It's possible that Brit Hume's statements on Fox News Sunday show he's getting forgetful in his later years. How else to explain it when he so solemnly says Obama can't engage with Iran because of the unrest over the election? After all, he was saying the same thing last year! Via Media Matters:
WALLACE: So, a fiercely fought campaign in Iran; results that show that Ahmadinejad won in a landslide. And now we have people in the streets, supporters of the more moderate challenger, Mousavi, saying that the election was stolen. Brit, where does this leave things inside Iran?
HUME: Well, it looks as if Ahmadinejad will cling to power. He is supported by the key elements of the theocracy that runs that country. Whether these protests will grow or spread is in doubt. They seem to have subsided today after all of the trouble they had yesterday.
I think it leaves Iran about where it was, but showing the world an even clearer picture, as if any were needed, this is basically a police state. And it is difficult, therefore, to see how President Obama's dreams of a more constructive relationship with the powers that be there can go forward, given the fact that this election appears to have been defective if not utterly fraudulent. I mean, after all, Mousavi -- Ahmadinejad is, according to the results, was supposed to have carried Mousavi's hometown by a large margin.
See, Brit's kind of a broken record. Here's what he said in May 2008:
WALLACE: Brit, you made it clear that you think that, on substance, that Obama's wrong. The idea of holding these meetings without preconditions is a bad idea.
Obama goes back and says, "Look -- look at the Bush policy over the last seven years. Has that made Iran weaker or stronger?" Isn't that a fair point on his --
HUME: It's a fair point, but who says it isn't -- who can seriously argue that if President Bush had had some kind of meeting and direct negotiation with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad that that would have -- would have weakened Iran's aggressive posture in some way?
That makes no sense. In fact, what it would have done would be to elevate this slightly crazy guy who says these unbelievably nutty things to the level of a world statesman, which his present situation does not suggest he is.
Now, some people on the Obama side will say, "Well, you wouldn't really meet with him. You might meet with one of the mullahs." Oh, that would be -- that's a great idea.
I mean, you just stop and think about it. When you sit down at a table with somebody, you expect them to offer you something, but you have to offer them something in return. It's not for the point -- it's not for the purpose of just having a nice chat and getting to know one another.
Why doesn't he just come out and say it? He's against diplomacy, especially when a Democrat does it!
Support Crooks and Liars: