aaaaaaaaaand theeeeeeeeeeey’re OFF!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/17/EDOQ11A1L3.DTL (bolding added):
An inspired start for Our Blessed Obama! Praised be he!
I don’t see that as a gaffe. McCain has the same position. Nobody’s going to go in front of AIPAC and call for a divided Jerusalem.
You also live in Obamasota. Talk to some Arab people about this issue and how it went down.
There is no way to avoid “offending” one group or another when you’re talking about the Middle East. I put “offend” in quotes because they would get offended if you told them the wind came from the East instead of the West, let alone something that is an accomplished fact like Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.
This one cracked me up because it happened in New Mexico.
I’ve lived all over the world. I’ve known plenty of Arab Muslims. Not every Arab Muslim is obsessed with Israel, but even the ones that are will not see Barack Obama as less friendly to the Palestinians than John McCain, who has also said that Jerusalem should not be divided.
It would have been a much greater political gaffe to go in front of AIPAC and call for a divided capital. He’d have been excoriated and painted as a terrorist sympathizer.
I agree it’s not a gaffe, but it’s a heckavu statement nonetheless. When you say McCain has the same position, do you mean he’s publicly come out and said the capital must remain undivided?
It seems to fall into that gray area of things that are politically unwise to say, but not like saying something like “Damascus will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
While I’m not versed in the previous statements of Bush and McCain, I think it’s politically unwise from a, well, political standpoint. A negotiations standpoint. A group dynamic standpoint. If any role is to be played by either administration, the appearance of neutrality and relative impartiality is imperative. Clearly there are visible leanings and whatnot, but I would see such a strong statement giving the Palestinians slight pause in future negotiations.
I don’t think it was a dumb statement per se, and you’re right that being in front of AIPAC has a lot to do with it.
Yes.
No.
Mr. Obma has made gaffes, but this isn’t a gaffe, it’s an unfortunate necessity of current American politics: you must agree with whatever AIPAC wants regarding Israel.
Obama’s gaffes include the 57 states thing and saying Auschwitz when it should have been Buchenwald. I forgive McCain gaffes like Putin being the president of Germany, but too many seem like more than mis-speaks.
57 states wasn’t a gaffe. There ARE 57 primaries/caucuses, the states plus territories/commonwealths/etc.
There are only 50 states, and he said states. It’s a gaffe, for sure.
Yes.
On the 57 states thing, he also said something like “one more to go,” and that his staff wouldn’t let him go to Alaska and Hawaii. He quite obviously meant to say 47. It was gaffe, but it was the kind of genuine verbal accident that everyone in the world is prone to when they aren’t getting any sleep. I would have said the same thing about McCain’s Iran/al-Qaeda gaffe if he hadn’t kept repeating it.
Man, when you back yourself into a corner that’s contradicted by all the facts, you really go all out.
You have just taken an inaccurate gloss and are now pretending that some journalist’s paraphrase is more accurate than what McCain actually said.
So, nope. Your original claim is not only wrong, but it was contradicted by your own cite. And lo and behold, you refuse to admit error.
Learn how to read:
The other bit you quoted said nothing about dividing Jerusalem as a capital.
Listen you stupid, stubborn, dishonest asshole…
Let me play it back for you, real, slow.
The quote by Obama was provided where he said that Jerusalem “must remain undivided”. This is a statement about the future.
You then claimed that McCain had come out and said that Jerusalem must “remain undivided”. That is a statement about the future.
You now point to McCain stating that Jerusalem is undivided and is the capital. That is both a simple statement of fact and a statement about the present.
I already pointed out McCain’s actual statement about the future. He said “The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people”. That is a statement about the future in which McCain says that Jerusalem’s final status will be resolved via negotiation in the future
Points of fact:
- Obama’s statement of future policy was that Jerusalem must remain undivided.
- McCain’s statement of future policy was that Jerusalem will be addressed in negotiations, by the Israeli government and people.
- These are not the same thing, and you’re dumber than a box of hair if you honestly believe they are.
- Likewise, if you don’t understand why your own cite contradicts you and that Jerusalem’s ownership and division(s) have been part of Final Status negotiations for more than a decade now, and that when McCain refers to Jerusalem being addressed in negotiation, he’s talking about Final Status negotiations, you’re not only stupid, you’re astoundingly ignorant. What the fuck do you even think McCain was referring to about “the subject of Jerusalem” being addressed in future negotiations? Whether or not it gets a Walmart?
- You’re a dumb cunt.
Wow, you really have a hard time admitting you were wrong.
I repeat:
McCain expressed support for an undivided Jerusalem.
At no time did he express support for a divided Jerusalem. “Future negotiations” does not = support for a “divided capital.” It is (just as Obama’s calarifying statements) a non-committal reference to negotiations about access.
You were wrong. You popped off without knowing what you were talking about. You embarrassed yourself. Move on.
So, your parents… siblings, or just cousins?
Was that really necessary?