Hannity asked if Carter's planned Hamas meeting was a sign of Obama's "foreign policy strategy" -- but Obama has denounced Hamas
SUMMARY: Fox News' Sean Hannity previewed a segment about former President Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with a Hamas leader by asking, "Is this what the Obama foreign policy will look like?" In fact, Sen. Barack Obama has said his willingness to meet with international adversaries "does not include Hamas."
On the April 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity previewed a segment about former President Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshal by asking: "Is this what the Obama foreign policy will look like when he says he wants to talk to everyone, including [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" Later in the show, Hannity again teased the segment by asking: "Could this be a preview of [Sen.] Barack Obama's foreign policy strategy?" During the segment, Hannity asserted: "But there's also a broader concern. Is this the kind of talk-to-everyone foreign policy that we can expect from a new Democratic administration? After all, Barack Obama says he is in favor of talking to everyone, including Syria's terrorist sponsor, the Iranians. Now, doesn't this embolden terrorists by giving them legitimacy -- the legitimacy they crave?" However, neither Hannity nor co-host Alan Colmes, nor the guests during the segment -- Ralph Reed and Pat Caddell -- noted that Obama has previously stated that his willingness to meet with international adversaries "does not include Hamas."
Reuters reported on March 3 that Obama "has said he would break with President George W. Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas." From the March 3 report:
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration's policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.
The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel.
Obama has said in the past he would be willing to meet with leaders with whom the Bush administration strongly disagrees, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Cuban leader Raul Castro.
Obama, hoping to win his party's nomination to face likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain in the November presidential election, said his willingness to meet with foes "does not include Hamas."
"You can't negotiate with somebody who does not recognize the right of a country to exist so I understand why Israel doesn't meet with Hamas," Obama told reporters during a campaign stop in San Antonio, Texas.
From the April 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: And still to come tonight, Jimmy Carter is headed to visit Hamas. Yes, Hamas. Is this what the Obama foreign policy will look like when he says he wants to talk to everyone, including Ahmadinejad? Lots more to come as Hannity & Colmes continues straight ahead.
[...]
HANNITY: In Gaza, Jimmy Carter reportedly makes plans to meet -- get this -- with Hamas. The same Jimmy Carter has been accused of anti-Semitism. Could this be a preview of Barack Obama's foreign policy strategy?
[...]
HANNITY: The Associated Press is reporting that a senior Hamas official confirmed that former president Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled leader of Hamas, while in Syria next week. The visit raises obvious concerns. Tensions between the U.S. and Syria remain high over Damascus support of known terrorist organization. Also, Carter isn't exactly a friend of Israel these days. He was accused of anti-Semitism last year in a book that he wrote, which led to the resignation of several members of the Carter Center's board.
But there's also a broader concern. Is this the kind of talk-to-everyone foreign policy that we can expect from a new Democratic administration? After all, Barack Obama says he is in favor of talking to everyone, including Syria's terrorist sponsor, the Iranians. Now, doesn't this embolden terrorists by giving them legitimacy -- the legitimacy they crave? Joining us now, Republican strategist Ralph Reed and former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.
jimmy carter is no where near the embarrassment that is George W Bush.
I agree.
28 years ago, President Jimmy Carter told us that excessive dependence on foreign oil was a clear and present danger to our security. The Reagan-Bush petro-politics that followed proved him correct.
the two of you have really added to the discussion. thank you very much for your inane contributions. - Rumpy
This comes from a person whose most recent contribution is a criticism of an ex-President for something you fantasized about him doing. And you call their posts inane? At least they dealt with facts rather than fantasy.
He indeed warned of such dependence, while being a buttboy for NatureFakers, as was Clinton. Therefore, vast quantities of oil and gas are not drillable, and we suffer the consequences.
But wait--we can all mount propellers on our hats, and then run fast to turn 'em, thus generating power. Kinda like corn-based ethanol.
Talkin' 'bout presidents who cater to a childish, suicidal ExtreemGreen mindset, and you know who they were, are, and will be.
And don't bitch about oil price if you don't want to use our excellent technology (our drillers use it everywhere else, as they drill for other countries) to drill in Anwar, offshore, etc.
"And don't bitch about oil price if you don't want to use our excellent technology (our drillers use it everywhere else, as they drill for other countries) to drill in Anwar, offshore, etc."
That's it. If we keep drilling everywhere, we will have oil forever!! What a great plan. Good grief.
I gotta agree here about Carter, what is this man thinking?
As far as Obama while it's true he has said he would not meet with Hamas, here's what he said when asked about Carter's planned meeting:
Barack Obama, the US Democratic presidential hopeful, said he will not criticize Carter, although he said he would not meet the Palestinian group.
"I'm not going to comment on former president Carter. He's a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with," Obama said.
I think Obama should have condemned Carter's trip forcefully instead of taking the easy way out.
I don't agree with talking to Hamas either, but it's noteworthy to point out that they were democratically elected to seats on the Palestinian Authority.
When the U.S. keeps promoting the virtues of democracy around the globe, we should be careful what we wish for, and be prepared to deal with it, because housing, money, food and opportunity from organizations like Hamas can be very powerful in swaying the vote of dirt poor citizens.
No, I didn't forget, but many of the people who voted for Hamas either forgot or simply didn't care, because a very well-financed Hamas makes the necessities I listed above available to them when no one else will.
They claim the policy of isolation is not working.
A poll earlier this year in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that 64 percent of Israelis favor direct talks with Hamas."
This from http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/10/bush-administration-urges-carter-not-to-meet-with-hamas/
And swiftboated. Don't forget swiftboated.
Jimmy Carter is an incredible embarrassment to all of us.
You've got it all wrong. Bush is the "incredible embarrassment to us all." He has singlehandedly destroyed America's reputation in the span of two to three years.
I have a question. What is wrong with entertaining questions? What is wrong with being diplomatic? I don't know so I'm asking. We pick and choose who we consider to be an enemy. Case in point we hate Cuba and refuse to trade with them because they are communist, and yet we get everything made in China - even our mortgages are being sold to them. So what's wrong with talking? Just asking.
August, that doesn't often get answered in any reasonable way. Usually the closest you get is that talking shows weakness, or condones the behavior of those you're talking to.
I know that cops are pretty enthusiastic about talking to criminals, and military people go to great lengths to talk to their enemies after they're engaged in war and have captured a few of them, but there seems to be some real terror, especially by conservatives, of dealing with the "evildoers" as if, deep down somewhere, they might just be f*888d up people.
I would think that those who are certain they're right, and the other guy's wrong, would be eager to lay everything out. That could only expose the bad guys as bad, right?
I'm not aware that the Chinese are dumb enough to buy our securitized mortgages.
Are you sure?
....of course, buying our Treasury bonds (fixed rate instrument) when we're inflating to beat hell--that's not very smart. Why would anybody buy our Treasury paper, currently? Because of what backs it ("the full faith and credit of the United States")? What are the actual nuts and bolts of that statement? They ARE spelled out--somewhere.