RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« 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)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is a problem McCain seems to have quite often. He keeps having to ask his aides what his position is on any subject, as if he does not remember and has no opinions of his own.
Posted by: jock59801 | May 16, 2008 6:06:56 PM
I am hearing that there is a video (with audio) of Cindy Mccain railing against Black people that is about to be released for the world to see. Also hearing that there is equally damaging footage (with audio) of john mccain that is about to be released.
Posted by: BBLACK | May 16, 2008 6:04:02 PM
I am hearing that there is a video (with audio) of Michelle Obama railing against white people from the pulpit at Trinity that is about to be released for the world to see. Also hearing that there is equally damaging footage (with audio) of Barack Obama that is about to be released.
What have you heard about this, Jake?
Posted by: USVet | May 16, 2008 5:57:43 PM
In one of the debates Obama clearly said he would negotiate with terrorists. Bush simply does not agree with this position, because it has not worked in the past. The left wing press and all the liberals can spin it any way they want but that is what was he said.
Posted by: Tim | May 16, 2008 5:42:55 PM
Flip flop goes ol' John. This guy even votes against the bills he sponsors. Great presidential material.
Posted by: Big Al | May 16, 2008 5:38:47 PM
McCain only talks to himself
Posted by: Jim B | May 16, 2008 5:29:05 PM
Bush-McCain Foreign Policy
BushMcCain Foreign Policy
McBush Foreign Policy
105 years of war
Posted by: Jim B | May 16, 2008 5:11:24 PM
McCain: Do You Support a Federal States of Israel and Palestine as One Nation?
We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli- Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.
No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the land of Arabic nations has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States. We may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems. One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth.
We are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Israel never would have to be fearful of any other nation; our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.
Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?
The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.
The Common Wealth should include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. Then what next?
Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.
Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.
We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.
Posted by: StMTraveler | May 16, 2008 5:06:08 PM
At least Reagan term #1 had smart people involved whether you agreed with their politics or not. Even Bush #1 was pretty good but after reading the quote below, I think McCain inherited inbreds and fools:
"It was remarkable to see Barack Obama's hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned. "
Who do they think they are fooling?
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | May 16, 2008 5:02:37 PM
Here it is again twwo sets of rules.One said I would meet and one oh my gosh ,NO now he will meet with them gesh unreal .I will be so glad when this mess is over and we can get on with the regular election.Go get him Obamaaaaaaaaaaa
Posted by: IND older person | May 16, 2008 4:46:31 PM
The Most DISAPPOINTING THING about Sen. McCain this season is his utter lack of principle in making allusions that he knows don't hold any water. He made statements about Obama and Hamas in the past that are clearly not true, just to score a political point. He wrongly and purposefully sought to make a connection between Obama and Hamas, even though Obama had in the past condemned Hamas and expressed his strong support for Israel. McCain is not honorable afterall--just a creature of the old politics Obama is campaigning against! Furthermore, Sen. McCain takes offence when he feels that Obama is alluding to his age;yet, he clearly makes a not-so-veiled reference to Obama's age by accusing him (wrongly) of being naive, "foolish" (a language from a politician who says he expects "respectful" debate, unwise,and inexperienced. And now this! Obama is right that we should make a clean break with Bush-Cheney-McCain approach to foreign policy. Democrats must chat a new course , especially in the face of Bush dismal failure in international politics and foreign policy.
Posted by: Dr. Sam | May 16, 2008 4:43:48 PM
"recall the key quote that the McCain campaign hopes to hang around Obama's neck." Racism at it's finest hour. Thanks RICK.. What the hell is this all about. I believe we could have a used a better chose of words.
Posted by: Charlie | May 16, 2008 4:38:57 PM
Lets see, are you a fortune teller too? Do you know that the war won't be over in 2013? I doubt it buddy. Maybe you are too lazy to research on McCain's stance regarding US policy that handles domestic issues. There's an entire web of information that can be utilized. So use it. Too many of you who descended from the colonists (illegal immigrant equivalents) are lazy. I bet England, France, and the rest are glad they got rid of you.
Posted by: right on | May 16, 2008 4:38:17 PM
jo
tell me where mccain stand on the economy, education, all the things that are important to us. he wants war war war, no he is saying like the dem. party the war will be over by 2013 and it will be a victory. is he a fortune teller b/c right now the war doesn't look like it will be victories in 4 years. why does mccain flip flop on hamas, on his 100 year war, on the economy. ?????
Posted by: bez | May 16, 2008 4:22:35 PM
Interestingly, McCain no longer feels we may have to be in Iraq for 100 years. He expects to have our troops out of Iraq by the start of 2013. This raises the following question:
Will the troops:
a) simply be deployed elsewhere?
b) refuse to serve, like Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux who announced yesterday to Congress he refuses to be delpoyed to Iraq?
Posted by: Jim | May 16, 2008 4:22:12 PM
All entities must be dealt with over in the middle east. Hamas has legitimacy among the Palestinians and should therefore be engaged.
Posted by: huh | May 16, 2008 4:20:45 PM
Sara
McCain has a wonderful education but he was 3rd to last in his graduating class. He barely got out.
The big question I have about him, is whether his all-too-apparent short term memory loss includes incipient Alzheimer's yet. He is known in the Senate as 'not a detail man' which is code for "he doesnt remember conversations we had with him two days ago".
Posted by: bruce becker | May 16, 2008 4:16:06 PM
Mr Coffee, the only part you are missing is that the land where Israel and Palestine are now was a British protectorate, and I think it should be again, and not have a 'Jewish state' and "Muslim-Arab state'.
Then there can be fair division of water rights.
If the US would offer visas to the Jews who are on former Arab lands, we would get a huge influx of educated workers, who can read and write in a few languages and have degrees in engineering and medicine. It would be a big improvement over the illegals who dont read English.
I notice no one even comments on the 12 million illegals anymore. I suppose the power in charge have just given up, since it would offend the Latinos.
Anyway, Mr Coffee, the Brits were the holders of that land, by UN protectorate.
Posted by: bruce becker | May 16, 2008 4:12:32 PM
You might note that Obama doesnt say he would meet with Hamas, but McCain clearly does. Perhaps he thinks that there would be preconditions, but he certainly didnt say that there must be, in fact, he implies that there isnt any choice at all "sooner or later we will have to". Obama on the other hand suggests meeting face to face with leaders of STATES. He does not suggest that Hamas is the leader of a State, John Mccain doesnt call them terrorists, he calls them "the Government".
Posted by: David S | May 16, 2008 4:10:59 PM
You might note that Obama doesnt say he would meet with Hamas, but McCain clearly does. Perhaps he thinks that there would be preconditions, but he certainly didnt say that there must be, in fact, he implies that there isnt any choice at all "sooner or later we will have to". Obama on the other hand suggests meeting face to face with leaders of STATES. He does not suggest that Hamas is the leader of a State, John Mccain doesnt call them terrorists, he calls them "the Government".
Posted by: David S | May 16, 2008 4:10:57 PM
Post a comment
