Cavuto falsely suggested Obama has expressed willingness to meet with Hamas
SUMMARY: On Your World, Neil Cavuto said of Sen. Barack Obama: "Well, one of the reasons why he espoused talking to our enemies -- much as Jimmy Carter has with his recent meeting with Hamas and all that -- is that we can't make things worse, so what's the harm in talking to them?" Contrary to Cavuto's suggestion that Obama has expressed a willingness to meet with 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."
On the April 30 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama has expressed a willingness to meet with Hamas. Cavuto said: "Well, one of the reasons why he espoused talking to our enemies -- much as Jimmy Carter has with his recent meeting with Hamas and all that -- is that we can't make things worse, so what's the harm in talking to them?" In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), 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 saying 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 30 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: So, you draw a connection here that he puts trust in people, he assumes the best in people, which isn't a bad way to live life, I guess, but as president, it's risky way.
AMANDA CARPENTER (TownHall.com columnist): Well, certainly. I mean, there's no doubt there's been a pattern of him associating with people, like, you know, the man who wanted to bomb federal buildings, William Ayers. You have Barack -- or, excuse me, Reverend Wright coming out and saying these anti-American things, and yet, he thinks that he can go negotiate with our enemies and see these people for what they are. And, you know, right now, he's under all this fire because he had to denounce his long-time friend and pastor, because he didn't realize the kind of things that he was saying, you know, to -- in front of hundreds of people, which I don't know how believable that is, but that's what Barack Obama wants you to believe.
CAVUTO: Well, one of the reasons why he espoused talking to our enemies -- much as Jimmy Carter has with his recent meeting with Hamas and all that -- is that we can't make things worse, so what's the harm in talking to them?
CARPENTER: Well, I certainly think there's always a capability to make things work. But it's interesting -- a lot of people are making the comparison between Jimmy Carter's form of diplomacy and Barack Obama's, most recently because Jimmy Carter indicated that he liked Barack Obama's philosophy when asked by a reporter, you know, who he might give a superdelegate endorsement to, and he certainly hinted that he favored Obama.
So, you know, we won't know for sure until probably August, when Jimmy Carter makes that endorsement, but, you know, you could have that photo of them in August at the nominating convention with, you know, them two together, and a lot of people saying, "Wow, they're in the exact same old, at least in terms of diplomacy."
CAVUTO: Amanda, thank you.
CARPENTER: Thanks.
Or Potatoe
...if you're the former VP Dan Quayle.
I'm sorry, I have my standards.
Good_golly wrote:
>>hey fellahs, it's humus.
It's also:
hum·mus also hum·us or hom·mos
According to dictionary.com
"Don't trust anybody who'd rather be grammatically correct than have a good time"
-Tom Robbins.
-- We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements -- Obama
Should that pertain to Iran? If your only argument is that Iran is a sovereign state and Hamas is not...don't bother. I'm fully aware of the difference.
If Iran would renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and honor past agreements...we would have every reason to negotiate with them...otherwise I think not.
But, if they did that, what would President Numbnuts use as a distraction from his Iraq disaster?
He'd go back to "Old Reliable," and start talking about the "evil doers" again......
(Actually, I think he has more reason to fear the "evil Dewar's" that he used to drink by the gallon......)
CAVUTO: Well, one of the reasons why he espoused talking to our enemies -- much as Jimmy Carter has with his recent meeting with Hamas and all that -- is that we can't make things worse, so what's the harm in talking to them?
I don't particularly like Cavuto however I don't see where he is suggesting Obama would actually talk specifically to Hamas. He only mentions Obama would be willing to talk to our "enemies" then gives an example of Carter meeting one of our many "enemies" Hamas.
Could be Cuvuto was implying Obama would meet with Hamas, but it's just as possible he was pointing out that both Obama & Carter are willing to meet with US enemies & simply gave the most recent example of Carter doing just that.
I don't know that it's exactly cut & dry here.
So often propaganda is sneaky. It's a hint or a suggestion or an association of situations or an association of mere words that lead us to a conclusion.
Cavuto failed to note Obama's preconditions he put on Hamas talks and left his audience with the assumption that Obama is down with talking to terrorists. It's pure punk punditry.
Furthermore and more insidious is his pushing the backward conservative notion that talking, listening, persuasion, negotiation, participation in the political process is risky, weak, inferior to military intimidation and coercion.
Cavuto's worldview on display here is an instructive glance at how the conservative mind assesses and reacts to threats. The world is a dangerous place, America must keep it in line; it's our duty as the most wealthy, mighty and therefore righteous nation in the world.
No thanks, Cavuto. I'll take the progressive worldview of open dialogue as equals, rationality and empathy.
If peace fails we at least didn't pre-empt the possibility.
I'd prefer we talk.
I prefer talking.
I think a recent pol said the majority of the Israelis(sp for our recently resurrected spelling monitor) support talking to Hamas. Politics can highjack good sense in other countries too it seems.
i think that has to be absolutely wrong. the only way to talk to hamas is with the business end of a gun.
hamas broadcast a video today, remembrance day in israel, saying that ben-gurion planned the holocaust to weed out the weak jews and get world sympathy. how vile.
No its not wrong as usual YOU are wrong. You NEVER know what you are talking about
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/767519.html
Poll: 67% of Israelis want talks with PA gov't including HamasA majority of Israelis would support holding negotiations with a Palestinian unity government that includes the Islamic Hamas movement, according to the results of a joint Palestinian-Israeli poll released on Tuesday.
Sixty-seven percent of Israeli respondents said such a step could be a necessary requisite for achieving a peace agreement with Palestinians.
You are a disgusting warmonger there is no way to talk to YOU. For you its kill, kill, war glorious war lets get as many brown people killed as we possibly can. You are a hater. You worship death and killing and your every post is 100% worthless.
Who? All 400 members of Machsom Watch?
actually, i just came from breakfast with a friend who splits his time between israel and california. he flew in yesterday. he reports that israel is going great guns. the restaurants are full, people are making money, companies continue to list on the nasdaq, the golf course in caesarea is being redone.
on the other hand, he says they despair of the palestinians. all they know is hate. they could have a free trade zone, be another taiwan, do whatever they want. but what they want is hate. they take that in with their mother's milk. they have no interest in peace.
as for the haaretz poll, why would anyone believe anything from that rag. it's as far left as the people's daily.
Sure if by leftwing you mean not slavishly devoted to rightwing propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz
Compared to other mass circulation papers printed in Israel, especially Maariv and Yedioth Ahronoth, the headlines and print in Haaretz are smaller, less space is devoted to pictures, and the articles more analytical. Its editorial pages are considered more influential among government leaders.[3] Apart from the news, Haaretz publishes feature articles on social and environmental issues, as well as book reviews, investigative reporting and political commentary.
The Hebrew edition has a core readership of 65,000. The English edition is subscribed to by 15,000 readers (though many more readers are only website visitors). A weekly edition is available in print in North America.[4][5] The newspaper itself has reported a paid subscribership of 65,000, daily sales of 72,000 copies daily, and 100,000 on weekends.[6]
Haaretz's readership includes Israel's middle and upper classes, intellectuals, academics, and professionals. It is considered to have influence greater than its circulation numbers because of its following amongst the Israeli intelligentsia and government leaders.[7][8][9]
You dont really EVER know what you are talking about do you?
GG do you know why the use of hebrew didn't disappear arround 1000AD?
Islamic culture in Andelusia. The influnce of arabic poetry and music inspired the jews. What was a language used only for religeous purposes, became a living, breathing, singing, laughing language again.
Oh, and yer off topic, whadda surprise.
hebrew was not used in daily life until the late 19th century when jews began leaving the disapora to return to israel, then called palestine which was under turkish rule. the rebirth of hebrew was largely due to the efforts of eliezer ben yehuda. the whole story is available here.http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004124.html
today, when new immigrants arrive in israel, they are immediately immersed in hebrew. immigrant children are taught in hebrew and quickly adapt. by the age of five or so, children are taken off easy hebrew and read without vowels.
This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.
The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.
The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.phpWrong it was being discussed and called Palestine in Britian in 1919 when the Jewish homeland was being considered after the FIRST world war and in America the Crane Commission was considering the option
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/recommendations.html
We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist Program for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish State.
This from the Crane comission in August of 1919 do you EVER know what you are talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz
The editorial view of Haaretz is further left than Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv, although the paper takes a moderate position with respect to foreign policy and security issues.[14] Its op-ed pages are open to a wide variety of political opinions.[15] A 2003 study in the The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that Haaretz' reporting was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians, and was more likely to report stories from the Israeli side.[16] The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America claims that Haaretz is often quoted by anti-Israel commentators. In a CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) conference in October 2007, executive director Andrea Levin was quoted saying in a critical speech highlighting the influence of Haaretz that "No other newspaper in Israel matters [internationally] because Haaretz is an elite publication and it has such an amazing English-language website. It is read by millions around the world."[17][18] while The Nation describes Haaretz as "Israel's liberal beacon," citing its editorials voicing opposition to the occupation, the security fence, discriminatory treatment of Arab citizens, and the mindset that led to Second Lebanon War.[19]
So then since they arent slavishly Anti Arab and comitted to rightwing propaganda that means they made up the poll? Or is it that you are just allergic to factual reality?
Not buying it. Thanks for playing.
Nawp got them leddle hoses with leddler holes. Timin and nutrients delivered under the control of an ole PC powered by solar power, with a battery backup.
Business has been good. We're upgrading to some blackmarket anti air, produced from information on the F35 that a contractor somehow allowed a hostile foreign government access to.
Yah'know it just struck me, that this administration and all its friends, I'm assuming most of us will survive them. Will become a mutha lode for future comedy. Start workin on those screenplays and situation comedy propositions folks. Now while the memory's are still somewhat fresh.
So McCain mixes up Shiite's & Sunni's...
Cavuto confuses Iran with Hamas...
Yeah, these right-wingers are the ones I want shaping foreign policy.
Just like you and your pals in the Bush administration - murderous thugs.
i'm willing to throw the iranians in there for good measure. we could make them honorary arabs for the purpose.
have you ever read haaretz in hebrew, big shot.
in the movie roman holiday, in one of the final scenes, where audrey hepburn is meeting the gentlemen of the press, one of the men introduces himself as a reporter from an israeli paper. without using the web, which paper was it. this is open to anyone interested.
well, solon, time has expired.
you obviously have never read haaretz in hebrew. therefore, your credibility on this issue is shot. you know nothing. haaretz is beloved by the left, that's why europeans and lefty americans are enamored with it. in israel, they hate it, and prefer the other two mentioned above. you cannot trust anything in haaretz, particularly a cooked up poll about talking with hamas, whom they admire.
the answer to the question is, davar. the man says, davar, tel aviv. davar ceased publication in 1994. it was owned by the histradut, the labor party's union.
Sorry I have to go powder my knees.
Que homophobic rant.