« China's Media Stoppage of Tienanmen = America's "Move On" from Torture | coonsey's Blog | Budget Cuts House GOP are recommending to Obama: »

FOX NEWS: Obama's Terrorist Invite?


Obama Overture to Hamas Suggests Inevitability of Terror Group's Dominance Among Palestinians



In an apparent policy shift, President Obama on Thursday invited Hamas -- a designated terror organization -- to "play a role" in the future of the Palestinian people.

During his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday, the U.S. president bluntly recognized the group, which has called for the destruction of Israel, in a two-sentence passage that was part of a broader discussion about the terms for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. 

"Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist," Obama said.

Give me a break.  Policy shift invites Terrorist?

 

Is that what President Nixon did when he became the first president of U.S. to visit China in 1972, ending 20 years of frosty relations between the two countries?  President Nixon said, "There is no reason for us to be enemies," he said. "Neither of us seeks the territory of the other; neither of us seeks domination over the other; neither of us seeks to stretch out our hands and rule the world."

 

Didn't President George W Bush end up visiting China even after they kept our downed airplane and crew hostage for 12 days in the beginning of his term?  24 American crewmen, including three women and eight code-breakers were taken into custody by the Chinese; how was this different than what Iran did during Carter's term?  The incident was called the Bush administration's first real foreign-policy crisis.  Yet even after all that, Bush pays an official visit to China?  Imagine if Carter had gone to visit Iran?

 

Is that what Ronald Reagan did when he sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam Hussein the brutal dictator and man that used WMD against innocent citizens.  That happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

 

Publicly describing the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", Reagan supported anti-Communist movements worldwide and spent his first term forgoing the strategy of détente by ordering a massive military buildup in an arms race with the USSR. Reagan negotiated with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, culminating in the INF Treaty and the decrease of both countries' nuclear arsenals.

 

It is only by showing a bit of strength and the willingness to compromise do we improve relationships with our enemies that's been proven over history.

 

We've tried the 'show of strength' way over the past 8 years.  All that did was get our men and women stuck in a bee hive in the Middle East in which we can never really pull out of now - unless there is peace.  President Obama's desire to 'talk' is just another option to try and create that peace. 


War didn't solve anything.


Sometimes it takes a little charm and understanding to get what you ultimately want.


16 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Fox unveils its entirely predictable pro-hate response. And it will ripple out over the airwaves unexamined and seep into the mind of a racist who will convert it to violence.

Fox News. We report (with malice). You decide (to act on it).

user-pic

You have to understand the conservative mindset which is naturally suspicious of any change. They don't believe people can change, because they are committed to not change.

Fox did the typical Repo right-wing move by taking a small part out of context and pretending it tells the whole story. Obama clearly predicated a role for Hamas on Hamas changing its rhetoric and conduct for the better.

I believe there is a place for conservative criticism. But why do conservative mouthpieces so often insist on placing the core of their arguments directly in the crapper?

This happened twice with Sotomayor, the "make policy" line and the "Latina woman" line. The right wing takes fragments out of context to create strawman targets to attack. While that's fine for fencing practice, it demeans the public debate when fencing practice is reduced to such levels. The pretense or ignorance involved is intellectually criminal and simply dishonest.

user-pic

eds, you're right, there is a place for "conservative criticism". An honest debate requires intelligent discourse on both sides. But right now, the opposing view is heavy on "opposing" and light on "view".

Also, I don't know the current definition of conservative. The ideology has become too hypocritical to recognize. Conservatives spent outrageously over the last eight years. And how do they presently explain that?

Similar to how they explain Abu Ghraib:

"It was just a few bad actors."

They'd like to detach the last eight years from history and claim "conservative values haven't changed."

That one simple statement in which they define their pride also cements them to a permanent and defeating irony:

they haven't changed.

user-pic

Another problem with that cited material is "recognized [Hamas]". Mentioning Hamas is not a formal recognition in the sense of diplomatic relations.

The rest of your comments are a bit general, but let me try:

-- But right now, the opposing view is heavy on "opposing" and light on "view".

Agreed. They have lost their pragmatic bearings and are grasping at straws (and strawman attacks) just to keep a voice in what passes for the debate.


-- Also, I don't know the current definition of conservative. The ideology has become too hypocritical to recognize. Conservatives spent outrageously over the last eight years. And how do they presently explain that?

You mistake the ideology for the conduct taken in defense of the ideology. Different conservatives will have differing explanations. They wanted to hold on to something. It was expensive, so they tried to pay the price. That's my superficial nutshell explanation. It's true that Bush did not behave like a fiscal conservative, but he could claim exigency (defense of necessity, whether it would fly politically or not).

--Similar to how they explain Abu Ghraib: "It was just a few bad actors."

That is true enough, if one remembers that the "bad apples" were not just the grunts at AG, but include people all the way up to the WH. Cheney et al are definitely on the defensive now, and they will attempt to keep the focus on the low-level immorality which unarguably occurred. It is frustrating to me that they are not called to task for this errant focus by the media personalities who give them air time.

user-pic

"You mistake the ideology for the conduct taken in defense of the ideology."

I'm way too general on that point, I agree, Eds.

But the conduct in defense of the ideology is merely "ex post facto" marketing, don't you think? If they really believed they were adhering to their principles, they would have exercised those principles even during what they categorize as exigent circumstances. But they didn't. Millions and millions of dollars were wasted, lost, the government was massively overcharged--it wasn't responsible management of blood or treasure.

If it was responsible fiscal management, why did they feel it necessary to exclude the costs of invading and occupying Iraq from their budgets.

Also, they claim exigency during their eight years of leadership but won't allow Obama to claim exigency as a consequence of their leadership. As a necessary way to deal with the condition and circumstances they left the country in.

Further, I still don't understand so-called conservatives who are now preaching textbook conservative principles like cutting taxes and pulling back on all spending as if this is just some generic time in history.

user-pic

It doesn't work to treat real people as if they were part of a monolithic cult. Some conservatives protested Bush&Co's fiscal policies, for instance.

It's not just marketing, and remember that in politics pragmatism is as important as ideological principles, if not more so. This of course applies to Obama as well.

I don't know which conservatives are preaching that way. But it's true that some people don't buy into Keynsian economics, whether from better principles or from other or lack of reason.


user-pic

"It doesn't help to treat people as if they're part of a monolithic cult."

I've been thinking about this Eds, and I agree. But would you agree that over the last eight years, congressional Republicans have behaved as if part of a monolithic cult? Almost never, (I do say almost, not never) an instance of independent thinking, just congressional republicans acting as a collective, "we all vote the same way at all times". "We all recite the same talking points at all times." Even now, if one Republican disagrees with say Rush, or the main narrative, he's finished.

My Republican friends don't behave this way. And I understand that their are moderate, conservative and all brands of Republicans within the party.

user-pic

I could agree that there have been dominant modes in Congress, not that they (Repos) had uniform fiscal views. Look at Ron Paul for instance, and look at the splits on various votes.

No, Rush doesn't have that power even now, but yes, the pundits love to spin it that way in an attempt to ridicule Rush for what apparent power he DOES have over some Repos.

There is a difference between a dominant mode of a distribution, and a cult. Olbermann and Maddow like to "cultify" the right, pretty much as O'Reilly and Hannity like to do similarly to their own demons on the "left" (really, on the "anything on the not-right which can be sensationalised side"). I find Sean and Bill to be sickening, as in disgusting. I find Keith and Rachel to be a bit pompous and whiny (Rachel whiny more than Keith).


user-pic

It's simple, conservatives pretend that those things didn't happen, or that Bill Clinton was somehow responsible.

user-pic

Geez Coonsey, another informative and interesting post! You keep posting, I'll keep learning, appreciating and rec'ding!

FOX's only claim to fame is they are predictable and ___________ (so many options, I'll just leave it there for insertion of many applicable terms of choice).

And, can't resist....President Obama's speedh is definitely change I can believe in and support!

user-pic

Fox and their minions fall into the category of -

"In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."

Fox and the loones on the right have been very busy.

user-pic

Thanks Aunt Sam -- I just don't want people to miss stories like this.

user-pic

FOX changed their HEADING for this story, now it reads, "Policy Shift — or, 'Obama Doctrine'?"

user-pic

i AM A LEFT WING COMMIE LOVING BASTARD REALLY. I think it is genetic...but I gleaned this from the Bible:

A mild answer calms wrath
but a harsh word stirs up anger.

The tongue of the wise pours out knowledge
but the mouth of fools spurts forth folly.

The eyes of the Lord are in every place
keeping watch on the evil and the good

A soothing tongue is a tree of life
but a perverse one crushes the spirit.

Chapter 15, Proverbs

The End.

user-pic

Faux News always hears differently from everybody else. I was channel surfing a couple of days ago and they said something about Holder not going after the New Black Panters, who are home grown terrorists. So are the KKK-the original home grown terrorists, but I did not hear the anchor say anything about going after them or their splinter groups.
Thatis the first I ever eard Obama linked to the Panters, but that is what the anchor did. Astounding!!

user-pic

Fox is cultivating a loyal viewership of older, white, (mostly) male viewers. These viewers can't be considered "conservative" because they aren't sophisticated enough to have anything approaching a coherent worldview. e.g., this is the constituency that hates taxes but can't come up with any programs that they would like cut except foreign aid and "welfare" (i.e., programs that are perceived to disproportionately assist minorities). They have a decidedly 1950's-era view of America, and think that minorities should know their place at home, and that we still have the economic and military might to dictate terms to the rest of the world.

What's troubling about the MSM is that, rather than reporting as if their primary mission is to get past the political rhetoric, they want to capture a portion of Fox's market, at least for periods of time through the week. Therefore, they highlight the arguments by headline conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck no matter how demonstrably false or outrageous, much the way Leno or Letterman routinely feature rap artists on their programs. Even though I assume Leno and Letterman hate rap, they feature them anyway because their programmers want to capture the eyeballs of rap fans, if only for a brief period of time. Journalistic ethics and standards have nothing to do with it.

Leave a comment

coonsey

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 24

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Illinois
  • Politics Independent

Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address