Things got chippy on Morning Joe today after Amy Holmes of The Blaze pointed out that President Obama has personalized and publicized his conflict with Benjamin Netanyahu in a way he hasn't done even with despots like Kim Jong Un or the Castro brothers.
When Holmes added that "only Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be the focal point of this president's ire," former Obama spokesman Gibbs called Holmes' statement "the silliest thing I've probably heard in a long time."
Gibbs said he was "really confused" by Holmes' statement about President Obama not having such a level of public conflict with rogue dictators. Explained Holmes: the Obama admin "didn't call [Kim Jong Un] chicken-bleep to the Atlantic Monthly, they don't snub him repeatedly, they don't make it, as you said on this broadcast, public that there is this terrible tension between these two leaders."
Doesn't Holmes have a point? The White House doesn't hesitate to let the world know of President Obama's personal dislike of Bibi. When's the last time you heard of the president having such feelings toward dictators like Kim Jong Un or the Castros?
AMY HOLMES: In my view, I think President Obama has personalized his conflict with Benjamin Netanyahu in a way that is both disgraceful and shocking. You do not hear President Obama making these remarks and having this public conflict with--I don't know--Kim Jong-un or the Castro brothers. It seems that Benjamin Netanyahu gets to be the focal point of this White House's ire.
But it goes well beyond that. Remember that President Obama on his first visit to the Middle East skipped Israel. When he finally went to Israel, he refused to speak to the Israeli parliament. This is the same president who also suggested that Israel's credibility or its founding was based on the Holocaust and not millenia-old claims to Jewsish territory.
This relationship and the conflict between the White House and the interests of Israel I think go well beyond the personal dispute between this president and their prime minister, who has now been handily re-elected. And let's face it.
ROBERT GIBBS: Yeah, I [inaudible].
HOLMES: Hold on, Robert. If Benjamin Netanyahu had been defeated last night, I think you'd hear gloating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And I think it also makes him look weak. If he lets it be known he is trying to topple his leader. He better succeed. But in fact, he didn't.
GIBBS: I'm really confused at the first part. You compared, you said that the administration hadn't been hard on the North Korean leader but had on Benjamin Netanyahu?
HOLMES: They didn't call him chicken-bleep to the Atlantic Monthly. They don't snub him repeatedly. They don't make it, as you said just on this broadcast, public that there is this terrible tension between these two leaders. Only Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be the focal point of this president's ire.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Actually, no. I would --
GIBBS: I think that's the silliest thing I've probably heard in a long time. I mean, the notion that --
HOLMES: I'm sure you do.
GIBBS: The notion that: you make it sound like we have some great relationship with the North Koreans.
