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’…..
Trackbacks
17 comments so far
Leave a reply