James Rubin nailed McCain with Hypocrisy on Hamas McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It from The Washington Post:
Presidential Candidate McCain opposes Senator McCain on Hamas. Political expediency from the straight talk express.The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.
McCain, meanwhile, is guilty of hypocrisy. I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and believe that she was right to say, about McCain's statement on Hamas, "I don't think that anybody should take that seriously." Unfortunately, the Republicans know that some people will. That's why they say such things.
Usually, I think Chris Matthews is more talk than substance but he proved himself full of substance when discussing appeasement with some right wing talk show nut. If you do not know what I meant take a look at A QUESTION OF APPEASEMENT? and watch the video. I am torn between worrying over the state of America's educational system and a worry that this was not a display of ignorance but a cowardly lie.
Obama proposes talking to Iran. He has not said that he was agreeing to anything other than talking to them. I say that beats Bush's foreign policy that has allowed Iran an unprecedented influence in Iraq that exceeds our own.
I was laid up yesterday and got too much of panel discussions about Bush and McCain and Obama and our foreign policy. There was some interesting stuff but a couple things I did not hear:JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?
BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.
JG: Were you flummoxed by it?
BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.
When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.
When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.
- The moral culpability of Republicans and other isolationists for World War 2 or its predecessor, the Spanish Civil War. Just as Bush glided over which Democrat he referred to in his Knesset speech, he avoided mentioning that the source for his quote about Hilter was a Republican Senator. That Senator was Senator Borah of Idaho. He would have done better to apologize for the Republican non-interventionism, our isolationism, that ended only with Japanese bombs on Pearl Harbor.
- Not even Pat Buchanan mentioned Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick policy. I recall seeing that there was more than "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I think one was "Talk loudly and carry a big stick" which was equated with a bully. We all know the weaknesses of bullies. George W. Bush has being talking loudly and carrying a big stick (which he has no capacity for knowing how to use well). I think everyone agrees that TR was our most bellicose talking president between Jackson and George W., but he never failed in talking first to our opponents. Of course, George W. plunged us into our first preemptive war differs from both Jackson and Roosevelt from a complete lack of experience of war.
Comments for this post
