McCain was for appeasement before he was against it

Soon after the president told the Israeli Knesset that Democrats are Chamberlain-like appeasers because Obama is prepared to talk to Iran (just as Bush’s own Defense Secretary and Secretary of State have recommended), John McCain jumped on the far-right bandwagon. Aboard his campaign bus, McCain told reporters Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rival heads of state reflects “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment.”

As it turns out, however, two years ago, McCain was prepared to go even further than Obama. While Obama is willing to try diplomacy with Iran, McCain has expressed interest in possibly even negotiating with Hamas.

Jamie Rubin, a former assistant secretary of state, the State Department’s chief spokesman during the Clinton administration, and an active supporter of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, has the story.

[G]iven 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.

So, while Clinton and Obama have said Hamas’ leadership needs to change their policies towards Israel before the U.S. will sit down at the table with them, McCain has publicly expressed a willingness to embrace Hamas, at least diplomatically, without this precondition.

The irony is rich. McCain has been shamelessly attacking Obama for being open to talking to terrorists like Hamas. Obama didn’t say that he would — but McCain did.

In other words, yesterday, Bush told Israeli lawmakers, “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.” He was, perhaps inadvertently, talking about McCain.

Obama believes we should engage foreign heads of state, but not terrorists. McCain believes we should engage terrorists, but not foreign heads of state.

Remind me again which candidate is burdened by “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment”?

Oddly enough, as McCain has been working the Hamas smear against Obama, he boasts that Hamas “sure isn’t going to support me.” McCain tends to chuckle to himself every time he says this, as if it’s obvious that Hamas would prefer Obama.

It’s always been a rather inane claim, not the least of which is because Hamas has benefited quite extensively from Bush administration policies, which McCain seems anxious to continue. But now it’s slightly worse — given that McCain is open to dealing with Hamas as a legitimate government, and Obama isn’t, which one of the candidates do you suppose Hamas would prefer?

Rubin added:

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.

The Huffington Post has the video of Rubin’s interview with McCain. Expect to hear a lot more about it.

Not only do I love watching McCain being caught in 5 contradictions at the same time, but I also love watching Democrats rallying against McCain in a single strong voice.

Good times.

  • Exactly, but man-love will prevent tweety from calling him out on that. Instead, he prefers to build fake journalist credentials by singling out a wack-job radio host that has no real influence on anyone but the ditto-heads and racists in LA – a minority of that population.

  • Expect to hear a lot more about it.

    Why? Stories which point out that McCain has flip-flopped (and really, is there a single issue left that he has not flip-flopped on?) are like trees falling in an empty forest. They are not heard. They make no sound. The media ignores them and instead brings him donuts.

    I’d love to think that we will hear more about it, but probably we won’t. Hopefully Obama will continue to stay aggressive and slam him everytime be offers this sort of BS. So far, he’s been good about it. Let’s hope it continues.

  • YOU PUSSIES ENCOURAGE TERRORISTS BECAUSE YOU LOOK WEAK!!!!!

    OOOOOHHHH, DON’T TOUCH THE CAP LOCK, WE MIGHT OFFEND SOMEONE!!!!

    NOOOOO, PLEASE, MIGHT MIGHT LOOK BAD TO THE FRENCHIES IF WE TYPE TOO LOUDLY!!!!

    YOU LOWER-CASE LIBTARDS ARE PRACTICALLY BEGGING TO BE ATTACKED!!!! YOU WON’T TURN ON THE CAP LOCK!!!!! YOU DON’T HAVE THE GUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Agree about tweety or the rest of the media, MSM does not explore the truth but only play a he-said-she-said game. Plus they’re all political analysts wondering how it will “play out”.

    However if Biden, Kerry, Richardson all go on TV and talk their point of view, usually they get airtime. So that’s good enough and we can play the game on our terms.

  • The Huffington Post has the video of Rubin’s interview with McCain. Expect to hear a lot more about it.

    Oh yeah. I’m sure the video will be repeated every five minutes, just like with Jeremiah Wright.

    Any minute now, it just takes time to get these things edited.

    Any minute … I imagine the networks are whipping a flashy graphic that says “McCain’s Hypocrisy”.

    I’m sure the video is coming soon …

    Beuller ,,,

    Beuller …

    Beuller …

  • Well we’ll have to force the media to play the video. The media will only start taking progressives seriously when we start fighting back.

  • Only a dumbass would think that Hamas would openly “endorse” the person they actually wanted to see take power. But thanks to our lovely corporate media, America is filled with dumbasses.

  • Well… maybe… just maybe… the Dems can formulate a television ad from this. It’s probably the only way to get it into the video-media. Also, ditto to Ohioan, the Democratic big guns need to go off and push this story. Maybe if Harry Reid drops an f-bomb it’ll get coverage.

    I won’t be holding my breath, though.

  • Racer X said:
    Only a dumbass would think that Hamas would openly “endorse” the person they actually wanted to see take power. But thanks to our lovely corporate media, America is filled with dumbasses.

    Normally I agree with you, Racer X, but since McCain is likely to continue Bush’s Middle East policy of allowing Israel to kill as many brown people as they can get away with without alienating the rest of the world too much, it’s understandable that Hamas might hope for something different.

    If Hamas was that sophisticated in their knowledge of how to influence world opinion, they would find a way to fight for their cause other than blowing up children in ice cream parlours.

  • Why do we Americans loathe to attempt to solve problems peacefully with direct talks? The electorate (you and me) have been bullied and brainwashed with rhetoric of “weakness” and “appeasement” specifically to keep long-running disputes going specifically to maintain the bloated military industrial complex. Those advocating against talking with “terrorists” (as defined by them such that they’re excluded from the definition for their murderous acts) or other enemies so are not advocating for peaceful solutions, but for ongoing disputes and violence.

    The old McCain was right, and the new McCain, Clinton and Obama are wrong. We should be talking with Hamas. They were elected in free and fair elections. In fact, we should never refuse to talk with our enemies. Talking with our enemies isn’t weakness or appeasement — doing so is as important, sometimes more important, than talking with our friends. Also, the talking doesn’t involve telling jokes and smoking cigars. The goal is to gather important information and to persuade.

    We’re fucking ourselves over by listening to these idiots vomiting “appeasement” all over our television screens.

  • On the other hand, we could always send arms and money to the Iranians, ala Reagan, who did so behind the back of a sitting president in order to coreograph his own inauguration, which if isn’t treason, nothing is. Oliver North should have been publicly executed for his crimes against America, instead he gets a show on Fox.

  • McCain claims he wants to change the “tone’ in Washington yet every time he says something about Barack it is negative, distorted and said in a very ugly manner like Barack is inexperienced and naive in a very judgmental tone as if he knows the heart and soul of Barack to judge accordingly.

  • Joe (12): We should be talking with Hamas. They were elected in free and fair elections.

    I would go a step further and say that because they were elected, they should be easier to deal with because they have a responsibility to their whole electorate – not just their party members (not that Bush would understand). Peace in Israel/Palestine would go a whole long way to solving other problems throughout the world, and belligerent bloviating serves no useful purpose.

  • Joe is right. Reagan talked with Gorbachev. Was Reagan an appeaser?

    Bush talked with Kim Jung Il and is providing heavy fuel oil. Is Bush an appeaser? By his own definition, the answer is a resounding yes.

    These losers apply their silly labels specifically if and when it benefits them. They have no standards. If a Democrat does something…he or she is an appeaser. If a Republican does the same thing…silence.

    It’s just more of the same bullshit. It’s no wonder that fewer and fewer people are buying what they’re selling.

  • Micheline – and how do we “force” the lying liars that have “catapult the propaganda”?

    Do they understand anything other than dollars and cents?

    The MSM was able to fraudulently hoist an AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict onto the world as a “war president”. They made it possible to use 9/11 to undermine US Constitution & Bill of Rights. They created the climate to launch a war of conquest based on lies…

    And that’s only in the first few years of dur chimpfurher’s administration.

    As a result – more than one million innocent Iraqis have been killed, mostly women and children.

    And you think we can make them show a video?

  • I’m of the same opinion as Ohioan — It is so good to see the extremely strong condemnations raining down on the Republicans about this crap (kudos to Biden for just absolutely nailing it.) Democrats are finally exuding the confidence that inspires others to follow. And that confidence comes from knowing they are absolutely right. We’ve been waiting soooo long for this moment.

    “(Bush) was, perhaps inadvertently, talking about McCain.” If only the media would run with that … and also juxtapose Dana Perino’s comments yesterday on that connection. Priceless.

  • You know what? I like that McBush. He’s so agreeable. “Do you think we should talk with Hamas?” “Why yes, of course.” “Do you think it’s wrong to talk with Hamas?” “Why yes, of course.”
    And on and on and on…
    I can see why so many uninformed independents like him; he’s always agreeing with something.
    We know the media will stick their fingers in their ears and sing “lalala” in the face of their crush’s constant contradictions.
    How do we make the “liberal” media do its job? Suggestions? (I love writing angry letters to people; it’s such a stress reliever).

  • Man, CNN has been all over this thing — first the stupid Bush statement about appeasement, then McCain’s backing of it, now McCain’s flip-flops and even McCain’s use of the Hamas supporting Obama business. About f’n time. Some bull just can’t be allowed to stand.

  • cha_138 – it is just amazing to see well-intentioned folks scratch their heads and wonder how to make the MSM do it’s job. This is not hard to figure out, but it is flamed and banned on most of the circle-of-links set of blogs that proclaim themselves to be “advertise liberally”.

    Perhaps this is just a reflection of a consumer-based culture where people think they can buy their way to happiness and change. In this case, the opposite is true.

    The MSM is making BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars “catapulting the propaganda” from the advertisers that sponsor the lying liars. They, in turn, make EVEN MORE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS as people buy stuff (mostly unneeded stuff) from said advertisers.

    And the corporate owners of the MSM (which directly or indirectly also own the military-industrial complex of which Oil is a major component) rake in BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars, much of it totally unaccounted for, as a direct result of the propaganda their media assets “catapult”.

    It’s all made possible by the money that is spent with applebees, home depot, staples, walmart, and any number of other major corporations that underwrite the repug/neocons – against the best interest of the vast majority of their customers

    Progressives and liberals have a proud tradition of ACTION – yet the blogosphere that has appropriated those traditions cannot bring itself to encourage people to stop spending money with the corporations that make it all possible.

    The real sad part is that creating change via economic boycotts would require little or no sacrifices on the part of anyone! We have other choices or can live well doing without many things.

  • Too bad it’s Friday-I would have preferred this story to break EARLY in the week so we could savor the flavor of McCain’s “flip flopping flapjacking ” ALL week long. Wonder if we will have endless loops a la Wright controversy.Thank you,God! John Mc Pain in the butt.

  • I love writing angry letters to people

    So does congressman conyers – hasn’t accomplished a thing has it and he has the majority of the house & senate behind him as well as any number of laws and Constitutional provisions that dur chimpfurher is repeatedly breaking.

    Yup, send anther letter…

  • Yes, but aside from bloggers on the internet who will know of this? What MSM operation will post this story. Who will point out McCain’s hypocrisy to the public?

  • I wonder if Lie-berman is goose-stepping it with the rest of the Republicans on these talking points.

    Wait – theres nothing here… Move along…

  • […] McCain has publicly expressed a willingness to embrace Hamas, at least diplomatically, without this precondition. — CB

    Yes, CB, but that was TWO YEARS AGO!!! When McCain’t was a mere stripling of 70: idealistic, naive, lacking both experience and judgment. Much has changed since…

  • Was it appeasement when Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev in Iceland?

    Was it appeasement when Nixon went to China?

    Geez these guys have no morals.

  • Wow, BDS!
    You’re just FULL of convincing arguments, aren’t you?
    Or shit. Yeah, that’s more likely, isn’t it?

  • Comments are closed.