Obama lies about negotiating with Hamas

[BeAChooser]

The act was aimed at a specific event so can be taken as refering to recognised goverments.

So are you claiming that as long as the US hasn't recognized the legitimacy of a government, any US citizen can freely "negotiate" with them?

 

[BeAChooser]

Interesting that BAC believes everything that lying, murdering terrorists say.

No, I just tend to discount what they say in an official capacity or when they try to explain away something evil that they did (as in the case of Ayers talking about Oughten). Now in this case, the Hamas person who was interviewed apparently wasn't speaking in an official capacity because Hamas has officially denied this event happened. Should I believe the official Hamas denial or the person? Perhaps he just spoke off the cuff without checking whether Hamas officially wanted to let this bit of information slip.

 

[gdnp]

And don't liberals and Obama recognize the authority of the UN above all else?

1) No.
2) Who is the Hamas representative in the UN? Oh, I forgot. They don't have one.
3) When you confirm that the people talking with Hamas were Obama's official representatives and they were negotiating, let us know.

 

[geni]

And don't liberals and Obama recognize the authority of the UN above all else?

Sigh. You however advance a line of argument that Hamas should be considered a goverment in line with the logan act which is something quite different. There is a difference between accepting that hamas are in control of the area commonly known as the gaza strip and quite another to consider them a goverment within the terms of the logan act. Why do you feel the need to try and add legitimacy to terrorists?

 

[geni]

So are you claiming that as long as the US hasn't recognized the legitimacy of a government, any US citizen can freely "negotiate" with them?

Going by the degree to which the act has actualy been inforced the de-facto situation is that US citizens can freely negotiate with whoever they like (fortunate can you imagain trying to carry out business in the EU if you were not allowed to negotate with EU goverments every time there was an EU/US trade disagreement?).

That however is a side issue. At the present time there is nothing to suggest that the act extends beyond state goverments recognised by the US. Attempts to extend it beyond that point would tend to run into serious first amendment issues.

 

[Ocelot]

Logan Act, hadn't heard of that before - what an incredibly stupid law. No wonder there's never been a prosecution.

And not talking to Hamas because they're terrorists (because aides speaking to them would be negotiating of course) Where would that lead you if Hamas actually wanted to comply with every demand ever made of it.

Hamas: Hey, you know how you wouldn't talk with to us until we renounced terrorism.
US: I'm sorry I'm not listening to you until you renounce terrorism.
Hamas: Yes well that's what we're trying to tell you. We want to talk about renouncing terrorism.
US: I'm sorry I'm not listening to you until you renounce terrorism.
Hamas: Well that basicly it. We have renounced terrorism, we're a recognised governement now and we want to do more, what more would you have us do?
US: La la la I can't hear you I've got my fingers in my ears.

 

[geni]

Logan Act, hadn't heard of that before - what an incredibly stupid law. No wonder there's never been a prosecution.

It just about makes sense in the early days of the US when foreign governments might well be unsure who they should be talking to.

 

[BeAChooser]

Why do you feel the need to try and add legitimacy to terrorists?

ROTFLOL! It wasn't my candidate that promised to sit down and talk to them. It wasn't my candidate who a Hamas official apparently said had staffers communicating with them during the recent campaign.

 

[Oliver]

I have an idea for your next thread, BAC. The topic is did John McCain violate the Logan Act when he openly sent Graham and Lieberman to Georgia to negotiate with the Russians. Not in secret. Not some unnamed "advisors". Two of his closest buddies. Your outrage is highly selective.

BAC?

 

[Gurdur]

.... It wasn't my candidate ....

We know.

We feel your pain. We enjoy it.

 

[geni]

ROTFLOL! It wasn't my candidate that promised to sit down and talk to them. It wasn't my candidate who a Hamas official apparently said had staffers communicating with them during the recent campaign.

It was you personaly who advanced an argument where they were considered a goverment under the terms of the logan act. That is quite a considerable degree of legitimacy you are prepared to grant.

 

[fuelair]

Hate to burst your bubble, FOOL, but this is being reported by others:

Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036364.html

The Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910089559&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

the globe and mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...Story/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

So really the question is whether Al-Hayat actually had the interview with who they said and he said what they reported or not. Maybe there's a tape. By the way, Al-Hayat tends to be left wing.

Hamas and Obama's *administration* are denying this ... but what would you expect them to do if they really did do this.

and, what would you expect them to do if they really didn't?

 

[jj]

and, what would you expect them to do if they really didn't?

Look, Obama is not white, Obama is not going to push the dominionist agenda, and the people who don't like that will continue to spread lies about their commander in chief as much as they can.

 

[gtc]

spread lies about their commander in chief

Only if they are in the military.

 

[Coffee]

BAC?

BAC = BeAChooser.

 

[fuelair]

Edited by Cleon: 

If you wish to discuss any moderator action, do so in Forum Management.

Now, as far as Hamas being a government? You seem to have forgotten that in January of 2006, Hamas won in the Palestinian legislative elections.

You seem to forget that folks who support Obama, like the Electronic Intifada, call Hamas a government (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4757.shtml ).

You seem to forget that numerous other sources recognize Hamas is a government. For example:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_hamas0631_10_22.asp " Military holds sway over Hamas government"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/15/news/mideast.php "Haniya and his Hamas government resign"

http://www.imemc.org/article/57154 "Hamas government releases a number of Fatah prisoners in Gaza"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15710924/ "Hamas: New government won’t recognize Israel"

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/22/world/fg-rice22 "Give Hamas Government Time, Egypt*Says"

Even the UN seems to recognize that Hamas is a government:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,PSE,4562d8cf2,48f7608714,0.html "15 October 2008 ... Hamas government reinforces control over Gaza Strip media"

And don't liberals and Obama recognize the authority of the UN above all else?

Which flipping liberals call Hamass a government and recognize that bunch of do-nothing rectums at the UN as having any real point for existence. I am a liberal and I am not a supporter of either of those groups. Possibly you deal with the wrong liberals.

 

[Ohmer]

And in a related story ...

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194894.php

Robert Malley's side of the story:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/1005411.aspx

Malley's paid job is with the International Crisis Group, which, he says, requires him to meet with Hamas and others. Malley worked for six and a half years at the Clinton National Security Council under Tony Lake and Sandy Berger.

Malley added, "My job with the International Crisis Group is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say. I've never denied whom I meet with; that's what I do."
Malley said he always informs the State Department in advance and briefs them afterward.

So he called the campaign and said he thought it best to take himself out of what was a very informal relationship to begin with.

My bold. It seem talking to Hamas was part the man's job and he was briefing the State department about it. Hardy supports your case.

 

[gdnp]

My bold. It seem talking to Hamas was part the man's job and he was briefing the State department about it. Hardy supports your case.

Support? Who needs support when you have innuendo, rash assumptions, and unsupported conclusions?

 

[BeAChooser]

Robert Malley's side of the story:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/1005411.aspx

First, I shall point out that the source you provided is dated May 9th, confirming that he supposedly resigned from "ANY ROLE" in the campaign months ago. Yet here he is, two days after Obama's win, being dispatched by Obama according to Obama's aides to Egypt and Syria to outline Obama's policy on the Middle East (http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/remember-robert-malley-hes-ba-ack/ ). Call me skeptical but I think Obama and Malley were lying about him having no further role during the campaign. Either that, or he sure got up to speed quickly.

Furthermore, blaming his "job" with the International Crisis Group for the earlier trips is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether he did them at the behest of Obama. The fact is that Hamas apparently perceived he was acting on that behalf which wouldn't be unexpected given how supportive he has been of democrat administrations (he was a special assistant to Clinton and an executive assistant of Berger).

Also, Malley saying that he always informs the State Department in advance and briefs them afterward is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that he was apparently talking to Hamas as an apparent representative of Obama's campaign (at least as perceived by Hamas according to reports from them and it doesn't change the fact that only 2 days after he supposedly wasn't working for Obama in ANY capacity (and note, Obama fired him with great fanfare), he is suddenly flying to the Middle East on Obama's behalf. A little surprising for someone supposedly out of the loop for so long.

Malley added that he and Obama went to law school together, but he said he has not played any role in the campaign other than as a very informal advisor.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know we are supposed to believe this just because he said it. Just like we were supposed to believe that Ayers was "just some guy in the neighborhood" and had no relationship with Obama just because Obama said it. But it's amazing how many radicals who clearly had the ear of Obama for years suddenly claimed (along with Obama) that they didn't ... that they hardly knew each other. It's amazing how many of those radicals Obama claims he didn't really know at all ... despite the fact he clearly knew them for years. Of course, now we know, by Ayers own admission, for example, that was a lie. Ayers was more than just a "guy in the neighborhood". He was a "family friend". And I suspect Malley's claim in this case was nothing but disinformation meant to mislead the voter too. What a coincidence that Malley turns up right after Obama's election. Notice that Ayers is suddenly on TV, too? Why it's almost like these radicals all decided to lay low for a few months to help Obama out but now that Obama has won, the cockroaches can come back out.

And, by the way, according to http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html , the International Crisis Group has ties to Soros ... who is even on the Executive Committee of the Board? Oh ... you didn't know that?

 

[gumboot]

I am an advisor to Obama. I told him his tie looked nice as we shook hands at a rally. I did not meet with Hamas.

That's exactly what you'd say if you had met with Hamas. I called your bluff mister!