For the last day or so the left has been in a bit of a tizzy over Bush speaking in Isreal about a long held United States policy. The only person noted in the speech was a Republican from way back yonder but Obama, feeling a bit defensive I suppose since he has already stated he is a appeaser, lashed out at the speech. McCain backed Bush up, as he should have, and as any person with any sort of common sense would of. We do not, nor should we ever, sit down with the enemy without preconditions.
James Rubin at the WaPo wrote an editorial calling McCain a hypocrite:
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.”
Whoa….looks bad huh?
But the FULL video of that interview was released today and it looks like Rubin dabbled in a bit of a intellectual dishonesty by clipping out a part that proves McCain is NOT a hypocrite:
The part 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.”
If Hamas changes their ways and becomes a legitimate government that renounces violence and terrorism we may sit down with them.
Sounds like preconditions to me.
Via Hot Air comes this clip of Lou Dobbs calling out Rubin:
Here is the email that Dana Bash noted in the interview sent from the McCain camp:
All: Today, Jamie Rubin made a charge against John McCain. Every one of your news organizations put him on the air and covered his charges that John McCain flip-flopped on engagement with Hamas. Now we know that Jamie Rubin didn’t tell the truth.As the entire video — just posted on SkyNews — clearly shows, John McCain absolutely did not advocate unconditional engagement with Hamas. Indeed, Rubin conveniently cut off his follow-up question to which McCain was clear that any engagement with Hamas would be conditioned on their actions and policies — that any actions would be “dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts…
RUBIN INTERVIEW W/ FOLLOW-UP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-o2U4Y7DQ
Jamie Rubin: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have been in the past, in working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is in now charge?”Sen. John McCain: “They’re the government and sooner or later we‘re going to have to deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice, so, but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a decent future then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”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.”
Note this matches up with Sen. McCain’s CNN interview that same day in Davos, in which McCain conditions any engagement on Hamas renouncing its commitment to the extinction of Israel:
From Davos, John McCain Says Hamas Must Renounce Its Commitment To The Extinction Of The State Of Israel. 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.” (CNN’s “Saturday Morning News,” 1/28/06)
Now, as far as Obama goes, he says this was a “false political attack” and that its “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
Oh really?
Sitting down to talk to those who want Israel wiped off the map without preconditions on their nuclear ambitions is not appeasement? Give me a break. Obama said recently:
I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies.
Thats appeasement.
Peter Wehner rips him a new one:
If Obama believes the president’s appeasement formulation was wrong, fine; let him make a substantive argument for why that’s the case. And if he wants to present a careful argument for why as president he would meet without preconditions with the leader of not only Iran but also with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, all in his first year, that’s fine, too. In fact, it would be a welcome addition to the presidential debate. But for Obama to lash out in the manner he has is silly and unbecoming.
What is driving this response? Probably the belief by Obama that he’s vulnerable to being portrayed as weak on national security matters and he wants to prove that he can’t be “swift-boated.” But Obama’s response will achieve neither aim and, in fact, it makes Obama look thin-skinned, a bit rattled, and prickly. Indeed, Obama’s response seems so 1990s. His words and the words of the campaign could have come straight from the lips of Paul Begala or other former Clinton attack dogs.
Keep the popcorn popping….it just keeps getting better with this guy.
UPDATE
Hugh Hewitt on another doozy from Obama:
“When Kennedy Met With Khrushchev, We Were On The Brink Of Nuclear War.”
That’s Barack Obama from today’s incredible press conference where the Illinois senator combined petulance and ignorance in an unnerving display of just how unqualified he is to be Commander-in-Chief
For the record, Kennedy and Khrushchev met in Vienna in June of 1961. We were not on the brink of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis was 15 months in the future.
Just keep talking Big O’…..
See author page
Too late Curt. I suspect you will have to be correcting comments on this for years to come much like other fallacy becomes fact nonsense that shows up in this blog.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
Mark Twain.
Wonder how many believers are going to show up on this thread?
Obama said: “When Kennedy Met With Khrushchev, We Were On The Brink Of Nuclear War.” The Cuban Missile Crisis was 15 months in the future.
I guess we’re now going to be defining what the meaning of the word “brink” is.
Obama reminds me more and more of the worst of both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
And this latest hit on McCain reminds me of the “false political attack”… “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country” Obama is complaining is directed at him.
He’s such a liar and a phony.
obama is rattled, he has every right to be, he should be. he is now going to get the treatment that he deserves and should have been getting all along. he has been handled with kid gloves. obama wouldn’t know how to deal with any issues bigger than what church to go to, he can’t even get that right. he is out of his league and very outclassed, he needs to tkae his toys and go home. if he really can’t handle being vetted and being questioned on his stances then he never should have signed on for this long battle.
McCain also supported talking to Syria — another state sponsor of terrorism.
Just a little bit of Hypocrisy….
Here’s the transcript of the April 18, 2003, episode of NBC’s “Today” show.
LAUER: Let me ask you about Syria.
Mr. McCAIN: Sure.
LAUER: They have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, they’ve also denied harboring any senior members of the Iraqi leader. The US administration says they have evidence to the contrary. How would you proceed with that situation?
Mr. McCAIN: I think it’s very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria. I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It’s also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was. I think he’s too heavily influenced by a lot of the radical Islamic elements and–and militant groups.
LAUER: Do you think Syria meets the criteria set forth by the president in his post-9/11 address to Congress that they pose an imminent threat to the US in that they are either sponsoring or harboring terrorists?
Mr. McCAIN: I think they’re–they’re sponsoring and harboring terrorists. I think they have been occupying Lebanon, which should be free and independent for a long time, but I don’t think that that means that we will now resort to the military action. We–we can apply a lot of pressure other than military–than the military action. So what I’m saying, we’re a long way away from it.
LAUER: Under what circumstances–under what circumstances would you back military action?
Mr. McCAIN: When we’ve exhausted all other options. And we have a lot of options to–to exercise. And I’m glad Colin Powell’s going there, but the Syrians have got to understand there’s a new day in the Middle East.
So, let’s review. Yesterday, John McCain insisted that Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rival heads of state reflects “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment.” Since then we’ve learned:
* McCain has publicly said he believe the U.S. should engage Hamas diplomatically and recognize Hamas a legitimate government;
* and McCain has publicly said he thinks it’s fully appropriate for the U.S. to engage Syria diplomatically, despite his own assertions that Syria is “sponsoring and harboring terrorists”;
To hear John McCain tell it, Barack Obama is irresponsible for his willingness to engage a state sponsor of terror like Iran. McCain’s attacks have all kinds of substantive flaws, but more importantly, McCain seems to keep running into trouble due to comments he’s made before.
-the carpetbagger report
Flip flop flip flop flip flop…..
I’m not saying that the above conversation did not occur with McCain but, I have yet to find the transcript anywhere other than cut and paste jobs from the usual sources. Anyone have a link to the entire transcript?
Colin Powell wasn’t a PRESIDENT sitting down and talking with state sponsors of terror. If you can’t understand the difference, you don’t belong in this conversation.
As has already been said in here, there have been talks with Iran. The Iran government, who trains, funds and supplies the animals that attack our troops do not deserve to be legitimized by a sit down with ANY president of the United States, and won’t be unless the idiot makes it to the Oval.
Sky…..you see no difference between the President sitting down with Syria and the State Department delivering a message from the President? You are as naive as Obama.
I love this guy!
Mark Steyn: Ninny Pity Party, Read the rest at “FREEREPUBLIC” it is too good.
Good find kathie. Here’s the link:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-obama-words-2044703-bush-talking
I had forgotten that quote from Hamas. How do you negotiate with people whose goal is to kill you? What do you do? Offer to let them kill only 10,000 of your citizens as a compromise?
Democrats have NEVER said what they would negotiate about. Only that they would negotiate. Steyn makes it clear that this does nothing more than provide the evildoers with a figleaf of respectability as they continue on with plans to reach their goal, which is DEATH TO AMERICA!
How do you negotiate with that?
You don’t. You DEFEAT IT!
Here are some words of Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah:
“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”
Hezbollah.
That’s the group that the Obamessiah says has “legitimate claims.
Of course Obie also says that Israel is a “constant wound”, a “constant sore”.
ummm didn’t Reagan go beyond talking with Iran and actually sell them weapons ? Wasn’t there a big scandal with Iran Contragate ?
You’re babbling about stuff almost three decades ago, John Ryan?
In history, much like our elections, we have to support the lesser of two evils. Just as we supported Saddam over Iran in the past. However nothing is static. Circumstances and events change over time. The climate does not remain the same from year to year. And former friends or allies can turn into enemies and then back to allies. Witness Pakistan and the UAE, for example.
Just like the global Islamic jihad movement coordinates with other rival groups to accomplish a specific shared goal, they return to infighting at a different time. You must learn not to be so anal thru life. The sun does not rise at the same time every day.
INRE Bush in Israel. Considering the audience must be quite concerned with what the next POTUS suggests he will do, Rubin, from Israel Insider may have been reflecting the mood in Israel just the day before Bush made his comments. Quite prescient, really. And perhaps more insight as to why that was included in Bush’s speech.
I suggest that Bush was assuring an ally under verbal and physical assaults daily that the US has no intention of abandoning them, nor working deals with their enemies. At least as long as His Messiahship doesn’t make it into the Oval Office.
However for BHO to be so indignant, taking fire for his stated stance of talking to enemies, is absurd. If the shoe fits…. and if he believes this is the way to go… he should not be crying foul.
However it’s quite evident that the Israelis do not like Obama’s foreign policy ideas.
For the DNC to whine is laughable. Where were they when Congressmen/women visited Iraq and bad mouthed the President and OIF in the early years… and continued? Where were they when Pelosi visited Syria and Tehran?
As usual, forked tongue politics by sleazy elected officials.
JR (#11) – Your history is a bit off. In Iran-Contra, we didn’t sell weapons to Iran but we bought weapons from them to arm the Contras. The Democrat-led Congress, in their infinite wisdom, did appropriate funds to arm the Contras, but severely restricted who could supply those arms. We knew the arms Iran had were bought from the communists in Vietnam who needed hard currency at the time. The Iranians were arming Hezbollah with those weapons and munitions from Vietnam. But, the Iranian government didn’t like the idea of “giving away” weapons for free, even to their proxy in Lebanon. They couldn’t resell on the black market because they signed a “no compete” agreement with Vietnam with regard to that. Because of the Contra restrictions that were in place, the Reagan Administration used this as an opening to resolve how to arm the Contras and an avenue to retrieve Americans being held hostage in Lebanon.
Since the deal did not involve direct or indirect contact with the hostage-takers/terrorists in Lebanon (most likely Hezbollah), it was consistent with the stated policy of no negotiation. In being a straight business deal, the Iranians asked if they could anything as a “thank you” of sorts for finding a customer. The reply was “yes” and that would be a release of all western hostages in Lebanon. Also, if they could dissuade their proxy clients in Lebanon from engaging in that type of activity from this point on. Iran’s reply was positive.
So when the western hostages were released in Lebanon, because of the nature of the deal, you haven’t seen anymore hostage taking like this against westerners since then.
Obama would say this represents the kind of direct contact at the highest level since it required Reagan’s approval of the deal. It would be consistent with his stated position of “meeting anytime, anywhere to resolve common issues.” The difference is the level of contact. Obama would have the contact at the presidential level (see #6, #7). And, suppose an Obama administration comes into intelligence that Iran was ready to launch a nuclear strike directly or through their Hezbollah client. What argument would Obama use to talk them out of it? “You can’t do that … because you will find yourself hopelessly isolated.” Or perhaps, “We will use the appropriate force necessary to respond.” We’ve already used those arguments, and they haven’t worked. Similarly stated by Mike (#9), what will be discussed in such a meeting?
Compare and contrast these two sets of quotes:
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”
-Senator Obama
***
“It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own
“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”
-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
They sound rather similar don’t they?
h/t – networdblog
BTW, INRE my #12 post, I forgot to make clear that the Rubin quotes I provided were from Barry Rubin of the Israel Insider – an article that appeared the day before Bush’s speech in Israel.
Obama’s foreign policy is a spin off of what he thinks worked on the streets of Chicago. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, NK and Syria are a bit more complicated than home town street thugs.
In a blogpost about taking someone out of context, you post a response quoting someone out of context.
I apologize for misrepresenting McCain on his Hamas statement. It is now apparent he and Obama have the exact same view on dealing with Hamas. So that makes immigration, green house emmision caps, and Hamas the issues where they agree.