Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
deal with them one way or another....his stance has not changed, it was not asked if this was an unconditional talk, and mccain never said negotiate, dealing with them could have meant numerous things....
mccain flip flopping is no surprise, boring news
How many freaking threads on this are there?
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CzDBi2nURNk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CzDBi2nURNk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Another hacked up lie, dealing with doesn't mean negotiating with....try again Mr. 3 trillion dollar war.
Actually it does in this context. Its fairly obvious what he means.
Why do you think it's wrong other than that it destroys your premise?
but he did....
...
The Left has had a field day with an expertly-clipped YouTube excerpt from a John McCain interview in January 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority election. Former Clinton official James Rubin uses it for a dishonest attack on McCain, calling him a hypocrite for tying Barack Obama to Hamas while McCain supposedly supported diplomatic contact with the terrorist group. In doing so, Rubin and McCains opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCains remarks:
...
Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky Newss 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: Theyre 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 its 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.
Deal with them, one way or another doesnt mean cutting deals with them; it means acknowledging their presence in the situation. That becomes clear when McCains further comments in the same time frame. After Hamas won that election, McCain made clear the conditions for engagement of Hamas in a press release dated 1/26/06:
In the wake of yesterdays Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.
In an interview with CNN, McCain once again made clear that the US would not negotiate with terrorists, whether they got elected or not:
CNNS BETTY NGUYEN: All right, lets shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: To be very clear and Im quoting now we do not provide money to terrorist organizations. What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions. The Bush administration had the same policy at the time. Neither the US nor John McCain supported meeting with Hamas without preconditions, and they certainly didnt have policy advisers meeting with them while they conducted terrorist attacks and plotted an armed takeover of Gaza.
MCCAIN: Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.
...
Sorry...backtracking doesn't change what he said. And some blogger apologizing for McCain doesn't really sway me.
But good find.
Right, context doesn't matter unless one is trying to justify Rev. Wright, until he too is thrown under the bus. Have a great day, Jillian!
Haven't you learned yet? Only Liberals matter, they make the rules and those rules never apply to them. Just to us dumb shits they are trying to "take care of".
Haven't you learned yet? Only Liberals matter, they make the rules and those rules never apply to them. Just to us dumb shits they are trying to "take care of".
Dogger has , in another thread reminded us all of this thought process with his claim that people that voted for Bush in 2004 were stupid people.
He really should create an add that says " If all you idiots that voted for Bush will now vote for us, we will pretend to forgive you" I am sure it would sway millions of moderate undecideds.
Right, context doesn't matter unless one is trying to justify Rev. Wright, until he too is thrown under the bus. Have a great day, Jillian!
