Rubin: McCain’s Rhetoric On Hamas Is ‘The Ultimate Flip-Flop’
Rubin: McCain’s Rhetoric On Hamas Is ‘The Ultimate Flip-Flop’
Sen. John McCain (R-Z) has criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) by disingenuously claiming that he “approved” of negotiations with Hamas. “It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas,” McCain claims. But in an op-ed today, James Rubin, a former State Department official under President Clinton, revealed that in a 2006 interview on Britain’s Sky News, McCain supported direct diplomacy with Hamas:
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.
Interviewed on CNN today, Rubin said McCain’s “180-degree flip flop” on negotiating with Hamas was at the “height of hypocrisy”:
RUBIN: This is the ultimate flip-flop in American politics. When he was in Davos amongst the European crowd…he was talking as if it were appropriate and natural and reasonable to negotiate with Hamas, the new government of the Palestinian territories. And then, two years later, he’s taking a very, very different position, saying anybody who wants to talk to them is somehow an equivalent to terrorists … It was he himself who was prepared to talk to Hamas two years ago.
Watch it:
“The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, Rubin wrote. CNN said it contacted McCain’s campaign for reaction to Rubin’s comments but said, “We have yet to hear back from them.”
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. 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.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
36 Responses to “Rubin: McCain’s Rhetoric On Hamas Is ‘The Ultimate Flip-Flop’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
McNumbNuts is a typical politician. It’s no surprise that he flip-flops on issues. Politicians pander; leaders are guided by principle and informed decision-making. This is the chief reason that McNumbNuts will get trounced in the November election. He’s no leader and we need one desperately after suffering eight years’ of GDumbya and Darth Cheney, the panderers-in-chief.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:50 amHe`s to damn old to remember two years ago muchless two days ago, he is to damn Mcflipfloppy for this country and the rest of humanity.We are talking about someone who does not care about giving our soldiers the respect and honor they deserve and who is a danger to this country.He will not be able to make up his mind in a flash when it really come down to it.He just doen`t know does he?????????
May 16th, 2008 at 9:51 amMcCain was looking for a comfortable way to slip botch into his campaign and may have found it. There’s a segment of the American electorate which always eats this stuff up. There’s no going back for them.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:55 amGolly, I can’t wait for the Dems to settle on their Presidential candidate (Obama). The world’s focus will be on this Gramps McSame moron, and it’s going to be quite entertaining.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:56 amRepublicans don’t even want to talk with Hamas, the democratically elected leadership party in Palestine?
Then what was all that rhetoric about “supporting democracy in the Middle East”?
W — was that just… talk?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:04 amJohn 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.
First of all, what is “rogue” about Iran’s regime? Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by the people of Iran, right? How does unsubstantiated charges from the U. S. (that sound suspiciously like the ubnsubstatntiated charges against Saddam that led to our invasion) make his a “rogue regime”?
Second of all, regarding “unconditional meetings” RUC had it right yesterday:
May 16th, 2008 at 10:13 amForget that McCain placed no conditions on meeting with Hamas while in Davos. Ignore that Obama never mentioned Hamas. Please don’t notice that the conditions the McCain camp just dreamt up were stolen from Obama. Don’t even think that McCain’s (and Bush’s) position re diplomacy with other nations is the equivalent of closing one’s eyes and sicking one’s fingers in one’s ears. And, no, this is not the 481st flip-flop of John McCain. Look over there! Terist Appeasers!
May 16th, 2008 at 10:16 amGrampy McSame says - My friends, back in the day we liked Hamas, we would try all kinds of food, I really like pita bread and Hamas, sometimes with bananas, now a days though people are terrorfied of Hamas, which is not how it used to be, dogs don’t like Hamas, oh no, they like coconuts, when I was on the beach I would throw a coconut and a dog would go get it…I think I have mashed potatoes in my pants.
Cripes Grampy, make up your mind, do you like Hamas or not?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:24 amIf all of those countries and governments that are not dominated by us would simply do as we say, then we would not be forced to preemptively invade them and establish a democratic government subject to us. In order to negotiate with any of these governments, all they have to do is accede to all of our demands. We already know that the other governments have no basis for making any demands, so the negotiations will revolve around who we will allow to be the ruler of the other government.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 amralph the wonder llama Says:
First of all, what is “rogue” about Iran’s regime? Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by the people of Iran, right? How does unsubstantiated charges from the U. S. (that sound suspiciously like the ubnsubstatntiated charges against Saddam that led to our invasion) make his a “rogue regime”?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
______
“Rogue” = any regime we didn’t install.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 amHis name is now
May 16th, 2008 at 10:28 amniAcM Pronounced “knee-ack-em”
McAin
Buckie Boy Says:
I really like pita bread and Hamas, sometimes with bananas
May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
______
Yah that’s not a good combination there.
Also - Hamas and Hummus are spelled with two different types of S. True story…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am‘Grandpa Pander Bear’ will cater to anyone & everyone for political gain.
The Pander Bear is a unique creature. It’s non-vertebrate, talks out of both sides of it’s ample mouth and has been known to do complete flips and flops in mid-air as it dances it’s way around issues.
Generally senile, the Pander Bear may forget it’s position when flipping & flopping and periodically loses it’s balance. After brief apologies & an insincere smile, Pander Bear usually begins his flip flopping again, entertaining most who have not seen his act before.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:33 amMcCain response:
“…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.”
Oh really? Funny, because here’s just a couple of public statements in March that makes plain you are either LYING about Obamas position, or you are IGNORANT about Obamas postion and either one makes you UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT.
Chicago Sun Times–Mar 11 2008
Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas — something Obama pledged he himself would never do.
LaBolt said, “Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel’s destruction. As president, he will work to isolate Hamas and target its resources, and rejects any dialogue until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abides by previous agreements.”
Link:
http://www.suntimes.com/ news/ sweet/ 943467,CST-NWS-Sweet11.article
Reuters– Mar 3 2008
Obama says U.S. should not meet with Hamas
Obama, hoping to win his party’s nomination to face likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain in the November presidential election, said his willingness to meet with foes “does not include Hamas.”
“You can’t negotiate with somebody who does not recognize the right of a country to exist so I understand why Israel doesn’t meet with Hamas,” Obama told reporters during a campaign stop in San Antonio, Texas.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:34 amLink:
http://www.reuters.com/ article/ latestCrisis/ idUSN03459104
The percentage of Hillary supporters planning to vote for McCain will certainly drop in the coming months, if not weeks.
“Operation Chaos” may want to go on a diet.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:35 amMcCain is such a hypocrite. Straight talk my ass
So McCain in 2006 took this very reconciliatory approach towards Hamas. Apparently he wanted to talk to them and now he blasts Obama for what?? Talking to Americas enemies? Hamas “endorsing” Obama?
AFAIK Obama has never wanted to talk to Hamas and he harshly criticized Carters recent trip. And judging by Obamas website Obama wants to completely isolate the Hamas government until it renounces violence and recognizes Israels right to exist.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:35 amReally Dumb Question:
How far did the peace process go in Northern Ireland before the different sides talked to each other ?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:37 amralph the wonder llama Says:
Republicans don’t even want to talk with Hamas, the democratically elected leadership party in Palestine?
Then what was all that rhetoric about “supporting democracy in the Middle East”?
W — was that just… talk?
No, he was serious. Republicans just don’t understand democracy. They didn’t realize that there are no Republicans in Palistine to steal elections.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:42 amMapleStreet Says:
How far did the peace process go in Northern Ireland before the different sides talked to each other ?
It went so far that Bill Clinton finally had to go over there and talk them into talking to each other. Funny thing about that, talking sometimes works, while not talking never works.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:46 amBubble Boy is appeasing the Nazionists.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:49 amshoeless Says:
MapleStreet Says:
How far did the peace process go in Northern Ireland before the different sides talked to each other ?
It went so far that Bill Clinton finally had to go over there and talk them into talking to each other. Funny thing about that, talking sometimes works, while not talking never works.
But, but, white people do not have religious wars. It is only those dark skinned types in the middle east. /snark
May 16th, 2008 at 10:50 amZimzone Says
“Nazionists”
Nice
May 16th, 2008 at 10:50 amDo I have this straight? Is the “Straight Talk Express” now against talk?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:55 amIts ironic but not surprising that US, Democrats and Republicans, claim to promote democracy in the Middle East. While at the same the US is actively working to stop the spread of democracy, isolating democratically elected governments like Hamas, supporting their political enemies and instigating coups to overthrow the peoples government (like the Palestinian civil-war in 2007).
Maybe because they want to keep using their favorite argument “Israel is the only democracy in the region blablabla”?
After Carter met with Hamas, they actually offered to accept any peace-agreement not imposed against the will of the Palestinian people. So its actually Hamas who is calling for a democratic solution while the US rather deals with a few weak corrupt Palestinian leaders who they hope will bend over and just accept the demands made by Israel and the US
May 16th, 2008 at 11:01 amDon’t you guys know, what McCain said in the past is irrelevant, what is important is what he says now, and if he changes what he says tomorrow, well then what he said today won’t matter, because that would be in the past, whats important is what he says now. Whats past is past, whats now is now.
Everyone understand now?
Good, cause I confused myself…..
/obvious snark
May 16th, 2008 at 11:05 amI’m a little confused. Didn’t Bush, Rice, etal push for Hamas to be part of a “democratic” Palestinian election?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 amPander Bear: ‘Never commit today to what you said yesterday in case you need it tomorrow’.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 amOnce the general campaign ramps up he’s gonna get beat to death with his bullshit. Gonna be fun to watch. =)
May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 amWe’ve got to get over this business of expecting a group to give in to our demands before we even begin to talk to them. The GOAL, not the preconditions, of talks with Hamas are among other things to get them to renounce violence and recognize Israel.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:28 amMcCain is a hypocrite and the press seems to be responding in that manner. CNN covered McCain’s news conference call this morning. It noted that the president’s remarks were dishonest and hyper partisan. CNN also noted that McCain’s remarks betrayed his promise to avoid being hyper partisan. It helped that the Democratic party finally got its act together to show a unified front.
The bottom line of the news story was that this helped Obama, buried McCain’s fantasy trip to the future and put Obama on the same importance plain as Bush. However, CNN also seemed to indicate that McCain’s adoption of the Bush argument might be alright since it would help contrast the contenders’ position. This is where we have to fight. It is never right to use a totally dishonest an false presentation in order to draw a contrast with the opponents’ approach to foreign policy. It is lying, it is distortion and it is wrong. We need to keep the press on line with this.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:33 amAppeasement=
“Prescott Bush”
RIP
May 16th, 2008 at 11:35 amSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
dbadass Says:
I’m a little confused. Didn’t Bush, Rice, etal push for Hamas to be part of a “democratic” Palestinian election?
Well sure. But that was before they realized that Diebold does not supply the voting machines in Palestine.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pmMcCain should be entered in the summer Olympics where he can publicly perform his amazing triple-roll inside-out double flip-flop off of the high diving board. Unfortunately, he would probably just end up doing an old man belly-flop…
May 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pmOh, God. I can’t stand another 4 years of an administration that is always spinning what they said, what they meant. That statement from his campaign reminds me of Dana Perino and all her predecessors - all trying to smooth over the dumbness of Mr. President. It’s obvious that’s what we’ll see if he gets elected.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pmSo much has been said about England’s Chamberlain appeasing Hitler before 2nd. World War erupted.
I think what we should be concerned about in America these days is the ‘media appeasing’ of our ruling elite politicians in the face of all their daily lies and spins.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pmNow the Bushies are claiming that Bush’s statement yesterday was directed at Jimmy Carter — they make me laugh!
May 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pmObama challenged a debate on foreign policy with Bush the dumb (chicken-sh!t). That’ll never happen — then the world would see that our “emperor” has no clothes.