Fox News Panel Says Obama Can't Negotiate With Iran Because of Election Results. But They Said The Same Thing Last Year!
By Susie Madrak Monday Jun 15, 2009 5:45am
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!
Login or Register to post comments.
What can anybody expect from the ignorant Faux Noise deaf, dumb and blind sheep??
Neocons, fighting peace and progress since 1979!
Where was Shit Fumes during and after Bush V Gore? Did Shit Fumes say no one should reach out to Bush because he was an unelected despot?
Conservative have zero credibility on the subject of election theft.
Ahmadinejad stole one election, Dubya stole two...shit happens.
BTW, it's Obama's fault.
If we had took to the streets after Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris and the GOP mob stole Florida for Dumbya we might not be in the deep shit we are today. The Iranians are showing how much democracy means to them whereas we just flipped the channel and dug into our Happy Meals.
Hey, I didn't get a Happy Meal. I missed out on that, but had I had one, it might have made me feel a little better at the time. That was such a miserable time for the country and for Florida.
It occurs to me that these riots wouldn't be happening in Iran if Ahmadinejad had "won" 51% to 49%. The riots happened because his supporters and probably he himself, wanted a landslide. At least when the republicans stole elections, they were smart enough to not go much outside the margin of error. If Bush vs Gore had been polling at a virtual tie, (which they were), and Bush claimed victory at 68% to 32% and without SCOTUS input, I imagine we would have had riots too.
And you can keep the Happy Meal. I prefer to have food in my food.
Well, it's not bad once in a while to have Happy in your meal :)
reconstituted genetically modified food cells, with its DNA implanted with mouse ears. (much like the rethuglican-nasty party that stole our lives in 2000!!! ) Blech ptuiie
Generally when I think of the word "meal" the first thing I think about is food. Whatever McDonald's serves, it can't be described as "food".
Doubtful in the Apathetic States of America.
I was merely pointing out that the situations were hardly analogous.
...major differences may turn out to be that Iranians care more about having a legitimate election than do (or did) Americans.
Spent a couple of fun filled nights in the klink.
Question is "where was everyone else?"
Repukes would know about fraudulent elections wouldn't they.
As far as dealing with Iran, well you deal with whoever is in power; that is what diplomacy is all about. It's not sitting back waiting for someone who fully agrees with you to get elected.
Did Bush policy make Iran weaker or stronger? Only the riechwing would ask that question like there may be a debate. They know f&%! well Bushco's failed Iraq policy has made Iran the major player in the area, so yeah Bush made Iran stronger you dumb s$!#s.
About how the reform movement gained momentum when Bush was president, the implication being of course that what happened in Iran is somehow Obama's fault. What he fails to mention is that Iran had a reformer when Bush took office and Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, WHILE Bush was in power. Honestly I don't know why the shills and stenographers in the traditional media ever give these people, who have been wrong every time and about everything, a platform from which to speak. What's more infuriating is how many people - right and left - actually tune in. As long as their advertisers are making money, they will keep right on doing what they are doing and as long as people keep tuning in, they will keep making money. I let mediamatters and Crooks and Liars watch and catch this kind of crap for me but I haven't watched anything FOX "News" in almost 10 years.
can all kindly go cheney themselves.
Is really getting out of hand. Until the Democrats take a page out of the Republican's book and start doing things like very loudly and publically condemning such attacks that are UNDERMINING the efforts of the President of the United States, it's just going to keep going on. How many resolutions condemning individuals and groups did the Republicans pass for speaking ill of Bush? And none of those cases remotely approached the irresponsibility factor of what the wingers are saying today. Let's compare moveon.org's criticism of Patreaus to Rep. Kirk going to China and bragging that he told the Chinese government to not trust the Obama administration's budget numbers or our president. The Republicans are such sore LOSERS that they are throwing a tantrum worthy of a 5 year old and no other word can adequately describe it. They are so furious with being out of power that some are actively engaged in sabotage of the efforts to right our economy and reclaim our status on the world stage. Some people would call this treason, (I'm one of them), and the false equivelency of saying that the left did the same thing to Bush is ridiculous on the face of it and in the substance. The criticisms from the left toward Bush were specific in nature, rather than generalized hate and fear mongering BECAUSE HE HAD FAILED, not because of sour grapes. It's got to stop. Now.
Its time to say enough!
Their is a consequence to this reich-wing rubbish - their sour grapes are costing lives!!! Margaret, were they 5 year olds they could be put in time out...... but this tantrum has terrible consequences for the country and world.
Yes, the Republicans would dismiss any specific criticisms by accusing the Left of having Bush Derangement Syndrome. It was a nice and clean way of taking the validity out of any potentially persuasive argument one might have against the Cheney administration.
Maybe this is my personal bias influencing perception but I can't help but think the current Republican message is a potent case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. …or at least a Lack of Power Derangement Syndrome.
...versus non specific and incoherant rants against Obama and everything he says or does eloquently illustrates the irrationality of the equivilency argument. They are not the same phenomenon. We were pissed that Bush lied us into war, Obama is accused of being at fault for Iran's rigged election. We got upset when Bush failed during Katrina, some congresscritter went to China to call Obama a liar. We accused Bush of failing to take the threat of terrorism seriously before September 11, 2001, Obama and his family get compared to apes. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on here.
I wish Faux/Fly news would please (please please) just go away!
Its "fly" news because (wait for it....) faux newz eats sh*t and bothers people!
I can't even watch a clip without my head exploding!!
They make me throw up in my mouth a little bit just hearing about their inane drivel and outright lies.
rechhh ptuuiie :-0oooooo
That Mara bitch tried to make is sound like Obama wanted to reach out only to Ahmedinejad. Is that heffa for real? Would anyone besides a Fox News zombie believe that? Ahmedinejad is who is and was in power at the time, who else is Obama supposed to reach out to? Obama would be reaching out to whoever the Iranian president is at the time, What other choice would he have?
The Faux News shills don't even pretend to hide their conservative bias.
They don't want the president reaching out to Iran, they want the president to go to war with Iran and to commit somebody else's kids besides theirs to fight it.
Faux Nlie is nothing but a bunch of koolaid drinking, old white farts, sitting around seeing who can make up the biggest lie.
if the "liberals" take power in Iran and make peace with America. 30 years of hostilities ended by liberals on both sides. Con heads would explode.
but I'm not holdin my breath.
Musavi and Obama are many things, liberals is not one of them.
Alas, I would take "moderate" over "conservative hardliners" any day...
...without allowing this sovereign nation to complete it's Democratic process and subsequent investigation, the Fox fuckers would have accused him of interference and promoting anarchy.
Either way, it's Obama's fault.
Has any conservative added anything constructive to any conversation since Jan. 20 of this year? They have called names, griped and pissed and moaned but nothing positive or constructive has even tried to come from their side. Remember their budget plan, two or three pages with no numbers on them?
No.
If Iran ends up a moderate nation we will give credit to the Obama administration for the change, just like Reagan and the Soviet Union.
This is what is driving the wingnuts crazy.
where credit is due: to the Iranian people.
WTF is with Americans claiming credit for things they have little to nothing to do with? Obama is not out there in the streets of Iran rioting for electoral transparency, is he?
He is being blamed by FAUX "News" for what is going on in Iran. A very important distinction. Why the implication that Obama is "claiming credit"?
... the poster I was responding to did.
My mistake.
The Fox fucks are just pre-emptively blaming him, wishfully hoping for the worst. If things turn out well Democratically in Iran, they'll then say Obama deserves zero credit.
nutcases, does not mean that Obama deserves any credit either way.
This is an Iranian deal, if anything happens sans international intervention, the credit for either outcome goes to the Iranian people.
Honestly, I will give credit Obama if he manages to be the first American president who does not meddle in the affairs of an oil producing country. That will be quite an achievement, IMHO. So here is hoping that he comes trough...
...progression. And blame(like us in 2000 and 2004) if they allow election fraud to obstruct democracy. Just some more Fox manufactured lies/propaganda.
It certainly confuses matters.
If election results remain controversial, who does he meet with, and wouldn't meeting with either Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir Hussein Moussavi be seen as officially recognizing them as the victor?
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...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCPOowojiC0
....what exactly is a 'Fox News Panel'? Some new comedy group? A new country music act maybe? What?
Ask Amy Goodman and she will tell you the truth.
So basically today is about the Iranian election and the fact that you can't change religions in Egypt.
Second City, but with lies replacing the humor.
Made up of ex Hee-Haw alumni, and that "get'r done" idiot.
Alas, the Supreme Court decision in 2000 leaves questionable America's ability to lecture any government about democracy.
"winner takes all" and the electoral college should STFU when giving democracy lessons to other countries.
Those issues go back further than the 2000 elections.
As usual FAUX is exploring the outer regions of wishful thinking, on their part. A tiny breeze of reality was heard from Juan Cole but was completely ignored. And now a neo-cons worst nightmare has occurred. Khamenei backs vote fraud probe.
"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."
Sounds like something one could have said about Raygun, Bush 1 or Boy George......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6EFyofhXPw
Just for a moment what this country, and the whole world, for that matter, would be like if the Republican agenda were to become the reality.
I know Bushco damn near accomplished that very thing, but it seems the Right is even crazier nowadays.
The world in which they would have us exist would be a paranoid nightmare, full of crazed xenophobes, awash in a self-rightous Christian bloodbath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw
..."Marble Mouthed Hume" was retiring, eh?
The pompous ones (Krystol and Hume) seem to think that Obama's endorsement of the opposition in Iran would be helpful. Unfortunately, it would have the complete opposite effect.
When Obama mentioned th1 1953 coup against Mousadek in his Cairo speech, he brought up the one moment that all Iranians deplore - an American, stage-managed coup to replace Iran's regime. If Obama endorsed Amajinedad's opposition, it would immediately discredit them. The one thing Iranians hate is the CIA.
Obama has attempted to give the opposition space by distancing himself from the fray. When Bush shot his mouth off endorsing various elements opposed to the Iran's regime, he made them look like traitors. It's rather like having Osama Bin Laden endorsing an American candidate just before the election. What a big help that would be.
There will be plenty of time of Obama to say something, but until the facts on the ground become clear, the worst thing Obama could do is shoot off his mouth.
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 your the only one doubting the spread of these protests asshole.
"Fox News Panel Says Obama Can't Negotiate With Iran Because of Election Results. But They Said The Same Thing Last Year!
By Susie Madrak Monday Jun 15, 2009 6:45am"
FOX is not quite NEWS !!!!!
Login or Register to post comments.