Ok he didn't really say that.  I made it up.

But if I were his speech writer....

Comments:


Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

We are currently in the process.... 

Tommy De Seno
Jimmy Carter: We are currently in the process....  · May 19 at 1:52pm

I fear you are right.

Mexico's open borders policy in the 1800's is how we were able to take Texas from them.   Now we are giving it back the same way.

Pat in Obamaland
Joined
May '10
Pat in Obamaland

Nicholas Sarkozy: America must return to pre-1803 borders; Cites 'impropriety of Louisiana Purchase' as basis

Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:00pm

Joined
Jan '11
BThompson

I think it's dangerous for the right to be putting forward the idea that Obama was talking about the pre-1967 borders. He was talking about the borders after the 1967 war with exceptions for security to be dealt with by swaps. Talking about Obama's speech as if he wants to endanger Israel with some crazy non-starter, as opposed to a proposal which Israel itself has already offered to the Palestinians, makes the right look foolish, petty and as if it is immune to reality.

Tommy De Seno
BThompson: I think it's dangerous for the right to be putting forward the idea that Obama was talking about the pre-1967 borders. He was talking about the borders after the 1967 war with exceptions for security to be dealt with by swaps. Talking about Obama's speech as if he wants to endanger Israel with some crazy non-starter, as opposed to a proposal which Israel itself has already offered to the Palestinians, makes the right look foolish, petty and as if it is immune to reality. · May 19 at 2:04pm

I saw you posted this on David Limbaugh's post.

Convince me.  Why are you sure he is talking post-war not pre-war.

R0bert Scott
Joined
Apr '11
R0bert Scott

 Dude, don't give Obama any ideas!

David Gaw
Joined
May '11
David Gaw
BThompson: I think it's dangerous for the right to be putting forward the idea that Obama was talking about the pre-1967 borders. He was talking about the borders after the 1967 war with exceptions for security to be dealt with by swaps. Talking about Obama's speech as if he wants to endanger Israel with some crazy non-starter, as opposed to a proposal which Israel itself has already offered to the Palestinians, makes the right look foolish, petty and as if it is immune to reality. · May 19 at 2:04pm

I missed the speech, but the wire story from the AP--not generally considered part of the right--specifically says that Obama "is endorsing the Palestinians' demand for their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war..."  If this is not the case, the confusion on this point is apparently not limited to the right.

Tommy De Seno

 BTThompson David is right.  And Fox is reporting the same:

Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders.


Joined
Jan '11
BThompson

Tommy De Seno

I saw you posted this on David Limbaugh's post.

Convince me.  Why are you sure he is talking post-war not pre-war. · May 19 at 2:14pm

Because if he had meant the pre-1967 borders, he would have likely used the qualifier "pre", or used the term "1949 borders". 

Why would you assume he meant the pre-1967 borders, when he didn't say pre-1967?

If indeed Obama did mean the pre-1967 borders, he was being very slippery indeed. But I don't think it's wise to act as if he definitely meant that when the text itself doesn't suggest it.

I believe he used the 1967 post war border established by UN resolution 242 as the reference point for the negotiation because everyone knows that the current ill-defined borders are too disputed and nebulous to be useful.

I could be wrong, but I don't think getting too far in front of a potentially inaccurate characterization of Obama's speech is a good idea.

Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:33pm
David Gaw
Joined
May '11
David Gaw

By the way, the Republic of Texas was an independent nation in 1844, rather than part of Mexico, was it not?  If we had to roll back the clock to that scenario, I suspect you'd find a good number of Texans ready to consider the idea.

Tommy De Seno
David Gaw: By the way, the Republic of Texas was an independent nation in 1844, rather than part of Mexico, was it not?  If we had to roll back the clock to that scenario, I suspect you'd find a good number of Texans ready to consider the idea. · May 19 at 2:25pm

Way to kill my joke with facts!

I think you are right.  There was a Republic, but I don't think Mexico recognized the Texas Declaration of Independence, and they battled almost until Texas became a state.  I think having to fight the Mexican army all the time was a big reason why Texas became a state.

Republic of Texas?  I might move there.

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

BThompson

If indeed Obama did mean the pre-1967 borders, he was being very slippery indeed.  · May 19 at 2:24pm

Edited on May 19 at 02:33 pm

Obama never did say,"Now, let me be clear.... " 

Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:40pm

Joined
Jan '11
BThompson

Well, I guess I stand corrected. CNN and Netanyahu heard what you all heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/19/obama.israel.palestinians/

http://www.salon.com/news/israel/?story=/news/feature/2011/05/19/ml_israel_obama_speech_1

But, the lack of the qualifier "pre" still feels like a Clintonian fudge to me.

Either way, it seems we have always used the pre-1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations in the past, so this isn't actually a new approach by the US. It is simply stated more explicitly. I also think, the idea of using swaps and how those swapped areas are determined would be crucial.

I'll shut up about it now, though, and listen what Bebe offers when he speaks to Congress.

show jrb's comment (#14)
Snow Bird
Joined
Feb '11
jrb

David Gaw: By the way, the Republic of Texas was an independent nation in 1844, rather than part of Mexico, was it not?  If we had to roll back the clock to that scenario, I suspect you'd find a good number of Texans ready to consider the idea. · May 19 at 2:25pm

Not a bad idea. I'd bet they would find a way to deal with the south border.

(Republic of Texas existed from 1836 to 1846.)


Joined
Sep '10
Vance Richards

So Obama would rather deport Israelis from Israel than deport Mexicans from the USA?

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

How about giving them New York and New England (sorry to Ricocheteers in those areas), but if he's going to give stuff up, let's give up blue states.

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist
tabula rasa: How about giving them New York and New England (sorry to Ricocheteers in those areas), but if he's going to give stuff up, let's give up blue states. · May 19 at 6:07pm

It sounds like a good plan, but we'd have to have strict border enforcement -- perhaps a wall?  It seems whenever the liberals are through making otherwise decent places unbearable places to live, they move to red states.  Just ask Coloradans about our California escapees.

Keith Preston
Joined
May '10
Keith Preston

This speech cemented what my mother has been saying to me for months:  "This man has no clue about what it means to be an American...birth certificate or not."

Mike LaRoche
Joined
Oct '10
Mike LaRoche

Tommy De Seno

Jimmy Carter: We are currently in the process....  · May 19 at 1:52pm

I fear you are right.

Mexico's open borders policy in the 1800's is how we were able to take Texas from them.   Now we are giving it back the same way. · May 19 at 1:59pm

Over this ninth-generation Texan's dead body!

Tommy De Seno

Mike LaRoche

Tommy De Seno

Jimmy Carter: We are currently in the process....  · May 19 at 1:52pm

I fear you are right.

Mexico's open borders policy in the 1800's is how we were able to take Texas from them.   Now we are giving it back the same way. · May 19 at 1:59pm

Over this ninth-generation Texan's dead body! · May 19 at 10:29pm

Ninth generation!  Wow.  That must be pretty cool just to know that.

Beyond 3 generations, I don't know who I am.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In