• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McCain Advocated Negotiating With Hamas Only Two Years Ago

D

DealMonkey

Lifer
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."
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, would you like to adjust your comments from the other day, Senator?
 
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.
 
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."
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, would you like to adjust your comments from the other day, Senator?
Click to expand...

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.




 
Originally posted by: loki8481
maybe by "deal with" he meant carpet bomb?
Click to expand...
Only if he wants to dig himself into a deeper hole.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Click to expand...

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&
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Click to expand...

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&
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I forgot the source link:

WaPo
Click to expand...

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&
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Lou Dobbs goes off on Rubin
 
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
Click to expand...

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&
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Lou Dobbs goes off on Rubin
Click to expand...

And how is what McCain said different from what Obama has said in the past?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.)
Click to expand...


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.
 
"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.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ that was a joke right?
Click to expand...

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.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top