McCain's Hypocrisy On Hamas

[NATO AIR]

Talk about dishonest...

I had thought McCain would have a better chance than Obama in November. If he wants to keep running on Bush's agenda though, he's in for a rude awakening, especially when he flat out lies like this.

Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It
But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. 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."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.


Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...503306_pf.html

[theHawk]

I don't see where the "hypocrisy" is at. When Hamas was first elected, the big question everyone was asking was whether or not they'd continue terrorism. The world gave them a chance, they blew it.

[dread]

I don't see where the "hypocrisy" is at. When Hamas was first elected, the big question everyone was asking was whether or not they'd continue terrorism. The world gave them a chance, they blew it.

I dont know why this would be a question on everyones mind.. Why would Hamas give up terrorism when it has worked so well for them?

[red states rule]

I don't see where the "hypocrisy" is at. When Hamas was first elected, the big question everyone was asking was whether or not they'd continue terrorism. The world gave them a chance, they blew it.

They blew it by blowing up women and children

How long do we have to talk to terrorists before we realize the only way to reasonl with them is to put a bullet in their head?

[theHawk]

I dont know why this would be a question on everyones mind.. Why would Hamas give up terrorism when it has worked so well for them?

Yes, no one really believed they'd give it up. But the "diplomatic" thing to do is to pretend they might.

[retiredman]

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.

[dread]

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.

Just because they are the govt doesnt mean we have to deal with them in diplomatic ways. Alot of dictators were elected to their stature.

[glockmail]

Just because they are the govt doesnt mean we have to deal with them in diplomatic ways. Alot of dictators were elected to their stature.

We don't deal with Cuba, and we don't deal with Hamas. Where is the inconsistency?

I suppose we could ask to "pretty please" stop terrorizing our ally, but I don't see that working.

[red states rule]

We don't deal with Cuba, and we don't deal with Hamas. Where is the inconsistency?

I suppose we could ask to "pretty please" stop terrorizing our ally, but I don't see that working.

Or sit down with them over lattes. (and ask could you pass the tufu pretty please?)

[NATO AIR]

This is the problem here though. ITs well known Israel negotiates with Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (though not Iran yet, though we don't know for sure). They do it because they have to, especially if they want to get things done. The US has not done this, and it has limited our options while making us look like idiots to the rest of the world and undermining our case against all three beligerent parties.

OH but wait, we have. We have met with Syria & Iran in the past 7 years, but we don't publicize it and the Bush Admin likes to act like it never happened and didn't matter. It does though. SECDEF Gates would not be calling for more unofficial and official contacts with Iran if that wasn't the case.

[NATO AIR]

Further, we deal with the North Koreans, who are the world's Wal-mart for bad guys.
We dealt with the Soviets, who threatened to annihilate us with a nuclear holocaust as well as supporting terrorists and insurgents against us and our interests for decades. Ditto for the CHinese.

[dread]

This is the problem here though. ITs well known Israel negotiates with Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah (though not Iran yet, though we don't know for sure). They do it because they have to, especially if they want to get things done. The US has not done this, and it has limited our options while making us look like idiots to the rest of the world and undermining our case against all three beligerent parties.

OH but wait, we have. We have met with Syria & Iran in the past 7 years, but we don't publicize it and the Bush Admin likes to act like it never happened and didn't matter. It does though. SECDEF Gates would not be calling for more unofficial and official contacts with Iran if that wasn't the case.

Israel has negotiated because they like to appease the rest of the world. They have given away everything and what have they gotten in return?

[dread]

Further, we deal with the North Koreans, who are the world's Wal-mart for bad guys.
We dealt with the Soviets, who threatened to annihilate us with a nuclear holocaust as well as supporting terrorists and insurgents against us and our interests for decades. Ditto for the CHinese.

Disingenuous arguement...They all have nukes.

[red states rule]

Further, we deal with the North Koreans, who are the world's Wal-mart for bad guys.
We dealt with the Soviets, who threatened to annihilate us with a nuclear holocaust as well as supporting terrorists and insurgents against us and our interests for decades. Ditto for the CHinese.

Ronald Reagan brought down the SV without firing a shot - libs were ranting how he was going to start WWIII

It is about time we go back to Reagan conservatism on all the issues

[PostmodernProphet]

dread, your avatar is going to kill an epileptic.......