McCain Advocated Negotiating With Hamas Only Two Years Ago

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Seems the McSame is a raging hypocrite, having advocated dealing with Hamas only two short years ago.

Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Hmmmm, would you like to adjust your comments from the other day, Senator?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,301
144
106
McCain has had 7+ long years to whore himself out to any radical right voting group out there.

In 2000 he was a better and attractive candidate but he was deemed too liberal for the GOP masses. Now he is their guy because he has shown to have no backbone when it comes to pandering to radical fringe groups.

Is he still an attractive candidate now? not so much.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Seems the McSame is a raging hypocrite, having advocated dealing with Hamas only two short years ago.

Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Hmmmm, would you like to adjust your comments from the other day, Senator?
Two years ago Hamas was elected in to the government, giving them a chance to see if they are going to lead and provide to their people; that was the right thing to do at the time. Its hard to say you want peace in the middle east, when you won't even give a newly elected leader the chance to work towards it.




 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: loki8481
maybe by "deal with" he meant carpet bomb?
Only if he wants to dig himself into a deeper hole.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
One might hope that McCain would be more enlightened than GWB&co, but when the dumb MF does not even buy a game day program and does not understand that Al-Quida does not equal Hamas, I really have grave doubts about some one who can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni.

On the bright side, McCain knows every clueless US General on the planet, in short the same set of turkeys who have failed to deliver results thus far.

In the grand scheme of things, Petraeus is better than the previous set of turkeys, but in terms of the political results needed, he too is merely the next fair haired boy.

In the words of Greenspan, just more unwarranted over exuberance from the GOP, the breakfast of superheros, and the later supper of failure.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
This was brought up in the other thread. His position then is not at odds with his position today...unless you actually believe what the far leftist blogs are trying twist his comments into.

Yep, i guess you did pull this from a lefty attack blog - they all seem to be using the exact clipped version.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Where is the link to the source material?

I am sure you didn't pull this out of your memory.

Let's see the rest of the interview and see what else he may have said.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Two years ago Hamas was elected in to the government, giving them a chance to see if they are going to lead and provide to their people; that was the right thing to do at the time. Its hard to say you want peace in the middle east, when you won't even give a newly elected leader the chance to work towards it.
Who cares? 2 years ago Hamas was still listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S., had continued to engage in terrorist attacks against Israel, and has called on Muslims around the world to attack the U.S. and its interests. Just because they win some election in Palestine, it's OK for John McCain to sit down and negotiate with them?

Horse crap.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Rubin? :laugh:

Anyway here is the actual interview. Seems Rubin was purposely dishonest with his opinion piece...or just really that stupid to miss the follow-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-o2U4Y7DQ&
And so? McCain seems perfectly willing to explore a relatioship/dialogue with Hamas. What is it precisely about the follow-up question that makes you think this negates anything? At no point does McCain say "No. No, we will not sit down to talk with them because they are a terrorist organization."

That, my McCain-loving friend, was the correct answer.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Rubin? :laugh:

Anyway here is the actual interview. Seems Rubin was purposely dishonest with his opinion piece...or just really that stupid to miss the follow-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-o2U4Y7DQ&
And so? McCain seems perfectly willing to explore a relatioship/dialogue with Hamas. What is it precisely about the follow-up question that makes you think this negates anything? At no point does McCain say "No. No, we will not sit down to talk with them because they are a terrorist organization."

That, my McCain-loving friend, was the correct answer.
Uh.... you did not finish the clip it seems. The honus is on THEM not US is what he said. So again, his position then is NOT at odds with what he says today.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Rubin? :laugh:

Anyway here is the actual interview. Seems Rubin was purposely dishonest with his opinion piece...or just really that stupid to miss the follow-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-o2U4Y7DQ&
And so? McCain seems perfectly willing to explore a relatioship/dialogue with Hamas. What is it precisely about the follow-up question that makes you think this negates anything? At no point does McCain say "No. No, we will not sit down to talk with them because they are a terrorist organization."

That, my McCain-loving friend, was the correct answer.
Uh.... you did not finish the clip it seems. The honus is on THEM not US is what he said. So again, his position then is NOT at odds with what he says today.
Yup. Rubin purposefully misrepresented McCain's remarks. Here is the part that was left out:
Rubin: ?So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States??

Sen. McCain: ?I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren?t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.?
In other words, Hamas needs to show that they will stop terrorist activities. McCain said as much in other interviews as well.

Press Release from 06:
In the wake of yesterday?s Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.
Interview with CNN
CNN?S BETTY NGUYEN: All right, let?s shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: ?To be very clear? ? and I?m quoting now ? ?we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.? What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?

MCCAIN: Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.
Lou Dobbs goes off on Rubin
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Rubin? :laugh:

Anyway here is the actual interview. Seems Rubin was purposely dishonest with his opinion piece...or just really that stupid to miss the follow-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-o2U4Y7DQ&
And so? McCain seems perfectly willing to explore a relatioship/dialogue with Hamas. What is it precisely about the follow-up question that makes you think this negates anything? At no point does McCain say "No. No, we will not sit down to talk with them because they are a terrorist organization."

That, my McCain-loving friend, was the correct answer.
Uh.... you did not finish the clip it seems. The honus is on THEM not US is what he said. So again, his position then is NOT at odds with what he says today.
Yup. Rubin purposefully misrepresented McCain's remarks. Here is the part that was left out:
Rubin: ?So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States??

Sen. McCain: ?I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren?t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.?
In other words, Hamas needs to show that they will stop terrorist activities. McCain said as much in other interviews as well.

Press Release from 06:
In the wake of yesterday?s Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.
Interview with CNN
CNN?S BETTY NGUYEN: All right, let?s shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: ?To be very clear? ? and I?m quoting now ? ?we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.? What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?

MCCAIN: Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.
Lou Dobbs goes off on Rubin
And how is what McCain said different from what Obama has said in the past?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Dari, Obama has suggested we meet with people like the Iranian President without conditions.

McCain was saying that we should wait and see what Hamas does before we look at talking to them. In other words there are conditions to us talking to them.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Dari, Obama has suggested we meet with people like the Iranian President without conditions.

McCain was saying that we should wait and see what Hamas does before we look at talking to them. In other words there are conditions to us talking to them.
Hamas is in a different league from the President of Iran. Besides, Obama also said a meeting with Hamas would be conditional. Ironically, they are the same conditions as required by Bush and McCain.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Dari, Obama has suggested we meet with people like the Iranian President without conditions.

McCain was saying that we should wait and see what Hamas does before we look at talking to them. In other words there are conditions to us talking to them.
Hamas is in a different league from the President of Iran. Besides, Obama also said a meeting with Hamas would be conditional. Ironically, they are the same conditions as required by Bush and McCain.
You have to understand that the righties aren't much interested in the facts about Obama, they're looking to paint him a certain way and looking for any ammunition to do so.

That's the sort of sick, fantasy political culture that's developed with a 'team' mentality, where you feel so good to support the 'right' side that any little errors and exaggerations in how bad the other side are are not much worth getting worried about. The worse the other side is painted, the nicer you get to feel for being against them.

This is why, for example, the Machiavellian policy of the Carter administration to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan as a quagmire, or his appointment of Paul Volcker who is widely credited with tough economic policies that got inflation under control, aren't part of the 'popular' history, especially of the right, and instead you just have Reagan riding in on a white horse to do pretty much everything wonderful (and presumably riding the white horse back out of town with the Marines from Lebanon, and so on, but again, shhhh.)
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Dari, Obama has suggested we meet with people like the Iranian President without conditions.

McCain was saying that we should wait and see what Hamas does before we look at talking to them. In other words there are conditions to us talking to them.
Spin. As usual.

This isn't a case of soundbites, like the (in Iraq for 100 years comment). He CLEARLY said that Hamas is the new reality, and expressed why his view differed from the White House's stance in not meeting with them.

Yes, he did say something about "wait and see", but only well after making it clear that he considered Hamas a legitimate government that we need to deal with. If there were any conditions to those meetings, he never stated them.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Dari, Obama has suggested we meet with people like the Iranian President without conditions.

McCain was saying that we should wait and see what Hamas does before we look at talking to them. In other words there are conditions to us talking to them.
Hamas is in a different league from the President of Iran. Besides, Obama also said a meeting with Hamas would be conditional. Ironically, they are the same conditions as required by Bush and McCain.
You have to understand that the righties aren't much interested in the facts about Obama, they're looking to paint him a certain way and looking for any ammunition to do so.

That's the sort of sick, fantasy political culture that's developed with a 'team' mentality, where you feel so good to support the 'right' side that any little errors and exaggerations in how bad the other side are are not much worth getting worried about. The worse the other side is painted, the nicer you get to feel for being against them.

This is why, for example, the Machiavellian policy of the Carter administration to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan as a quagmire, or his appointment of Paul Volcker who is widely credited with tough economic policies that got inflation under control, aren't part of the 'popular' history, especially of the right, and instead you just have Reagan riding in on a white horse to do pretty much everything wonderful (and presumably riding the white horse back out of town with the Marines from Lebanon, and so on, but again, shhhh.)

You're right. I've never, ever understood the demonization of Carter. He was a damn fine President who led a competent administration that fixed our economic problems at a great political price. That's someone I can respect. Reagan, OTOH, squandered the hard work of Carter and increased the deficit to strataspheric levels. I'm a Republican myself, but it's good to be honest with yourself and call a spade a spade.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ that was a joke right?
Only to someone like you. Then again, you're part of the 28% that still approve of Bush. Says a lot about you.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
"Flippin n a Floppin"....

Not only this issue, his about face on such major issues such as taxation and immigration to pacify the Republican base.

McCain has attacked both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly for daring to suggest a date for withdrawal. Now 2013 is somehow the magical year we will "win" in Iraq.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ that was a joke right?
Carter made hard decisions in regards to the economy and foreign policy. His weren't always the best ones, but they were often the right ones, long-term. Too often these days we have Presidents who go for the quick strike, the ones, like Bush Jr and Sr that do nothing more than manage expectations for their terms.

Had we followed a lot of Carter policies we'd be in a better position. His energy policy alone was very good and, if followed, we'd be almost completely energy independent by now. However, the expectation managers (clinton included) wanted legacy building, not nation building (our own that is) to be their priority.

That's why we are slaved to the ME, that's why Bush's are so tied to them.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY