Veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler had an interesting exchange on Friday. And by “interesting” we mean, of course, that Carney lied through his teeth and nothing short of waterboarding could force him to admit that’s what he was doing.
Koffler tells the story in his White House Dossier blog:
In discussing President Obama’s decision to say Thursday that Mideast peace negotiations should begin with the assumption that Israel will return to the 1967 borders – give or take some land swaps – Carney yesterday sought to portray Obama’s statement as consistent with existing U.S. policy as outlined in a 2004 letter from George W. Bush to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Now, this letter wasn’t a “hey, my grandkids are great, how are yours?” type of note. It was official U.S. policy, stating that a return to the 1967 lines was not realistic and that the Palestinian’s “right of return” to Israel proper was null and void. In addition to apparently new policy on the borders, Obama said the right of return issue should be negotiated.
Here’s what Carney said early in the briefing:
I think, again, there is nothing that the President said yesterday that contradicts the 2004 letters that were exchanged between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, or what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today in the Oval Office. We — the President said in his speech that a starting point for resolving the territorial issue is the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps and security for both nations.
Carney was using careful language – “nothing that . . contradicts the 2004 letters.” What I wanted to figure out was whether, in fact, the United States is now breaking with existing policy. So in the video below, I asked Carney if he would affirm previous U.S. policy. As you will see, he would not.
Koffler is lucky he even got Carney to admit that Obama made the speech.
“Speech? What speech? I haven’t heard anything about a speech. I’m pretty sure the President was out playing golf on Thursday.”
Source: White House Dossier
View Comments (28)
Our President of the United States, is obviously in love with himself. On his first visit to the United Kingdom, Barack Obama gives the Queen of England a handy little I-Pod as his gift from the him to her. What was in the memory of the I-Pod that draws the "just shake your head in disbelief moment". Obama put a couple of his speeches into the I-Pod so the Queen could listen to him before going to bed at night. This President is in love with himself, arrogant and self-centered. He is a complete embarrassment to the people of the United States.
1. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/01/confirmed-queens-ipod-includes-obamas-speeches/
2. Then we have this arrogance: https://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-says-hell-only-serve-eight-years
3. Barack Obama hates the British and here is why: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287828/Revealed-Why-President-Obama-loathes-British.html
4. Another piece falls into place.
In a press conference last week Obama was not
wearing his wedding ring nor was he wearing his watch.
When noticed, his staff said his ring was out
for repairs. No reason was given for the missing watch.
So it's just a coincidence that Muslims are
forbidden from wearing jewelry during the month of Ramadan?????
Can't possibly be that, because although he
hasn't gone to a Christian church service since
entering the White House, we know he's a
committed Christian "cause he said so during
his campaign!" ...........
This is the same president that spent the
Christmas holidays in Hawaii to avoid religious
obligations as PRESIDENT at the WhiteHouse. His children do not receive Christmas presents.
Let's just face the facts, we have a Muslim for president
While in the White House, and he has no knowledge of American history.
Hey guys, we're not paying attention,
Interesting question. Obviously one that the lefties will make fun of us for asking. But that's only because they have no answer for it.
Sorry, '67 with swaps is an old position regarding Israel. This is all over the internets.
In Bush's own words: "Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations."
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html
3 years later, Bush again:
"The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent."
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html
I remember the Saudi proposal back in 2002-03, and Bush going along with it. It was essentially Armistice lines with land trading..
U.S. policy sounds fairly consistent here. What is inconsistent are the partisan reactions to the messengers (i don't recall the 2008 tweet about Bush throwing Israel under the bus... well, republican politicians didn't know about twitter back then either)
Myself, i'm inclined to let Israel keep every scrap of land it snatched from aggressors. For goddsakes they took one on the chin, deliberately, in '73 just to show everyone they didn't start it.
Yeah, I don't think we'll be finding the solution to this problem on a bumper sticker anytime soon. Lot of crazy people need to un-crazy first.
Anyone that thinks there will ever be peace in the Middle East is a fool. This is, literally, biblical. It will never happen, so why do we expend so much energy on it?
I have asked myself that same question for a long time. However, I obviously don't want Jews to die en masse and to be obliterated from the map. It is possible that once Israel finds herself friendless and without resources that is pretty much the course in which she will find herself in. So I think that the effort that we put in avoiding WWIII and mass persecution and murder of Jews (Christians and Israel supporters) is appropriate. Again, however, with the understanding that TRUE and EVERLASTING peace will never be attained on this sphere of time and space. It is a weird balance of ideal/effort and reality/let it be that I have pondered on for a while.
I think that's another question, Kimmy. I'm pretty sure that if there were a war, most of us would come down on the side of Israel. The only way to really have peace there is to eliminate one side or the other. And I would hope it wouldn't be Israel that got eliminated.
I've always been of the opinion that the only way to have world peace is when the second to the last person dies.
Video of Obama when his teleprompter failed (and before the plastic surgery for AA qualification)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4rHCQJ7Zw
Well, maybe people wont forget so quickly this time. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation during his address to Congress. Someone give Mr. President something to wipe the egg off his face!
What Netanyahu understands that Obama, & other on the left don't, led by Jimmy Carter, is that the 1967 borders are only a starting point for the Palistinians. The real goal is the 1947 borders, if you know what I mean.
You all fail to realize that obama was for the 1967 borders before he was against them. No that's not right. He was against the 1967 borders before he was for them.
6 of 1, half dozen of another, obama is plain and simple; an idiot.
Methinks Koffler has an IRS audit in his future...
British Code Name for Obama: "Smart Alec"
American Code Name for Obama: "Moron"
The British gave Obama this name, regardless of what has been reported because of two things that he has done to the British.
1. Returned the bust of Sir Winston Churchill - which insulted the British throne.
2. Barack Obama gave the Queen an I-Pod on the first visit to England and what Obama had in/on the I-Pod in memory was what got him his name above: He had recorded all his speeches before and during his Presidency up to that point which showed arrogance and being "self-centered". He is basically "in love with himself"!
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
Like the war he was against before he wasn't and the dept ceiling he was against before he wasn't.
President Yo-Yo strikes again.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Mr. Orwell goes to Washington.
Carney is a disgusting liar but equally disgusting are the reporters (Koffler excepted) who blandly accept and repeat his lies and bullshit. The the Obama administration knows that any lie they tell, no matter how egregious, will be reported as fact while the truth will be dropped down the media memory hole.
At least there were a nice pair of legs in the front row. Otherwise, no redeeming qualities.