“I think the President is firmly committed to Middle East peace… what he defines as Middle East peace and I think he’s less concerned about Israel’s security than other presidents in the past, Democrats and Republican alike. …” – Joe Scarborough
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Today on “Morning Joe,” Scarborough said there was no way that Hillary Clinton would have ever made the statement Pres. Obama made about the 1967 borders with land swaps. Joe left off “with land swaps,” adding them later in the conversation, but regardless, he’s wrong.
The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl tweeted this last week:
Hillary on 11/25/09: “We [support]…the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps.”
Pres. Bill Clinton in 2001 said basically the same thing only in a convoluted way because back then you couldn’t utter such saneness.
Bill Press, a guest on the show today, said the speech was at the State Dept., so obviously Sec. Clinton was on board, with Press also saying she actually helped write it. There’s no proof of that, but he was making a point that lives beyond literal translation.
The setting wasn’t accidental. Obama said the words at Hillary’s State Dept., so she’s behind them, which was part of the message.
Scarborough has said quite a few things that are alarming for any person serious about outcome in the Middle East policy. His high profile and important morning show makes them matter. He joined other Republicans on the Right in siding with PM Netanyahu over Israel’s broad and best interests, especially when looking at what the Arab spring has brought to Israel’s door this year, which thrusts urgency upon us.
When asked by Mark Halperin if he believed Pres. Obama was “firmly committed to Israel’s security,” Scarborough refused to give a yes or no answer, which Halperin requested and called him on, which is fine, but then he said this:
“I think the President is firmly committed to Middle East peace… what he defines as Middle East peace and I think he’s less concerned about Israel’s security than other presidents in the past, Democrats and Republican alike. …” – Joe Scarborough
He went on to cite both Bill and Hillary Clinton as examples, even though they also agreed with what Pres. Obama said.
Dan Senor, another guest, made a big deal about Obama’s AIPAC speech as well, saying he leaned in on some things, without getting that part of the lean-in was because people, including Netanyahu, purposefully misled people on what was said, leaving out “with land swaps,” which is critically important.
Seeing Mika Brzezinski’s reaction to Joe’s quote above, her eyes popping, was heart warming for me, because this statement by Joe Scarborough was shameful, which I don’t say lightly.
It’s very fair to say that no one is more critical than myself on Barack Obama, especially on foreign policy. But anyone challenging Pres. Obama’s commitment to Israeli security is conjuring up false claims out of whole cloth that are damaging to U.S. foreign policy and the goals of everyone who wants to see a two-state solution.
Mark Halperin played the only grown-up beside Ms. Brzezinski, though she was not about to get in the middle of Scarborough’s impassioned words, which is appreciated, because many of us feel the same on this subject. It’s just that on the Right, if you say something that comports with reality, which Haaretz also wrote last week, it’s tantamount to declaring open season to the “you don’t support Israel” crowd, which is nonsense.
Unfortunately, laying doubt on a person’s support for Israel has been how the Right has cornered anyone who believes that in order to help Israel you must also tell tough truths, which begin with 1967 borders as a start, with land swaps to be negotiated, the starting point.
That Joe didn’t have a problem with PM Netanyahu’s disgraceful lack of decorum and diplomatic disrespect for Pres. Obama and the American Presidency on Friday is what I find disturbing, a word he used to describe Obama on the 1967 with land swaps talking point that Hillary has also invoked.
The Israeli Right and the Republican Right are siding with PM Netanyahu over Pres. Obama and U.S. policy, which threatens to become a political sword to the detriment of Israel, the Palestinians and U.S. interests. To hear Joe Scarborough join this crowd is staggeringly depressing and more than a little bit sad.
Joe might consider spending some alone time with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Maybe Mika can arrange it. Or maybe she can invite Steve Clemons to stop by some morning.
What was Obama’s reasoning in starting this whole mess in the first place. He was rolling along on the Bin Laden wave, everyone knows the election is going to be all economy all the time, no one really cares about the middle east ( they just give it lip service ). You could ask the same question about bombing Libya ( why Libya and not Bahrain, not Syria ). Bahrain was rhetorical, I know why not Bahrain. As for Scarborough; he’s a smug, arrogant, wise ass punk with a chip on his shoulder. He thinks it’s cool to sit around talking politics on camera wearing a track suit. Most of what he says is meaningless and is intended to irritate his guests. It might be worth watching for Barnacle and some of his guests, but not much else.
wow! i agree- obama is in the right here but a susual the gop opposes whatever obama says! i mean this is damned insane.its like a game to these people. its disgusting beyond belief.
And it’s also just so important, with Republicans really digging in on something we can’t afford.
You should have seem Joe this morning shouting over Harold Ford. Disgraceful,
I think the general “perception” is that Hillary voted for the Iran resolution and Obama ducked out on that one. So people “perceive” Hillary different than Obama on Israel.
GaDem, I think you mean Iraq. Not Iran.
No there was a resolution regarding Iran that was voted on in 2007 or 2008. Hillary voted for it but Obama ducked out on it.
The reason so many, foreign and domestic, ignore, defy, show disrespect for Obama is that they know he can be rolled. He gives up without a fight or even before a fight. I will forever remember that iconic photo of Hillary in the rain, speaking, with a hand in the air. I could never imagine such an act from BO.
Case in point: check out Harry Reid. http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/0511/55560.html
And exactly WTF is Obama supposed to do about this? It is a fact that for 30 years our Congress will do ANYTHING Israel wants. Obama tried to change the playing field and found out that for the Congress caving to Israel trumps even our own national interests.
All he can do is have the State Dept work behind the scenes, and ignore Congress and assholes like you. If he didn’t try I’m sure you’d have a mouthful to say about that.
As far as Harry Reid goes, once again, what should Obama do? He’s stuck with that corrupt shitbag, it would have may have been better if crazy Angle had won. She’s probably more to your liking – strident, brainless.
Stay classy, SenyorCuevo.