Obama On Hamas Smear: "We Don't Do Nuance Well In Politics"

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

The Huffington Post   |   May 12, 2008 03:38 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Barack Obama sat for a lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg where he discusses Israel, his connection to Chicago's Jewish community, and Middle East policy. He also had these comments about the recent attacks on him because of the kind words he received from a member of Hamas.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?


BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I've repeatedly condemned them. I've repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

Read the whole interview with Obama.

 
 

Comments
402
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

I don't understand why everyone seems so keen to take Hamas at their word. Hasn't anyone ever heard of reverse psychology? Begin with the idea that Ahmad Yousef understands the effect that his words will have on our politics. Seems reasonable, given how vocal we are in our hate for Hamas, right? So then, if Hamas REALLY supported Obama, they would NEVER say so. Hamas is pushing us this way because, for them, Republicans getting re-elected is the best thing that can happen. It's a recruiting and PR coup, and it ensures that we will spend four more years alienating the Muslim world.

Why does Obama feel the need to defend himself on merits, as if the honesty of Hamas is without question?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 05/16/2008

Wait a second. Obama SHOULD support Hamas. Hamas was duly elected to the Palestinian legislature. They WON the election that the US pushed so hard for the Palestinians to hold. Hamas is the only major obstacle in the way of Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide campaign. Abbas and the PA have already folded their tents as the Jews expropriate and inhale the rest of Palestine. I know Obama understands this, but has to give way to political and financial exigencies that would doom his bid for the presidency were he to express (or hint at even) the notion that it is the Palestinians that are the aggrieved party. The one last hope for America, if it is heal its relations with the rest of the world, is that President Obama gets it right when finally in office. Genocide and territorial expansion via war are unacceptable. Its time Israel towed the line.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 AM on 05/14/2008

I remember that in 1979, during the Iranian hostage crisis there was a guy named Ayatollah Khomeini who wanted Reagan to be the president instead of Carter, and would free the hostages till Reagan took office.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 AM on 05/13/2008

The story here is more involved...
Ayatollah claimed afterward that he supported Reagan -- see the following timeline:

1. In 1979 - the Shah of Iran is overthrown, and exiled, by Islamic revolutionary govt.
2. Sept.1979 - the Shah is granted admission into U.S. for medical treatment.
3. Nov 4,1979 - angered Iranian students raid U.S.Embassy and take hostages (52 remain in captivity for the duration).
4. President Carter applies economic pressure (halts oil imports, freezes Iranian assets) and begins diplomatic initiatives.
5. Apr. 24, 1980 - a rescue mission is attempted, but fails. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigns.
6. July 27, 1980 - The Shah dies in Cairo.
7. Sept. 22, 1980, Iraq invades western Iran. U.S. begins provinding arms to Iraq (luring them away from Soviet arms, and intensifying pressure on Iran to release the hostages). U.S. will also covertly supply arms to Iran.
9. Jan. 20, 1981, President Reagan's inaugurated.
Immediately, U.S. releases ~$8 billion in Iranian assets, and hostages are freed (after 444 days in captivity). Reagan Administration gives Iran full immunity (even from lawsuits).

Soonafter, MSM is abuzz about the prospect that a negotiation must have taken place, between Iran and a pre-inaugurated (pre-elected?) Reagan Admin, with assurances that the hostages would not be released prior to Reagan's inauguration.

Khomeini later claims he "supported" Reagan;
Reagan Admin claims Khomeini "feared" the actor (just turned President).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 05/13/2008

EVgeny - You forgot about the Mossadegh assassination and the installation of the Shah (both acts by US) with his secret police and political repression, and betrayal of the Palestinian cause. No wonder the US was hated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 05/14/2008

Last night on Keith Olbermann, he had a 5 minute segment about why hamas "endorses" Obama. Here is the link below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24586279#24586279

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 AM on 05/13/2008

abby4ever:
perhaps you have, but if nothing else, read down this page and then tell me there isn't a disproportionate amount of demonizing and mindless scapegoating coming from obama supporters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 AM on 05/13/2008

None coming from Hillary supporters? Interesting. Please tell me where you get your post blocking software/plug-in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 AM on 05/13/2008

***Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.***
I just had to quote it, even though it's just above in the article, for everyone to see. I just had to because, for me, it's one of the best verbal responses on these matters that I've ever seen--it's one of the best STATEMENTS on these matters that I've ever seen. It just is brilliant, and makes you trust him even more.
Obama '08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:02 AM on 05/13/2008

i'm utterly shocked by the degree of vitriol coming from the"let's all unite and live harmoniously" obama camp. i've never heard so much rancor and hatred. if the message boards on the huffington post are representative getting along, peace and finding common ground will be the last thing that happens under an obama presidency. what seems so clear from these posts are how much his supporters harbor deep racial resentments and anger. these comments are a good window into how an obama administration would end up dividing us more not less. just goes to show, how so many of his so-called liberal supporters are really fascists out of power. let's hope they remain that way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 AM on 05/13/2008

You are just voicing your inner held prejudices. Good try.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 05/13/2008

I don't think you are being fair at all. I am an independent but I have to say that many on BOTH sides are very passionate in ALL the blogs all over the internet and some people are more angry than others but that's human nature. That said I don't think that any thing you read here can be qualified as representative of the majority of voters for either candidate. You generalize when you talk about the Obama-camp vs Clinton-camp. I would like to think that after all is said and done this is the United States of America camp.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 05/13/2008

How do we know it's not you posting them?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 AM on 05/13/2008

You generalize, saying it's coming from the Obama camp. That isn't fair. And if you aren't fair, no one will listen to you. Aside from that, some Hillary supporters---notice that I don't say 'the Hillary camp'---are pretty vitriolic too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 AM on 05/13/2008

that may be but from a review of the comments on the huff post they are overwhelmingly coming from obama camp. if i am generalizing it's only because these kinds of comments are the norm. so, it's certainly fair. as far as hillary's supporters i haven't seen very much personal attacks on obama. they may think he is a flawed candidate, and unelectable but i think it's fair to say there are much less ad hominem attacks from them. obama supporters seem much more driven by anger than hillary's.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 AM on 05/13/2008

Take a visit to No Quarter.Tell me how "fair" you think some of those comments are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 AM on 05/14/2008

That you haven't seen hem doesn't mean they don't exist. I have seen plenty.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:34 AM on 05/13/2008

I don't pretend to be an expert but it would seem that there has been a leader of the party for the last 16 years. That would be Bill Clinton. He has been behind the scenes controlling the party for the past 8 years.
He is responsible for all the weak leaders. Who was the head of the DNC for the 2004 elections? Gee it was Terry McAuliffe what a coincidence.
Its not very complicated. The weakness in the democratic party over the past 8 years has been due to the Clinton's desire to win the election in 2008 and take them back to the White House.
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for Al Gore as he has for his wife? no
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for John Kerry as he has for his wife? no
The plan has always been to have HRC serve 6 years in the senate then run for the white house. Everybody knows that.
Would that have been possible if Al Gore had been elected? no. Chances are he would have served 8 years and the his vice president would have had the shoe in for the nomination.
Would that had happened if John Kerry had won the white house? no.
There is a man behind the curtain in the Democratic Party and its Bill Clinton. Just look at who was on the campaign for John Kerry. All Clinton plants.
So i thank God for Howard Dean.
Think about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 AM on 05/13/2008

The 04' campaign was lost because of a weak candidate.

Al Gore seperated himself from Bill Clinton and didn't ask him to campaign for him until it was too late. He was sooo scared that Bills' Monica Gate would hurt him, he not only seperated himself from the man, but also didn't highlight the peace and prosperity of the past 8 years. That and his idiotic comments about lock boxes and inventing the internet. Then he went all wacko on the debates. The first one he was like an attack dog, but the forcus groups said it was too much, so the next debate he acted like a timid child.

I love this PLAN you speak of. What was Obamas plan in 04' ? Get a US senate seat and run for president 1 and half years into his first terM????? This man has never finished an elected term in office without trying to get the next highest level. He's all about ego and power and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Think about what???? That you are a conspiracy theorist, who has poor information and zero facts to even help that weak argument...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 AM on 05/13/2008

What a funny---and fun---screen name. McPander. I like it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:05 AM on 05/13/2008

VERY, VERY IMPORTANT!!! For those considering voting for McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 AM on 05/13/2008

This is just the tip of the iceberg!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 AM on 05/13/2008

I have one Question why does all of our Senators and Rep., and President candaits have to swear the Loylity to Israel. We are an Indepent Nation and only have one Loylity and that is the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 AM on 05/13/2008

You are looking at this backwards. No one has to swear loyalty to any other country. A leader is required to understand the difference between a terrorist organization and a legitimate government. We support Israel as our strongest ally in the region. We don't swear loyalty to them, we support them in their quest for peace with their neighbors.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 05/13/2008

***We are an Indepent Nation and only have one Loylity and that is the AMERICAN PEOPLE.***
Help! That sounds like isolationism. Worse, it sounds as if we don't need allies or give a fig about the ones we have. Blame the UK, anyway, they're the ones that had the big idea of the Israelis getting their own state and having the state parked right in the middle of Arab peoples, knowing full well about the great animosity between the two, which seems eternal. And aren't they the ones that came up with Iraq? They are always carving things up and putting people where they ought not to be, and then ducking out. Amazing as it may seem, not all the problems of the world can be laid at the feet of America. And I do think Israel is an important ally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 AM on 05/13/2008

I am glad you have the energy to type out the attitudes that so many of us share. We are not the only one's on this small insignificant rock hurtling through the cosmos. Not many minds are changed through firing missiles. We should not fear at least talking with people different then us. It is not a sign of weakness but one of self-confidence.

There likely will always be a criminal element that must be dealt with in the severest of terms. I personally haven't had any God come down from the heavens to announce what should be done, just a bunch of books written by mere mortals often with their own agenda. I do not disparage anyone for having their personal beliefs. But when they can do despicable acts in the name of what is told by their religious leaders, I tend to want to know the true motivations. Usually these kinds of justification involves people who are simply out for some sort of power. I do not expect others to believe the way I do, but I do expect people to behave humanly and justly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 AM on 05/13/2008

Black jack - since you seem utterly ignorant of this topic, let's start with the beginning. The US has not EVER sworn "loyalty" to Israel, anymore than Israel - or, for example, Great Britain, has sworn loyalty to us. Do you know what an ally is? Next, do you have any clue why Israel might be the most important ally we have in the middle east? Next, have you ever heard that Israel is the homeland and birthplace of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Not at all important? Next, do you realize that it the only place on earth where Jews are unconditionally welcomed? Next, do you know the history of the people that now claim they are "Palestinians"?

Don't just toss something out there to support an ignorant idea that Israel is not an important ally of the US. Go get some knowledge - it is readily available.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 AM on 05/13/2008

Rubbish!

Google 'The Israeli Lobby'.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:39 AM on 05/13/2008

Hi AdamX

Try answering some of your own questions. No B.S. No sophmoric attacks, I know the facts so don't avoid them.

Please educate us with answers to one of your own questions.

Next, do you know the history of the people that now claim they are "Palestinians"?

Don't quote Golda Mier either, or please do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 AM on 05/13/2008

Goldberg has some serious issues. He essentialy asked this question TWICE.

"I"m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?"

Let's see, 93% of the pre 1967 border occupy land owned by people who where forcibly removed at gunpoint during the 1948 three day war. Of course the "offical Israeli" position is that they left for fear of Arab attack. Even if that was the case, failure to allow them to return is a major problem.

With this fact in mind where does Goldberg even dream that Israel has justice on it's side. Likud is Irgun, they are the Stern Gang, did these terrorist have justice on there side?

Goldberg them mentions the settlements, let's see we have Likud supporting people who belief they have a right to the land, free of charge, becasue "God Promised it to Them" and let's not forget it's not just AIPAC but uber -right wing that support this view and hope al Jews will move to Israel, so the world can come to and end.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 AM on 05/13/2008

Likud is not the majority party in Israel, Kadima is, the centrist party who believe in the road map to peace. About 700,000 Palestinians left due to urging of their leaders when the Arab war was begun in 1948. Israel's declaration of independence states:

"...in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

The response was the Arab war of 1948 intended to destroy Israel. There are now about 4 million descendants of the Palestinians who left Israel. They live all over the world, some still in Gaza and the West Bank, some already in Israel. There are only about 7 million people living in Israel and 20% of those are Arabs. It's inconceivable to insist that Israel allows 4 million more people into an area that is smaller than New Jersey. New Jersey has a population just over 8 million people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 05/13/2008

You, sir, are a liar. You also hate Jews. Why don't you take an honest stand and admit it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 AM on 05/13/2008

Also Alex try reading John Stoessinger's classic "Why Nations Go to War" . He is a Harvard hisorty professor, and also a Shoah survivor. He suggest if peace does not happen soon, a civil war might occur. His facts support what I mentioned in my post. So tell me is he a liar too?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 AM on 05/13/2008

AdamX when you call someone a liar, you should be able to back it up. Please provide facts. Not fiction, you sound like a bigot otherwise.

P.S. My personal library of Shoah books would shame most public libraries over 250 titles. Have you read this many books.

Do you want to discuss say intentionism vs functionislm and its relationship to modernity. You are over your head with me pal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 AM on 05/13/2008

He is NOT a liar. His facts are irrefutable. The IDF had its genesis in the Irgun and Stern Gang -- a terrorist group.

Check your facts and your history before you condemn those more knowledgable than you.

Why does anyone who calls Israel on its human rights abuses, its belligerent refusal to adhere to the Green Line and its actions that thwart peace (settlements, anyone?) a Jew hater?

An anti-semite is someone Jews dont like. (forget who said it)

Google "Naqbah" btw if you have any intention of relieving yourself of your incomprehensible ignorance wrt to the truth about Israel/Palestine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 AM on 05/13/2008

What is inexcusable is to call Israel on its human rights abuses without acknowledging the abuses of the other parties involved. Read Human Rights Watch on the Israel/Palestinian situation:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

Now, take a look at other country reports, like the US, Burma, Saudi Arabia, and tell me why Israel is being singled out. It is defending itself against an enemy that wants to wipe it off the face of the earth. It doesn't attack without provocation. I doesn't try to target innocent lives like the terrorists do. It is taking defensive measures to secure its borders.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 05/13/2008

So which is it? Is Obama a fresh, new, quantum leap forward, or is he a nuanced, cafefully groomed politician, endlessly mincing words to give a slightly different hue to the same policies as everyone else?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 AM on 05/13/2008

I think if one reads the whole article, he pandered a bit. He is trying to win Jewish support, Nothing wrong with reaching out to everyone. He certainly believes in Israel's right to exist and wll certainly provide protection. I think Goldberg asked some loaded questions and he handled it well. He also made it clear with being totally overt that he is not necessarily a Likud suck up as so many U.S. politicians are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 AM on 05/13/2008

Fly back to freeper, @sshole.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 AM on 05/13/2008