Obama on O'Reilly

Which is why you should never be a part of govt. Not blurting every thought out to the public isn't being dishonest.

Pressuring Mubarak to leave while still maintaining a position that can help our relationship with present and future allies is better for the country than alienating ourselves. It's a diplomatic way of handling the situation.

 

That's part of Obama's calculation, I bet. Showing class and calmness in the face of an aggressive (and possibly disrepectful-- I don't think O'Reilly is that bad in these interview, but can see how others would disagree) interviewer. I don't think Obama minds a bit that O'Reilly is kind of an ass. This makes him look "Presidential."

 

The NY Times editorial board is sometimes left leaning. But the paper foolishly backed the Iraq war without bothering to do their jobs and investigate the claims made by the administration leading up to the war. That certainly isn't liberal. They let Bush get away with claims that he tripled aid to Africa which isn't true (most other papers did as well). There's plenty of things they have done which are hardly liberal. They have a bias but it goes towards things other than left or right.

 

Would you say it's as much of a stretch to not believe in unicorns as it is to believe in them?

 

Obama's stance of not taking a side will look just as bad to Israel as if he had supported Mubarak's ouster. This issue has huge consequences for Israel, and they should know where one of their biggest allies stand. That's how you treat allies. You don't keep them in the dark on a non-military issue like this.

 

I'm wondering if SunsRocketsFan and tallanvor's paths have ever crossed in the great state of AZ.

 

so egypt's not an ally now?

 

At risk of being baited off the topic, my thoughts on this are that equating the belief in a god to a belief in unicorns does not make your point as well as you think it does. Also, O' Reilly's point may have used bad examples, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that Science can't unequivocally explain everything. If it could, would there be a need for further research?

I guess this discounts O'Reilly in the eyes of some, making this somewhat relevant here, but there are a lot of other reasons to discount O'Reilly that are better than this one.

As for the interview itself, on one hand I can see where standing against O'Reilly might seem a good idea even knowing how he'd behave, but I can also see the opinion of those who think Bill O should have refrained from his usual "techniques" and shown the President more respect than his average interviewee. Maybe he did, I'm not a viewer of his show very often, but I still think he could have been more respectful at times.

 

i agree, but alot of it has to do with the scandals + vid of him cussing like no other.

 

Just talking facts. The NY Times supported the lead up to the Iraq war, and never properly investigated claims the administration was making prior to the war. It's why they took the necessary step of apologizing to their readers once the war was underway and it was clear that the information we were getting from the administration was false.

The NY Times bias is trying to be the first to a story, not to be left out of a story other media are reporting, appearing to be balanced even when there is no real balance such as Bush's claim to have tripled aid to Africa.

To try and simplify their bias as being merely left wing just isn't accurate. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

 

If Obama is privately rooting for Mubarak's ouster, as I believe Carl Herrera claims (sry if i misrepresent your view), then clearly they are not an ally. You don't privately root for the dismantling of a government you call an ally, or at least you shouldn't.

 

Obama has taken a side. The side is on that of the protestors for democratic reform.

He has said so publicly. He hasn't repeated their statements that Mubarak leave immediately publicly.

Egypt has been the second largest recipient of aid next to Israel and has been an ally as well. I have no doubt that Israel knows where the U.S. stands. I'm not sure why you think Israel doesn't know where the U.S. stands on the issue.

 

If that's what's best for your ally you do.

 

And if he does call for Mubarak staying, you get to claim he doesn't support democracy, and you get one very pissed off Middle East citizenry that will probably bite you in the ass when Mubarak does leave, which he obviously will someday.
.
Win-win situation for you all around. Geez, you can't trample around like a bull with foreign policy

 

He can piss off Egypt (and by that I mean the Egyptian protesters) or he can piss off Israel. He is choosing the third option of voting "present" and not taking a side which is wrong in this case because the results could be disastrous for Israel (as in a precursor to it's destruction). You can't sit back and vote "present" in those situations.

 

Are we allied with Egypt or the Egyptian government? I think we are differing on meaning.