Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Friday once again demonstrated how liberal media members often make statements about issues they know nothing about.
On this occasion, it was NPR's Nina Totenberg making unfounded claims about past Israel peace offers on PBS's Inside Washington that led Krauthammer to scold, "You’re simply factually wrong" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: There also has to be lines that make sense for the Palestinian state, and, you know, I can’t argue this with Charles with the same kind of detail and prevail, but I have looked at what the offers have been, and they’re not realistic for either side still. They haven’t solved Jerusalem. The Israelis don’t want to share Jerusalem. Nobody wants to share Jerusalem. These are very hard issues.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: But you’re simply factually wrong. In the agreement in what was offered in 2008 by [former Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert, Jerusalem was split. In what Israel offered in Camp David in the year 2000 with Clinton as the witness, the Israelis offered a division of Jerusalem for the first time ever. That’s simply factually wrong. The Israelis have offered this, and Arafat wouldn’t sign.
TOTENBERG: The question is how was it split.
KRAUTHAMMER: No. The question is would Arafat or anybody ever sign an agreement that accepts a Jewish state, and for six decades, the answer has been "No."
Indeed it has been, yet media members such as Totenberg ignore this as they continually blame Israel for a lack of peace in the region.
The difference here was Totenberg prefacing her comments by saying, "I can’t argue this with Charles with the same kind of detail and prevail."
Since she proved herself correct with Krauthammer's assistance, one must wonder why she bothered offering an opinion if she herself realized she wasn't necessarily qualified to do so.
Of course, if liberal media members kept their mouths shut when they didn't know what they were talking about, there'd be a lot of dead silent airtime on news programs which would be preferable to the misinformation viewers are typically treated to by the terminally clueless.
