MSNBC's First Read misrepresented McCain's false attack on Obama over Carter-Hamas meeting
SUMMARY: In a post on MSNBC.com's First Read blog about Sen. Barack Obama's position on former President Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas, Aswini Anburajan reported that Obama has been "attacked by [Sen. John] McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly." But McCain has not merely "attacked" Obama "for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly"; he has actually misrepresented Obama's position on Carter's meeting with Hamas, falsely suggesting that Obama "approve[d]" of the meeting.
In an April 21 post on MSNBC.com's First Read blog, Aswini Anburajan noted that since former President Jimmy Carter "announced he was meeting with Hamas, [Sen. Barack] Obama has criticized him for meeting with a terrorist organization." Anburajan then added that Obama "has also been attacked by [Sen. John] McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly." But Anburajan misstated McCain's "attack[]" on Obama. McCain has not merely "attacked" Obama for purportedly "not condemning Carter's visit more sternly"; he has actually misrepresented Obama's position on Carter's meeting with Hamas, falsely suggesting that Obama "approve[d]" of the meeting. On the April 16 edition of Fox News' Your World, McCain stated, referring to Carter's meeting with Hamas: "Senator Obama does not have the experience to make the right judgment as to how to deal with terrorist organizations, obviously. Otherwise, he would never approve of such a meeting."
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."
Referring specifically to Carter's planned meeting with Hamas, the Obama campaign released a statement on April 10 asserting that Obama "does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements." On April 16, Obama reiterated that he "disagree[s] with" Carter's decision to meet with Hamas, in remarks that Reuters reported before McCain claimed Obama "approve[d] of such a meeting." From the April 16 Reuters report:
Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Wednesday disagreed with former President Jimmy Carter's overtures toward Hamas, saying he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism.
The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an "unshakable commitment" to help protect Israel from its "bitter enemies."
"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."
"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.
From the April 21 First Read post:
Asked by a reporter if he had heard that Carter reported a positive outcome from the meeting, Obama looked sternly at the reporter in question and said, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
Asked again by the reporter, Obama bit -- not at the question but into a butter covered bite of Glider's specialty over-size Belgian waffles. With a wink this time he said, "Just let me eat my waffle."
Since Carter announced he was meeting with Hamas, Obama has criticized him for meeting with a terrorist organization. He has also been attacked by McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
At a meeting with Jewish leaders in Philadelphia last week, Obama told the audience there that while he thought it was appropriate to meet with countries like Syria and Iran because they were states, despite their hostilities towards Israel. However, he said, Hamas was a terrorist organization and so did not justify a meeting.
From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: As you also know, today, sir, Jimmy Carter has indicated that tomorrow --
McCAIN: Yeah.
CAVUTO: -- the meeting with Hamas leaders is set; there's no way of changing that. How do you feel about that?
McCAIN: I think it's -- the word that springs to mind is "unacceptable." And another one is "disgraceful."
These are thugs and murderers. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton should directly repudiate and tell President Carter he should not meet with what is fundamentally a terrorist that's been responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people, and continues to articulate daily his organization and his personal dedication to the extinction of the state of Israel.
They are a terrorist organization. No former president of the United States should be meeting with them.
CAVUTO: All right. So, when Barack Obama says you do have to talk to your enemies, that you can't ignore your enemies, what do you say?
McCAIN: I say that you cannot legitimize terrorists, murderers, thugs and give them a place on the world stage, who violate every standard and norm that we stand for and believe in, including the innocent slaughter of civilians, and women, and children.
And so, I strongly disagree. And, again, it's this issue of experience and judgment. Senator Obama does not have the experience to make the right judgment as to how to deal with terrorist organizations, obviously. Otherwise, he would never approve of such a meeting.
CAVUTO: You know, Senator, we've been in and out of another all-time high for oil and gas prices today --
But wouldn't McCain condemn somebody who was anti-Hamas, in keeping with his bold anti-anti-everything stance?
Colonel, Doesn't anti-anti make a for? My God, I sound like Rumpy.
Sen. McCain please get out of that Republan funk and get help. Hearing and reading comprehension are REAL things. If a Demcratic nominee says something, listen and take note. Then, and only then, comment. I don't wish to see you become a fool for Rove. We've already had eight years of one. A real election would be good for this country. Those that voted for you in the Primary voted against what we have in office now. Be a MAVERICK...pick one..but don't be slimy.
Also - anyone notice this quote from McCain:
McCAIN: I say that you cannot legitimize terrorists, murderers, thugs and give them a place on the world stage, who violate every standard and norm that we stand for and believe in, including the innocent slaughter of civilians, and women, and children.
I might not be reading that correctly, but is he saying that 'we' stand for and believe in the innocent slaughter of civilians, women, and children?
Speak for yourself, angry old man! We are Americans, and we protect the innocent!
The way it's worded without inflection, it can definitely be read that way, but I'm sure that's not what he was saying.
McCain does like to give up our national sovereignty though. I mean, according to his Iraq plan, we can't pull our troops out of Iraq until the Iraqi government steps up. We are being kept in Iraq by a policy with no end in sight, and one that, ultimately, our forces can not resolve. While we wait for action from the Iraqi political leaders, we are spending $12 billion every month. This policy has effectively handed over sovereignty of our armed forces to the Iraqi government, and is one of the ultimate fallacies of the Bus/Cheney/McCain foreign policy.
DB, I think Kyle was just having a little fun with the ol' geezers syntax (which I appreciated).
You make a good point, though.Basing our plan in Iraq on the actions of others is a very passive CYA sort of move. As much as they like to put it into the most forceful and powerful sounding words (We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up!), you're exactly right, it's a milquetoast plan, allowing indefinite occupation with no accountability and plenty of buck-passing..
DB - I agree with your points as well. What's the incentive for the Iraqi government to become self-sufficient when we keep throwing money and resources at them?
Col. - thanks for the props. I know McCain doesn't really mean what I was (humorously) insinuating. However, sometimes it's difficult to figure out what he means. I mean, half the time McCain doesn't even know what he means!
Colonel, Doesn't anti-anti make a for?
Yes, it does, your highness. As McCain stated recently, he condemns everything that is anti-anything, making him pro-everything, except for the stuff that he shouldn't be for. I believe he's just leaving it up to the Republican voters to fill in the blanks, and make his positions conform to theirs.
Vote for Grampy, if you like good things, and don't like bad things!
There's a pretty nice pile of rocks sitting on Cavuto's shoulders, I'd suggest that Gramps starts there.
MMFA-Since Carter announced he was meeting with Hamas, Obama has criticized him for meeting with a terrorist organization. He has also been attacked by McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
Looks to me like Aswini Anburajan got it right.
1. Obama criticized Carter
2. McCain attacked Obama.
So WITH?
It must be a day ending in a "y", cuz the "Big Dog" is having the basic point of an MMFA item politely explained by another of the horrible people here..Sad.
DB,
The columnist did not in any way make any allusion to the criticism of Obama by McCain. He simply said McCain criticized Obama regarding his statement. Which is true. Therefore the article in question was not about McCain's wording and there is no misinformation in the article.
Since there was no misstatement by Anburajan, MMFA is only using the link above as thinly veiled attempt to advance it's political ideology and attack McCain.
Feel free to disagree.
I will disagree with you, since you are flat out wrong.
This is what the reporter said:
He has also been attacked by McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
Now, if you can quote where McCain attacked Obama for "not condemning Carter's visit more sternly", then I will concede your point.
If you can't, then you have to admit that the reporter made a misstatement, or more accurately, a statement of misinformation.
Kyle,
It's right there in the MMFA thread.
My point is that MMFA's argument is with McCain's comment on Cavuto's show, not this blog.
Frankly I don't see that MMFA has much of a case. Obama parsed his words to give conditional approval to begin talking with Hamas. It seems ludicrous to me that Obama would even make that comment about Hamas putting down it's guns and renouncing terrorism when it has never even so much as made any movement whatsoever to do so. It was just a silly, say nothing but try to sound principled statement.
I can just see the Hamas people laughing and hoping Obama is elected. They'll play him like a stradivarius at the Met and he won't even know it.
In my opinion Obama's statement was, because of his caveat, very weak . Obama's condition deflected the issue of talking with terrorists, thereby giving some cover to Carter. In my opinion McCain was right to characterize Obama's comments as giving approval to Carter.
"My point is that MMFA's argument is with McCain's comment on Cavuto's show, not this blog."
They are clearly talking about the blog and how it addressed the issue, not Cavuto's show.
AA, did you know Hamas was democratically elected? What, are we not for democracy now? I mean, you try and try to bring democracy to a region, and then when some finally shows up, the wrong guys get voted in. Those un-grateful b*st*rds, voting in a group that we don't agree with, when they should have voted in a nice right-wing Christian group instead.
We'd better start a dialogue with Hamas. They do, after all, reflect the will of the people of Syria. Of course, that is if we WANT democracy in the Middle East.
DB,
I think you are conflating all of Hamas with certain members of Hamas being elected in Gaza to local councils, (but I may be wrong.) I have stated my opinion regarding this elsewhere. I do believe Abbas, (who is another terrorist affilliated with Arafat's Fatah,) is still in charge.
AA, you're right about Hamas being elected in Gaza, but they were elected to all of Gaza, not some local councils. I was wrong in saying Syria, but they are still democratically elected.
And btw, I'm not defending them by any means, I think they've done their fair share of bad things, but so has Israel and neither country deserves our un-conditional support like Israel receives.
Come on AA, "is no misinformation in the article". The words in the article say "He would not approve of the meeting" . Does Obama approve of the meeting , F*^%ck no. There fore the words "he would not approve of the meeting" (which clearly imply that Obama approves of the meeting) are ...
MISINFORMATION that Cavuto , lets slide out to his audience. Thus, Cavuto is either ignorant or willing to let a clearly untrue implication go by unchallenged.
Pit-
I think AA is actually approving MMFA's work on this issue. If he didn't, then he probably would have attacked MMFA more sternly than he actually did.
The point is, you can condemn as much as you want, but unless you're really really stern about it, people will think you approve.
AA, I'm going to have to disagree.
"The columnist did not in any way make any allusion to the criticism of Obama by McCain. He simply said McCain criticized Obama regarding his statement. Which is true."
Of course he alluded to the criticism by saying McCain criticized Obama. This statement contradicts itself.
"Therefore the article in question was not about McCain's wording and there is no misinformation in the article."
It was about the criticism, and the quote from the blog post is "He has also been attacked by McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly." Do you see how McCain didn't attack him for condemning Carter's visit, but for approving of the visit, which are two different things?
On a side note, how many degrees of condemnation are there now? Perhaps we should start rating them. On a scale of 1-5, 5 being the worst. Or perhaps it could be degrees in words. "Reject" can be the same as a 1, "denounce" is a 2, "condemn" is a 3, "censure" = 4, and "villify" can be 5. Or can we just say all this condemning and denouncing is just wholly disingenuous to any debate, and frankly quite silly?
DB,
As I stated above, MMFA's critique should be with Cavuto's show and not this blog. As I read it, the blogger only reiterated that McCain criticized Obama for what Obama said about Carter. I saw no misinformation in the blog.
I've stated that I think McCain was correct in his criticism of Obama. After reading Obama's statement about Carter, I find he did not reject Carter at all. He simply said he disagreed with Carter.
"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."It seems obvious to me that Obama talked around the point to where he left Carter off the hook by saying there could be a time he too would to talk with Hamas.
BTW, I like your ranking system.
DB,
I think there is a difference between talking to an exiled leader of Hamas in Syria and the elected officials in Gaza.
That being said, Carter went and talked to Hamas anyway, insulting the Israelis and running counter to our foreign policy.
ps. I heard Richard Holbrook state that Carter almost ruined peace negotiations in Bosnia when he unilaterally landed in Bosnia to talk with the rebel leader that Holbrook was, at the time, trying to ostracize. In my opinion Carter is a fool.
In my opinion Carter is a fool - AA
In my opinion, your opinion of Carter is foolishly based upon Republican talking points that have been slowly seeping into your brain for the past 30 years.
Carter believes in peace, you belive in war. That's the difference between his foolishness and yours.
aa, as Julia mentioned on another thread, you wonder at some of the invective that comes your way, and she points out that you continually come here having read something on right wing web sites that habitually lie and distort, post it, and have to have your misinformation debunked. Yet you claim to be a Christian. You don't seem to care about the not bearing false witness part of Christianity:
"Another of Carter's more visible successes as peace leader was during the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both Carter and President Clinton went to Bosnia and formulated a four month cease-fire and a guarantee from all parties to restart peace talks at a future date. Carter's vision of peace emerged when he addressed the U.S. Senate and Armed Services Committee in an attempt to help with negotiations after fighting resumed in the former Yugoslavia. This ultimately led to the Dayton Accords of 1995 in which the U.S. hosted peace talks between the warring groups-the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats. Liberia, another area in desperate need of assistance following a brutal civil war, requested Carter's presence and insight during their peace talks in the early 1990's."
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/youth-outreach/peace-heroes/carter-jimmy.htm
Mary59 wrote:
>>aa, as Julia mentioned on another thread, you wonder at some of the invective that comes your way, and she points out that you continually come here having read something on right wing web sites that habitually lie and distort, post it, and have to have your misinformation debunked.
Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking before I read your thread. AA consistently uses right wing garbage for his argumentation, and someone has to debunk it almost every time. It gets tiresome after a while. You would think that after being proved wrong so often, AA would begin to question some of his sources. But no. He just post any right-wing crap without the least big of critical thought on whether it might be true. On the other hand, he demands almost impossible standards for evidence that goes against his views.
But even worse, AA is the most guilty of any poster for simply linking to web sites that don't prove his argument. I mean, he does this probably 75% of the time. Again and again and again. Just a few days ago he posted some alarming fact with a link, only the link didn't back it up. I almost posted pointing this out, but then thought, why bother.
But really, anyone in an exchange with AA, always check his links. They will almost never back up his argument.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119881
Mary,
This is from the AP:
...Israel says Carter's talks embolden Palestinian extremists and hurt Palestinian moderates as they try to make peace with the Jewish state. ...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1rJov5cRqOXTFSN-Rs6CzXo01uAD906BS0G0
So who's lying?
Funny,
I find it funny that you say that 75% I link to sites that don't back up what I say. But you do not provide even one link to prove your point.
Do you see the irony?
Mary,
What you fail to understand is that just because you cite some website it does not make my source untrue or me a liar. I heard Holbrook say - in person - that Carter almost wrecked his negotiations in Bosnia. My source is from Holbrook himself! Are you calling him an unChristian liar too? Does your source disprove what Holbrook said? NO. Am I lying? NO. Your contention that I am unChristian and a liar is flat out wrong.
Don't you understand, that I could use the same logic you used and claim that you too are an unchristian liar . After all, I have disproven any number of contentions because I too have listed websites that counter those whom I am arguing. Don't you get it? Simply listing alternative websites does not prove your argument is true or prove I am lying.
Your reference to my Christianity, besides being very judgmental and immaterial, shows to me how much your ideology influences your perception. You seem to take every response to a post of mine as somehow proving me a liar. It is obvious that you conflate opinion with truth. You are wrong about me. Does that make you liar? No it does not. It is simply your erroneous opinion. Your post, couched in the form of questions is really nothing more than an ad hominem attack using my religion and how I practice my faith rather than discussing the issues.
There have been some very interesting discussions of late. Lets keep it up. It would be boring if we all agreed on everything.I don't know what happened to the last sentence but it is showing up as very small in my browser.
I wrote:
There have been some very interesting discussions of late. Lets keep it up. It would be boring if we all agreed on everything.
I don't really care what Holbrook said about Carter. Your own decision to call him a "fool" and ignore his humanitarian work for peace speaks for itself.
"I find he did not reject Carter at all. He simply said he disagreed with Carter. " (AA)
and you interpret disagreeing with someones actions as approving of those actions? Fascinating as always, AA.
I think that McCain should have condemned Obama's not-stern enough condemnation of Carter even MORE sternly than he did. McCain should be taken to task for this.
Unless... McCain is secretly pro-HAMAS?? Uh-oh...
Ah, the beauty of being a 'maverick'. You can be pro- and anti- something at the same time, and people praise you for being 'independent' and 'brave'.
Unless of course, you're a Democrat, in which case you're a flip-flopping commie.
Muriatic acid won't do as much harm as say, nitric acid or sulfuric acid.
So all of those pansies who are against certain forms of interogation won't be yelling the "T" word.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Colonel, I like your style!
Thanks for acknowledging my compassion, WK. I've learned a few things from our current leaders in lowering the bar.
Gitmo's bad? At least we're not beheading anybody.
A lot of Americans without health insurance? People in some countries have to wait to see their doctor.
I considered suggesting a harsher acid, but I don't give up the moral high ground that easily, my friend. See, I even stole "my friend" from Gramps.
Besides,muriatic acid allows a much longer waterboarding session than some alternatives that immediately send a recipient in to shock, or eat away their faces to the point where their confessions are unintelligible. Stop & smell the roses, I say.
2. McCain attacked Obama.
So WITH? "
1. Obama expressed disagreement with Carter's decision.
2. McCain accused Obama of approving Carter's decision.
3. Anburajan reports that McCain attacked Obama for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
MMFA's accusation of misrepresentation on the part of Anburajan has merit.
Pete,
I fail to see your logic. It seems to me you are stating
1 is true and 2 is true but 3 is false.
1. Obama expressed disagreement with Carter's decision.
2. McCain accused Obama of approving Carter's decision.
3. Anburajan reports that McCain attacked Obama for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
However your statement 3 is also true.
So there is no misrepresentation by the blogger.
3. Anburajan reports that McCain attacked Obama for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
Looks like everybody else gave up on you, AA. I'll give it one more try.
#3, just like #1 and #2, is true---Anburajan did report this.
What he reported is not true, and is inconsistent with #1 and #2.
Good luck, Big Dog ! ;0)
Col.
#3, just like #1 and #2, is true---Anburajan did report this.
What he reported is not true, and is inconsistent with #1 and #2.
Ya got me. In the first sentence you say it is true and in the second sentence you say it is not true. How can I argue with that logic?
You know what, Solon? I think we're being "punked". I've often thought that AA was a performance artist, testing peoples limits as far as how stoopid a poster could be before everybody catches on that they're goofing. He alwayd just pushed it far enough where you could still compare him to the stupidest person you'd ever met.
Or maybe he's playing a drinking game where he tries to get other posters to call him an idiot, so he can do a shot and then fly into one of those mock-indignant lectures about name-calling.
The past few days I think he's blown it, going from just-barely -believably stoopid to one -step -beyond -stoopid. You got us, AA, well done! But the jigs up, this thread here is just not credible. Nobody capable of logging onto the site could possibly be as stoooooooooopid as you're pretending to be. You flew too near the sun, but it was a great performance while it lasted.
Now I kow you won't be happy until you get the name-calling you're begging for. OK, I'll give you your props for a brilliant act;
What a f*88ing idiot. Thick as a brick, new frontiers in meatheadiness dumb.
Bra------------Vo, AA !
Col.
Even when you try to present an argument it fails logically or you write it in a way that fails to make it clear. Don't blame me for your poorly written reply.
My contention all all along is that the blogger did not provide any misinformation therefore did not merit a thread on MMFA. In case you forgot, I said it belongs on a thread about Cavuto's show. It looks like both you and Solon agree with me.
If you think misspelling stupid and various attempts at cursing in an ad hominem attack somehow proves your point, it only shows your lack of communication skill. But then we knew that all along. :-) Go ahead and solicit back and forth atta-boys from Solon. It does not mean a thing.
Don't blame me for your poorly written reply.(AA)
By that, you mean the most recent attempt by me to dumb the item down enough for you to understand? The item above that everybody else understood without having other people dissect it and simplify it to the point that a 5 year old could understand it? The item that you apparently still don't understand? Is this the complete lack of reading comprehension on your part that you're ( as usual) blaming on somebody else?
Now I know you're putting on an act,, AA. Sorry, not falling for it anymore.
It's not about true and false (otherwise MMFA would have declared "falsehood"), it's about two things being the same or being different.
My logic is that #2 and #3 are not the same, therefore, it's a misrepresentation.
Anburajan leads the reader to believe that McCain believes Obama condemned Carter's decision, when McCain, by his own words, actually believes that Obama approved of it.
McCain's belief was not accurately represented by Anburajan.
Pete,
It is true that McCain criticized Obama.
Obama's critique says only that he disagrees with Carter. That is hardly a rebuke or denunciation.
The absence of a denunciation can be argued as a tacit approval. But that is beside the point. McCain said that to Cavuto, not to Abdurajan.
Anburajan stated that
He [Obama] has also been attacked by McCain for not condemning Carter's visit more sternly.
That is a true statement by Abdurajan regarding McCain whether you agree with McCain or not.
There is no misinformation in Abdurajan's blog regarding this issue.
Ha Ha! You're not even trying to appear sane anymore are you, AA?. Disagreeing without denouncing =approval. That's great! A reporter has no responsibility to report facts that contradict his work unless they were spoken directly to him? Outrageous!
Love your work. I can't believe you fooled me for that long.
Never thought there would be the day where I agreed with AA, even partially. Obamas response was clever, but it obfuscated the issue while throwing bones to pro-choice folks. What Ayers was involved in was attempted murder - blowing up people, killing them. Thats not an idea, thats an action taken and proudly taken. The senators rhetoric was just that, rhetoric to enforce his (I think wretchedly twisted view) that abortion is murder.
It was a troubling and false anology and that people suck it up so easily is troubling.
But were they really trying to murder people? It is pretty easy to kill people with bombs if that is what you are going for but the Weathermen never managed to kill anyone but themselves. They issued warnings. I am willing to accept them called terrorists even though they were attacking property but I dont see any evidence they were trying to kill PEOPLE. Again the Weathermen never killed anyone but themselves
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/10/19/return_of_the_weathermen/
Though the group issued warnings to evacuate their targets, inevitably some bystanders were injured
Though the Weathermen's organization had killed no one but themselves, other groups inspired by their brand of violent radicalism killed and wounded a not insignificant number of innocent people.
Solon just because they were incompetent making bombs does not mean that they were not trying to kill people.
8 October 1970 - Bombing of Marin County courthouse. WUO states this is in retaliation for the killings of Jonathan Jackson, William Christmas, and James McClain. [NYT, 8/10/70]
29 August, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons, allegedly in retaliation for the killing of George Jackson. [LAT, 8/29/71]
Members of the group participated in the Brinks Robberyof 1981, in which two police officers and a security guard were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)Dohrn's husband, Bill Ayers confessed that the bomb that killed the aforementioned Weather Underground members in New York was an anti-personnel weapon filled with nails and screws that would have killed or injured many at the Fort Dix dance. Ayers has recently, publicly acknowledged his feeling that his group should, in his opinion, have set off even more bombs.
http://www.lindasog.com/archives/2008/03/thirtyeight_years_ago_today.html
You have no point. They DID make bombs that DID work and explode and when they DID, they warned about them in plenty of time for evacuation. If they WANTED to kill people, it would have been easy enough. The fact that some of their bombings were in retaliation for ANYTHING doesnt prove they were trying to kill people. Their bombs DID go off, just sometimes while they were still making them and when that DIDNT happen they never killed anyone. It is really easy to kill people with bombs you have to TRY not to. As for the bank robbery they may have been members but that was done by THOSE TWO alone and not as part of the Weathermen. That is like blaming the NBA when one of their members buys crack cocaine. You didnt show them SAYING they wanted to kill anyone or that they DID kill anyone. So you in no way advanced your argument that they DID try to kill anyone.
As documented by MM, the statements made by Senator Obama in NO WAY "approved" Carter's meeting. If McCain wants to spin words out of thin air, what about his own remark, "....innocent slaughter of civilians, and women, and children." Since when is the slaughter of civilians, and women, and children "innocent"?
Not only is McCain a liar, but MSNBC is, by allowing him to make outright false and purposely misleading statements, guilty of complicity in these lies. If we have to endure more of this repugnant type of governance, the Media will have to accept much of the blame. As I was growing up, when someone said they were a "newspaper man" or a "journalist", we all smiled and nodded our respect. We recognized that the work the man or woman was doing was, not only important, but honest. No more.
"for what purpose" and "for whom". It was not enough to know the name of the artist or the date of the work or the nationality, etc. Together, we examined the reasons for the works in question. Class discussions were always loud, heated and fun! None of my students would have been stupid enough to assume the stance and
agenda of this administration concerning Iraq, or the whole of the middle east, for that matter. I began teaching in 1968. My former students are now all adults and
not one of them would have made these horrible and avoidable blunders regarding this war. It is inexcusable for our "experienced" leaders to totally misunderstand that part of the world and not have a modicum of information about the centuries-old problems and hopes of the people living there. Sorry. Didn't mean to ramble.
Ramble again please.
I'm thinking of doing some art instructing in the future.
Art history is a pretty labyrinthic subject, very interesting as well. Getting into the why's is excellent.
my niece is getting a ph.d. at yale in byzantine art. she just won some big award and will be studying in rome for two years. knowing her i think she would say that you overstate your case, and not just because she is a bush supporter.
now, you offer no specifics. now certainly there have been screwups, as there always are in such enterprises. i could rattle off a list of terrible mistakes in wwii that each cost much more in american lives than has all of iraq.
i don't know how you can state that not one of the dozens, hundreds, whatever, of your students would not make such mistakes. it comes with the territory.
It is time to change the debate, I wish Media Matters would quit this line of defense. How about highlighting that Carters diplomacy has produced a result? of Hammas saying that 1967 borders would be a first step for a truce. So it shouldn't be a big deal if he did approve of speaking with Hammas, not a tragedy that they are saying he said something that he didn't.
CJ,
Can you provide a link that shows that Carter's personal foray to talk to terrorists actually produced an outcome? It seems tome your example is not an outcome at all unless you call rhetoric an outcome. Besides, it would be like Israel ceding land to you simply because you asked for it. This terrorist leader does not represent anyone other than his terrorist organization.
Having watched Arafat and other terrorists negotiate with Israel, it seems pretty obvious that what they say and what they do are two completely different things.
It is ludicrous to think Israel would cede the West Bank to terrorists simply as as a 'start'. Why would anyone think Israel give away part of their country while terrorists are lobbing missiles into Israel from Gaza?
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
do you think that maybe, just maybe, the palestinians and their fellow ululators have something to do with that?
after the war of independence, and continuing until after the six day war, hundres of thousands of jews were expelled from arab countries, their property confiscated. they were readily accepted by israel and moved on with their lives.
as for the arabs who fled israel to neighboring countries, they were not allowed to become citizens in these other lands, and in many places remain, on the u.n. dole, in refugee camps today. 60 years later!
look at gaza. it shares the same mediterranean coast as tel aviv. tel aviv is a tourist destination, nice hotels, marinas, restaurants, etc. gaza is a roach infested slum.
until 1967 the arabs had full control of gaza, and they did nothing but live in their hovels. after 1967, even with israel in control, they had economic freedom. there was no barrier, you could drive from israel through gaza, as i did, and vice versa. still they did nothing.
israel left gaza two years ago and what does hamas do. just continues to throw rockets into israel everyday. they gazans deserve what they get, only more.
Both Israelis and Palestinians for the most part want to live in peace. At some point those who want violence will have to give way.
well, you are plain out wrong. a recent poll showed that almost 70% of the ululators support terrorism. a majority elected hamas which has no interest in peace.
the bulldozing of homes is in accordance with laws existing from the time of the mandate, so they weren't the first to do it. the homes would not have been bulldozed if there had been no terror acts. you conveniently forget that part.
if they want peace, the ululators i mean, why do they have tv programs educating children in the glory of jihad, name streets after martyrs so-called. they love death, and yet when the israelis oblige them, they cry revenge. they are a benighted people who blame everyone else for their pathetic lives.
when israel left gaza an american jew raised funds, around 20mm i recall, to pay the departing israelis to leave the greenhouses they used to raise all sorts of crops behind. after the israelis pulled out, the mohamedans promptly destroyed the greenhouses.
a broken country. they broke it.
It's unfortunately par for the course that Carter the only person able to bring a little peace to the world was also the worst politician we have had as president in recent history.
Obamas parsing and McCains posturing is all political BS, and has no value or relation to real life for Palestinians or Israelis. The blood flows and the politicians crow. Fukkin' wonderful.