Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, May 12, 2008.
Worldnetdaily is about as trustworthy a source as the comics. On various issues through the years I have caught them in error after error. They tend to report things to fit the audience who reads them. They have gotten so many things wrong, time and time again, that I can no longer trust them as a source.
However there is also this little line in the article which does not fit your thesis:
"Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt issued a statement to the Times: "Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."
I think in order for this event to be meaningful, there would need to be a link between obama and something hammas, or something obama has said to show he supports this.
Okay, fine, don't trust WND. How about Times Online from the UK, or are they untrustworthy as well:
Now we are critical of Obama because he fired an advisory for loose Hamas connexions?????
Yep. If it hadn't been brought to public attention during candidate debates, the guy would still probably be there. I want my POTUS to have a clean record when it comes to known terrorist links, don't you? Hamas is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.
Edited to add: And the question has yet to be answered by Obama, why is Hamas endorsing him as the next president? He was asked that by reporters and didn't give a forthright answer.
Why would any terrorist group be hoping Obama would win the Presidency?
The IRA always supported candidates for president. Why was that not an issue?
Beats me. Maybe we didn't have Google back then.