are unlikely to be disenfranchised in this matter, simply because they did what New Hampshire also did before them, and in the case of Florida, what Nevada and South Carolina also did too... Michigan and Florida having jumped up ahead in line, not to first in line, but still behind those other States mentioned.
It seems unlikely the Democratic folks of those two populous States (Florida being almost an Electoral "lynchpin") are going to be disenfranchised from the selection of the Democratic nominee, for that reason.
The true question is: "Does the nation of Iran, under this particular bearded guy or not, it doesn't matter... does Iran threaten the National Security of the U.S.?"
It's a question we ask of any and all nations, and it's answer dictates our Foreign Policy posture, friendly cold aggressive or hostile, towards them...
If Iran (or any other nation) is a threat to the American People, then there must be a reason for it...
What's the reason in Iran's case?
And if you find nothing to cite, that makes Iran a National Security threat to the U.S., then you're probably a sane and rational person...
But if you claim Iran is a National Security threat to the American People, then you're probably a member or supporter of the Bush administration...
And like them, you won't be able to give a sane and rational answer, to why Iran threatens the American People.