Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas

May 16, 2008 1:19 PM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE

This hiccup just in from John McCain's attempts to blast Barack Obama over his supposed eagerness to meet with terrorist leaders: McCain wants to meet with them, too.

Well -- sort of, and not quite. Jamie Rubin, whom you may remember as a State Department spokesman during the Clinton administration, uses a Washington Post op-ed today to relate this interview he conducted with McCain two years ago, shortly after Hamas took over the Palestinian government.

Rubin: "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: "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."

Huffington Post has the VIDEO HERE.

The Democratic National Committee is putting this out there actively.

And liberal bloggers jumping on this. At Huffington Post, Max Bergmann, deputy policy director at the National  Security Network, sprinkles in some quotes where McCain supports direct talks with the Syrians to come to this  conclusion:

"McCain is directly contradicting himself by attacking Senator Obama on his plan to confront Iran at the negotiating  table. A pattern is emerging. While McCain claims to be a deep foreign policy thinker with positions carefully  developed from his quarter century in Washington, the reality seems to be that his positions -- when not outright  crazy -- are often knee-jerk and contradictory -- often dictated by what his temperament is at that moment or  influenced by how the political winds are moving."

Rubin -- a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy -- writes that McCain "is guilty of hypocrisy."

The McCain campaign is clearly concerned about this -- I got this identical response three separate times from the campaign this morning: "There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally -- renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution." -- Campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Bounds continues with the contrast: "John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment."

McCain's 2005 answer about Hamas is certainly interesting -- and doesn't exactly sound like something that would come out of his mouth as a presidential candidate. But I'm not convinced it's "hypocrisy," either.

But in that quote, McCain is not saying specifically how he would engage Hamas; critically, he is not advocating direct negotiations without preconditions.

Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin writes at Commentary: "This is supposed to be a gotcha quote? It doesn't appear that McCain was saying we should talk to Hamas immediately and without preconditions, or that we should talk directly to their state sponsor Iran (the latter has been the real point of contention of late)."

As to whether McCain and Obama have a real difference here, recall the key quote that the McCain campaign hopes to hang around Obama's neck. Last July, Obama was asked at a Democratic debate whether he would "meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

Obama's answer: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

More recently, Obama has been clear that he would not meet with Hamas, and criticized former President Jimmy Carter's decision to do so. His pledge to meet with the leaders of rogue states, he told ABC's David Wright last month, "does not include Hamas. They are not heads of state and they don't recognize Israel. You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of the country to exist. So I understand why Israel doesn't meet with Hamas."

Obama has said he would be willing to meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, as president.

-- Rick Klein

UPDATE: The McCain campaign has secured a more complete clip from the Rubin-McCain interview -- and it seems to back up the McCain position, that he was not advocating direct negotiations with Hamas. View that clip HERE.

Rubin:  "So should we -- the United States -- be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?"

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 by how the United States acts."

From the McCain campaign: "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."

UPDATE II: With the McCain campaign and the RNC in full attack mode -- subject line of the McCain campaign e-mail: "JAMIE RUBIN LIED" -- Jamie Rubin reached out to defend himself on Saturday.

He stands by his assertion that McCain was guilty of "hypocrisy" here -- and points out (rightly) that he never said in his op-ed that McCain favored direct negotiations with Hamas without preconditions. He wrote in the op-ed that McCain appeared "ready to do business with a Hamas-led government" in the two-year-old interview; he did not say that McCain embraced direct, immediate talks.

Rubin said Saturday: "There is an obvious difference between the John McCain of two years ago, and how he was talking about Hamas, and the John McCain of today, and how he was talking about Hamas. ... Someone who says that Obama is the preferred candidate of Hamas, that's a political smear, and it's hypocritical given that he was far more open to negotiating with Hamas than he is today."

May 16, 2008 in McCain, John, Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (84)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

McCain is driving the Flip Flop express down the Hypocrisy track!

The U.S. military currently pays about $300 a month to each of the 90,000 Sons of Iraq security personnel, but officials say they hope the Iraqi government will take over the contracts by the end of the year. The original plan was for the overwhelmingly Sunni Sons of Iraq to be incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces, but the Shiite-majority government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has resisted hiring them.

More recently, the U.S. command has said that only about 20,000 should be added to the security forces — nearly all of them in Sunni-dominated Anbar province.

Sen McCain supports the Surge in Iraq, including the payment to the Sons of Iraq(Sunni Terrorists who killed US Soldiers)sort oy paying the terrorists not to fight against the US.

Sen McCain is lying, hypocritacal Appeaser. for supporting the monthly payments of over $30 million to terrorists.

Don’t talk to terrorists, just pay them! Is McCain and Bush’s foreign policy claim to fame!

Next issue for debate! Economics anyone!

Dems08

Posted by: jld1959 | May 18, 2008 12:13:51 PM

Well we know what Hillary's position would be...she would just OBLITHERATE them. She won't talk to other nations and she won't take the advice of her commanders. She openly stated her commanders will follow HER rules and policies. I guess she may say she would oblitherate the Saudi's too since she is planning on taking them on with the oil supply.

If any nation would be so bold as to disagree with her she wouldn't be receiving that stupid 3:00 am phone call...she would be MAKING IT.

Posted by: What Foreign Policy | May 17, 2008 11:08:16 PM

I am an avid Obama supporter, but I have to say, Jamie Rubin did take McCain's comments out of context. Rubin is an ex-Clinton person and we all know they are masters of sound bites skewed to their advantage.

I am in no way taking up for McCain with his earlier comments on Hammas wanting Obama as their choice. The truth is the truth and on this one issue Rubin's clip is misleading. He is just trying to hitch his wagon to a rising star since there won't be any jobs available in the Clinton administration.

Obama doesn't need this kind of distortion to beat McCain. He will do it on his own and fair and square. But, he really doesn't need to keep fighting a primary election battle and take on the Republican nominee and the current President all at the same time. We really need to know who the democratic nominee is so we can move forward and not stay in this democratic party election hell.

Posted by: Consider The Source | May 17, 2008 10:57:10 PM

Sully writes,"I think that anyone who thinks they can negotiate with one group that wants nothing more than to wipe another group off the face of the earth is not using sound judgement."

=============================

Sound judgement? No offense but it is CLEAR you're not familiar with the HISTORY of Egypt and Israel. Do you honestly THINK the Egyptians wouldn't WANT to see Israel wiped off the planet? Well? Do you? Yet for some strange reason they're at peace. I wonder why? Oh, yeah..because the a President of the United States of America had the AUDACITY and INTELLIGENCE to know it would be pretty friggin' stupid to just ASSUME policy instead of MAKING it.

Posted by: Dems | May 17, 2008 9:52:02 PM

We are the last super power in the world. We should use that as leverage in dealing with many world situations. I am not advocating beating the daylights out of rogue nations, just make sure that everyone knows that we could.

I think that anyone who thinks they can negotiate with one group that wants nothing more than to wipe another group off the face of the earth is not using sound judgement.

If McCain meant that he would sit down and talk with Hamas, then he is wrong. What he said is that we would have to deal with them eventually in one way or another. I take this to mean that one way is to negotiate and the other way involves some type of military force.

I think that warfare is one of the most disgusting things man has ever taken part in, but in certain situations I understand the necessary effectiveness of it.

No matter who is elected in November (apparently it will be one of these three marginal choices) they had better be ready to take a strong stance regarding the defense of not only our country, but of countries that we consider our friends.

Posted by: sully | May 17, 2008 3:09:52 PM

Akin to refusing to place a 'stop light' at an intersection until a number of people have had an accident there, so it will go for those that vote and place Oprahma in the White House. The soope of the mistake will not be fully realized until it is far too late for the country. Voting for a candidate that may or may not be the 'lessor of two or three evils' is not very smart or prudent for a democracy to flourish. 'We the people' should demand and promote qualified candidates, if they do not now exist; and they don't, in my opinion. Oprahma does one thing very well; slicing baloney.

Posted by: therockofages | May 17, 2008 12:43:45 PM

Cindy McCain had (note "had") a drug problem. Michelle Obama has (note "has") an anti-American problem in which she gained admittance to Ivy League colleges through affirmative action but is now whining about having had to pay off student loans, calls 2008 American a "downright mean" country, and says she is for the first time in her adult life proud of her country. Which is relevant to this election?

Posted by: HoosierSue | May 17, 2008 11:47:48 AM

The McCain interview was conducted right after Hamas won election. Times have changed since then (and McCain's words at the time have been misconstrued). We now know those elections were rigged. We also know that Hamas has since bombed Israel. Obama hasn't got a leg to stand on and is only making himself look more foolish.

Posted by: HoosierSue | May 17, 2008 11:43:45 AM

Wow its great how prejudice America is. obama has racism, Clinton has sexism and Mccain has ageist comments to contend with too. I find it concerning that a guy who could remember to provide false names of his comrades whilst being tortured, should be mocked for not remembering what he may have said last year- just because he's of certain age. How demeaning.

Back to topic. Actually I think out of the three candidates, Mccain has said the most sensible thing. Whats wrong with preconditions? He's not saying he wouldn't fight hard to use diplomacy and he's not saying that he wouldn't use diplomacy. Obama spin.

I guess only Obama, the one blest with a 'gift of the gab' can be the one to reach these nations.

Problem is these nations are looking for more substance in their diplomatic meetings than a cute inspiring speech, especially one from a man who is not bringing anything new to the table (other than an intense belief he has been chosen). He will not talk to Hamas, he has staunchly advocated israel and said he himself (and america) will not compromise so why should anyone else?

Perhaps the question should be why would they want to talk to him? we're all assuming Iran are desperate to negotiate. Negotiate what? They might be quite happy and would just like the US to but out and keep to themselves. I don't see any articles pleading for a meeting.

One rule for US : Our way or the highway?

Except isn't that the same kind of foreign policy we are hated for throughout the rest of the world?

I'm sick of people making America values look like hypocritical. Thats what Bush has done blatantly for 8 years.

Posted by: firefox | May 17, 2008 11:31:08 AM

Howard Kurtz noted the oddity of Barack referring to his “father’s” flag draped coffin. Only problem, Barack’s dad died a Kenyan. He was not entitled to having the U.S. flag swaddling his coffin. Barack really meant to say “grandfather.” But making it about his father makes it more endearing. Or was Obama trying to "bamboozle" us?

His "father" was buried in "the Muslim tradition" according to Obama's book.

Nit picking you say? Really? Well then why criticize Hillary for one comment about taking sniper fire in Bosnia. Let’s ignore Dan Quayle’s spelling errors. And let’s give McCain a preemptive pass for seeming confused, when it happens. It if is good for one it is good for all.

Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2008 1:59:40 AM

Of course, John McCain meant to meet with Hamas, although for politics' sake he is denying it now because he simply doesn't remember he said it in 2006.

We all should know that McCain is suffering from the 'remembering disease'. His gene is just half his mother's while the other half is from his father, so he already began to lose his bearing.

If McCain needs memory during this campaign period I am ready to give it to him - memory bag to carry around. Methusallah had a memory bag.

Posted by: eezii | May 16, 2008 10:50:10 PM

Dr. Sam,

'Racism at its finest hour.' Actually the allusion would be to an albatross, ie. Rime of the Ancient Mariner, meaning the McCain campaign hopes the quote would become a liability for Obama. Your indignation would be better expressed fighting real problems than (incorrectly) parsing blogs for the outrage of the hour, imo.

Posted by: flambasto | May 16, 2008 9:29:54 PM

Come on people get it right.

Obama basically spelled out the current policy today. We are willing to talk, as long as certain conditions are in place. Of course, Obama did say previously that he would meet unconditionally...but then he back-tracked when he realized what he had said.

The current administration does engage in limited talks using lower level diplomats. People act like it is a total refusal to talk with our enemies.

Get the whole story.

In the meantime, McCain seemed to be the one scoring points.

Obama...once again...it is all about him. Bush has said these same comments many times before. Obama just wanted to make news today and give another speech.

Posted by: Raleigh Voter | May 16, 2008 9:28:29 PM

it's kind of funny seeing the obamaniacs going after Mccain;

they better be careful because one day really soon...... the Repubs are going
to get really M E A N.... just like them!

I'll stick with Hillary and enjoy the respite.

Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 7:25:28 PM

StMTraveler:
I thought this was one nation under G-d for both Democrats and republicans.

What's with this Commonwealth manifesto?'Will you be offering your services to re-write our Constitution?

Frankly I think before we go any further. we need to fix OURSELVES!

Then, whenever possible, we should continue to support our allies .

Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 7:21:49 PM

Hamas will not negotiate with Israel, and Israel is/has alway been a staunch ally of the United States.

Frankly I wish there were an Umbrella of Deterrence over the head of that particular crackpot party!

Israel is the only country I know of which has given back lands acquired during a 7 day war instigated and lost by their enemies.

Israel is a teeny tiny haven in the mideast surrounded by big enemies with big bombs .

According to the book of Genesis,

" the 13th tribe, Levi (the third of Jacob's sons), was set apart and had no one portion of land of its own. A break in the Hebrew kingdom was precipitated by Rehoboam, a son of Solomon. An independent southern kingdom, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin as well as a portion of the Levites, was called Judah; the northern kingdom, which consisted of the rest of what had been the larger Hebrew nation, was called Israel"

But you're right when you say we cannot afford to protect the world; why don't we just toss the Olde Testament into the ocean..... along with the Koran?

Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 7:12:12 PM

Do people really believe Obama can protect the national
security of this country when he is friends with a
known terrorist bill ayers. this is the truth spin it
all you want but the truth is the truth. And do not tell
me Obama was only 8 years old when bill ayers set bombs.
A terrorist is a terrorist past and present.

Posted by: smallestvoice | May 16, 2008 7:08:48 PM

"McCain wants to meet with them, too."

Can we please get the basic facts right about this? Obama has never said he would meet with them. Republicans have been pushing this and it is false.

Posted by: phi | May 16, 2008 6:51:51 PM

sweetie pie:

"McCain talks out of the side of his mouth so that what he says can be take in many ways. It's called lying, cheating, and misleading. On the other hand, Obama speaks with purpose and openess as not to deceive. Thank u very much."

OBANMA speaks out of BOTH sides of his mouth. "It's called lying, cheating, and misleading".

In his first "race" speech, B O clung to his pastor who was like an uncle and protected him while he trashed his typical white granny and threw her out to the wolves.

In his second "race" speech, he took back his original supportive message of love and compassion for Jeremiah and then threw HIM to the wolves and the company of his granny.

It doesn't bother me because I'm not going to vote for him BUT I have this sneaking suspicion that as soon as all the primaries have been run, there will be a THIRD speech in which BO will forgive his pastor and the two will be best buds again!

To me, this sort of says that especially when you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, two WRIGHTS can definitely be wrong.

I'll stick with Hillary as long as it takes.

Should she want to start a third party, I'm willing a ready to do the demo switcheroo.... and I won't be alone!

Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 6:38:45 PM

I hear there is a video that is about to be released by the dems that show cindy mccain leaving a drug rehab clinic! wow!
obama 08!

Posted by: BBLACK | May 16, 2008 6:25:03 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS