Fox & Friends allowed Avlon to falsely suggest that Obama's "attitude of negotiating with all our enemies" includes Hamas
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, former New York Sun columnist John Avlon discussed Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with a Hamas leader and claimed: "[T]his is going to really resurrect some of the old ghosts and bring [Sen. Barack] Obama's attitude of negotiating with all our enemies under further scrutiny." In fact, Obama has reportedly stated that his willingness to meet with international adversaries "does not include Hamas."
During the April 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani and former New York Sun columnist John Avlon discussed former President Jimmy Carter's planned meeting with a Hamas leader and claimed, without challenge from co-hosts Andrew Napolitano and Gretchen Carlson: "[T]his is going to really resurrect some of the old ghosts and bring [Sen. Barack] Obama's attitude of negotiating with all our enemies under further scrutiny." In fact, Obama has reportedly stated that his willingness to meet with international adversaries "does not include Hamas."
As Media Matters for America has noted, 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." According to Reuters, Obama said at a campaign stop in San Antonio: "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."
From the April 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
NAPOLITANO: Hey, Larry, what's the potential problem, or problems, with Jimmy Carter sitting down with Hamas today?
LARRY EICHEL (Philadelphia Inquirer): Well, I'm not sure voters here in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary are sort of putting that all together. I mean, I know that Carter has said some kind words about Obama. He hasn't endorsed him. But I think, you know, people aren't quite putting that all together yet.
CARLSON: Mm-hmm. But immediately Obama disavowed himself from Carter's trip, John.
AVLON: Yeah, and this could be a real problem. I mean, this ties back into the idea that Democrats are generally maybe naive on foreign policy. And Jimmy Carter, you know, one of the statesmen of the party, man of peace, meeting with an avowed terrorist organization who've killed at least 10 Americans over the last decade and a half. So this is going to really resurrect some of the old ghosts and bring Obama's attitude of negotiating with all our enemies under further scrutiny.
NAPOLITANO: And of course --
CARLSON: And is it legal?
This is definately nit picking.
Carlson clearly tells Avlon that Obama distanced himself from Carters trip. Avlon acknowledged that as true by responding with "Yeah, and...", not "But..".
IMO, hes really referring to the fact that Obama is willing to negotiate with just about all our enemies.
After all, our all-volunteer force is ready and able for us to forgo any negotiation and get straight to the bombin' and invadin', as are our allies in the coalition of the leaving.
So bring those screeching eagles back to Fox News, pull up the Lay-Z-Boy and crack open a cold one!
</sarc>
Since we're technically not at war with anyone...
Who are our enemies again? Oh right, whoever Bush and company tell you are our enemies.
If Bush had opened up negotiations with Iran back when they offered it to us, we'd not have this whole nasty nuclear business going on with them.
If Bush had used diplomacy, and let the inspections continue in Iraq, we'd not have this ridiculous "war" going on now for 5 years.
If Bush had kept talking to North Korea when he took office, they never would have finished their nuclear weapon.
Yeah, NOT talking to our so called enemies has had great effect. You know, you can use diplomacy as a means of force. It's not as if you're going in there, sitting in a circle, holding hands, and singing kum-bay-yah or something like that.
I just love the idiot's guide to right wing politics. But guess what? We aren't at war any more. We went from war with Iraq to occupation to police state. The rules change about collateral damage when that happens. Don't believe me? Then it's time for you to return that pic of Bush "landing" on an aircraft carrier claiming "mission accomplished" and demand your money back.
The New York Sun is owned by the moonies as is The Washington Times.
And Cspan, the supposedly objective network, treats the Washington Times as a perfectly legitimate outlet.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
We may not like that the Palestenians voted Hamas to run their government, but they did. They, unlike us, had a free and fair election. If we had the attitude that any country whom has ever so shed American blood is persona non grata, we would be certainly all alone. If we need Hamas to recognize Isreal's right to exist I don't think we need to starve them out to get their cooperation.
Naive is thinking that we can ignore the leadership of other nations because they refuse to walk in lock step with our every desire. Are we to invade anyone whom we disagree?
This whole simpleton format to discuss complicated foriegn relations in the political theatre is the Republicans way of playing on the fears and ignorance of Americans for votes.
Much like Hugo Chavez whom was elected by a clear majority, but then failed in a referendum to become President for life. The people of Valenzuela spoke and were heard. The reason we see him as a threat is the oil companies had their cash cow nationalized with the overwhelming support of their people, while our corporate media only tells the story the corporations want us to hear.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Well said Dan.The idea that the US prides itself with it's support of democratic societies and then wants to pick and choose which ones to recognized or attempt to dispose of the chosen leaders is still shocking to me. It is easy to marginalize any leader with the proper propaganda. In the inverse pumping up incompetent,crooked hand picked tyrants with a nod and a wink to the USA is just as effective but maybe not as long lasting. In almost every example of the US interfering in other country's leadership it seems to backfire. Somehow the lesson of making a deal with a person that is a tyrant willing to kill and break any law -that this person can't be trusted in the long term has escaped the US policy makers.Screwing with Ham mas or Chavez or Casto or whoever will eventually blow up in your face.Just letting the people figure it out doesn't seem to be enough to some people.
s
Avlon never suggested or implied that Obama wants to talk with Hamas.
Conducting foreign policy meetings with meglomaniacs like Chavez, Castro or the folks running Hamas seems wrong. These are people who work every day to take freedom away from others.
Kaleun wrote:
>>Not unlikely, and in fact, Khrushchev lost his job because they talked, due to exactly the kind of stupid rhethoric, but if they hadn't, things would have turned out a lot worse. And don't tell me the Communists weren't as bad as the terrorists.
Not only did Kruschchnev suffer because of the stupid macho rhetoric in the Soviet Union, he suffered because of the stupid moves of Kennedy. After the Cuban missile crisis, the US was supposed to make some concessions for the Soviet backing down. Instead, Kennedy flaunted his victory in the crisis, and Kruschchnev appeared weak and was forced out of power--and more hard line reactionaries came into power.
Stalin killed 20 million Soviet citizen during his reign, so the Soviets were certainly worse than Osama Bin Laden.
That's not even to mention that every human rights agency that has examined Israel's behavior--Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, etc-- has concluded that it is guilty of "deliberate killing," to quote a UN human rights report from 2002. As we speak, Israel is illegally moving settlers into land it illegally occupies. But not only do we negotiate with Israel, we give them 5 billion in aid a year.
Well, Stalin was one of those classical Schizophrenic evil dictators that often come along after a country experiences ruin, who just end up killing everyone , for fear of loosing control. So, I'd almost say he has more in Common with Hitlerv, Pinochet and Saddam than Lenin, Trotzky or bin Laden...not ideologically, but pattern-wise:
1. Be in a country that's in the crapper.
2. Take part in or start a revolution.
3. Work your way up the ranks.
4. Eliminate competitors. You just have to do it to get in power, after which you'll be really nice to everyone.
5. Take power.
6. Kill potential enemies (you have to do it just this once)
7. Fight an outside threat, to unite the country.
8. Eliminate potential enemy spies (just one more time, really)
9. Bring ruin to a foreign country, to prepare it for someone else's step 1.
10. Regardless of victory, a third of the country now hates you because you killed someone in their family...you'll have no choice but to kill some of them, before they get in trouble.
12. EVERYONE is out to get you...KILL THEM ALL.
Yes he did. He was talking about Carters trip to talk to Hamas, and segued into saying Obama wants to talk to our enemies. Your bias doesnt define reality you know. I dont believe Chavez tries everyday to take freedom from anyone. You just disagree with his policies. That talking point is pure propaganda and cannot be shown as valid. We dont get to CHOOSE leaders for other countries. If THEY are free they choose their OWN leaders. It only makes sense to talk to such leaders. We have less to say to those who AGREE with us about everything. I think the attack on talking is done mostly by people who learned everything they know about foriegn policy by watching John Wayne movies. The world is a complicated place. VIOLENCE isnt the answer for every problem we have with everyone we have a problem with.