2006: McCain Suggested Negotiating with Hamas

[Annie]

Context does matter, but the context you provided doesn't help your point at all, unless you find the bloggers arguments convincing, which I don't.

Really, thought those were McCain's words that did so. Silly us. He never implied or said, 'no conditions' far from it. That is very different than Mr. Obama.

 

[jreeves]

Really, thought those were McCain's words that did so. Silly us. He never implied or said, 'no conditions' far from it. That is very different than Mr. Obama.

That is the problem, negotiating without pre-conditions, hence the reason
Obama has been criticized.
Even Biden came out this weekend and said Obama made a mistake in saying he would negotiate without pre-conditions. Then Obama preceeded to say he would negotiate with pre-conditions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More ad nauseam?

Mcain is now criticizing Obsama for what he did himself. That is a valid point to make.

Not even, when one actually reads or listens to what McCain said one finds that he did not say what you liberal pinheads claim.

Further I suspect Bush meant Carter not Obama.

 

[midcan5]

Not even, when one actually reads or listens to what McCain said one finds that he did not say what you liberal pinheads claim.

Further I suspect Bush meant Carter not Obama.

The WH indicated it was meant for Obama. And does anyone realize what talk means and what appease mean. Hitler was allowed/appeased a takeover of part of Czechoslovakia, no one wanted war again. No one is appeasing anyone today except in the minds of spin artists and the uneducated who listen and believe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_3115000/3115476.stm

 

[DeadCanDance]

That is the problem, negotiating without pre-conditions, hence the reason
Obama has been criticized.
Even Biden came out this weekend and said Obama made a mistake in saying he would negotiate without pre-conditions. Then Obama preceeded to say he would negotiate with pre-conditions.

Please stop bullshitting us.

Bush has negotiated with sunni insurgents, who he has called "terrorists". Bush has offered them money and jobs, if they stop attacking americans.

Bush has negotiated with Kim Jong Il of North Korea, who bush has labeled a state sponsor of Terror, and a charter member of the axis of evil.

Reagan negotiated with Iran, and traded them arms in exchange for the freedom of hostages.

 

[jreeves]

Please stop bullshitting us.

Bush has negotiated with sunni insurgents, who he has called "terrorists". Bush has offered them money and jobs, if they stop attacking americans.

Bush has negotiated with Kim Jong Il of North Korea, who bush has labeled a state sponsor of Terror, and a charter member of the axis of evil.

Reagan negotiated with Iran, and traded them arms in exchange for the freedom of hostages.

Ok, now Obama is lying correct? So why does he accuse Bush of not talking to the US's enemies? The Korea deal was brokered because they met pre-conditions to negotiations. Proof that Bush has negotiated with the Sunni insurgents without pre-conditions.

 

[Detmurds]

So,...is McCain still wanting this, or saying this today? And he is also clear at this time he doesn't want to end the war in Iraq/Terror so I find this as something of the past to be honest. McCain is my #1 choice of Republicans who is now running for President now, .......by no means can we or anyone consider his ways as a Conservative Republican either,....... but he is way ahead of the "I hate the USA" Democrat mentality!

 

[doeton]

ya know really i think it is a valid distinction...'McCain saying deal with one way or another' is far from an open invitation to negotiate. His later clarification that he support negiotiate if Hamas does x n y is also valid.

nothing wrong with clarification.

just like if one looks Obama position on diplomacy its hardly an open ended give away.

just saying.

 

[jreeves]

ya know really i think it is a valid distinction...'McCain saying deal with one way or another' is far from an open invitation to negotiate. His later clarification that he support negiotiate if Hamas does x n y is also valid.

nothing wrong with clarification.

just like if one looks Obama position on diplomacy its hardly an open ended give away.

just saying.

I would meet with the Iranian president with no pre-conditions. That seems pretty open ended to me.

 

[SingingMongoose]

So let me get this straight - when McCain gets caught doing the same thing Obama's done (never mind whether there's anything wrong with it to begin with, in either case), you're going to resort to semantics and friendly re-interpretations. Then, you're going to act horribly indignified and complain about liberals. Is that it?

You know Kathianne, if you're going to dis Jillian for a supposed double-standard, shouldn't you watch yourself for the same mistake? You're claiming that context doesn't matter in the case of Rev. Wright (or aren't you?), but it does for McCain.

Of course, context doesn't change what McCain said at all, anyway.

“Deal with them, one way or another” doesn’t mean cutting deals with them; it means acknowledging their presence in the situation.

So, had the Bush administration not acknowledged Hamas' presence in the situation? Because if they had, then I don't understand why McCain said this, right in the middle of the "expertly clipped" video:

I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas

Ah, but the clip left out the pre-conditions, you say, citing this:

Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions.

Wow. Once the Palestinian government doesn't want to obliterate Israel, then we can resume peace talks. Deep stuff, man.

Once again: why did McCain say he disagreed with Bush? Would Bush continue to ignore Hamas if they met all those pre-conditions?

You know, I'm beginning to see why the right hates McCain in addition to Obama. You must think they're both in league with terrorists!