Harry’s Place

The money shot is this line: “sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another”.

In no part of that statement does McCain advocate negotiating with them, only that we will have to ‘deal with’ them. We ‘deal with’ nasty governments all the time - the Saudis are no less evil than Hamas, just more pragmatic.

He is correct in stating that the reason why people voted in Hamas was because of a protest against Fatah’s cronyism and general uselessness.

But it was like voting out Labour to vote in the BNP. I don’t think that this story will have very much traction.

There’s also now another new reality since the previous new reality . . .

In no part of that statement does McCain advocate negotiating with them, only that we will have to ‘deal with’ them. We ‘deal with’ nasty governments all the time - the Saudis are no less evil than Hamas, just more pragmatic.

But that is clearly not his position now.

It was really stupid of the democrats to react to such a general statement by Bush so petulantly.

I didn’t think Obama was an appeaser, perhaps a slightly more naive. But now I’m wondering why whenever the president mentions appeasment Obama and the dems think they are talking about them.

Why not just not be a crybaby and say that he agrees, “I’m not an appeaser.”

Bush: Appeasement is cowardly and delusional.

Obama: Quit talking about me!

I read that and didnt think Obama or McCain — I thought Jimmy Carter.

Doesnt a reaction seem a bit like shooting yourself in the foot?

With its more than 300 million people, you’d think America could have come up with a couple of better quality candidates.

The present trio are all a bunch of dishonest, two-faced, careerist wafflers.

All three will say whatever has to be said at the time it should be said to whomever it should be said.

It’s as though Americans are being asked to choose between three deceitful and manipulative adolescents.

I think the next four years are going to be very tough and very trying for large numbers of Americans, and so they’ll need someone along the lines of an FDR.

NY Times, Nov 2 2007:

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

May 10

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Barack Obama Campaign website:
“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”

Mesquito/Gene,
Did you see this demolition by Chris Matthews of some right wing Radio DJ called Kevin James?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24655385#24655385

It was pretty paranoid and self-absorbed on the part of the Obama campaign to assume Bush’s remarks at the Knesset were directed at their candidate. It can’t be ruled out, of course, but it was an incredibly indirect reference they were.

And whatever McCain’s inconsistency over Hamas, I think he’s pretty obviously the candidate that would be toughest on them. Whether you think that’s a good thing, or the most appropriate, is a matter of opinion. I think Obama is far too convinced of his own oratory and ability to persuade and not at all aware of the fanaticism and sheer hatefulness of such groups.

I think it is good that Obama is pre-empting the Republican smear tactics

the second video is funny, the right wing talk show nut Kevin James shows why modern 20th C history should be taught, debated and studied, James didn’t even know about Chamberlain and Munich 1938, how pathetic ?

Who the hell is Kevin James?

Oh.

He’s a nighttime (i.e. puny audience) radio host, one station, unsyndicated. Had to look it up.

A sensible Obama response: “I believe appeasement was a potentially short-sighted and dangerous policy, and President Bush is right to warn of it’s dangers.”

If Obama met Ahmadinejad without preconditions, wouldn’t that being giving him prestige while getting nothing and return?

This is screaming for an HP Post:

From AP

**A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.

The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of violating hate speech laws and held overnight before being released, a spokeswoman for his publisher Uitgeverij Xtra said.

“He was arrested with a great show of force, by around 10 policemen,” the spokeswoman said.**

so they’ll need someone along the lines of an FDR.

No thanks. We have too many unafforable entitlements as it is.

The Atlantic:

**At the YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked whether he would be willing to meet “without precondition … with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” the right answer, conventionally speaking, was a qualified “no.” But Obama answered in the affirmative. Initially, even sympathetic observers like The Nation’s David Corn called this statement a “flub” at best…

Obama’s team did not try to qualify (or, in political parlance, “clarify”) his remark, and no one said he misspoke… Soon, on the stump, he was regularly referring to his willingness to meet with foreign leaders, unlike other top presidential candidates.**

Gene. Can you help me distinguish between summit meetings with terrorists and their state sponsors? I can’t quite work it out.

Gene. Can you help me distinguish between summit meetings with terrorists and their state sponsors? I can’t quite work it out.

You might want to ask Bush (meeting with Saudi King Abdullah today) about that. I’ll do a separate post about this soon.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/video-shows-jamie-rubin-lied/

Gene–

Do you read the New Yor Times? Here’s their story on what McCain actually said:

NGUYEN: All right, let’s 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 I’m quoting now — “we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.” What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?
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.
It’s very, very important, though, that they renounce this commitment and I understand that maybe in some parts of their party it’s difficult, but we can’t have a situation in the Middle East where a governing nation or an organization that’s governed by a group of people who are committed to the extinction of its neighbor. It’s an untenable position.
NGUYEN: Does this throw a huge kink in the road map to peace?
MCCAIN: No, let’s hope that they understand there’s a difference between the revolutions and governing. Other entities have in the past. I think it’s very relevant and an important point that we are told that the major reason why Hamas was elected was not because of the issue of Israel, as it was total dissatisfaction with the previous government which had not given them anything but corruption and economic stagnation.

Will “renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel” be enough to dent the criticisms? Perhaps not, but it certainly adds context to Rubin’s snippet.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/in-search-of-mccains-mideast-doctrine/

You want Obama to win? Great. But do you have to throw cheap shots at McCain? McCain is the guy who’s earned my respect (if perhaps not yours) for standing up (for 8 long years) to Bush and the entire Republican (and much of the Democratic) establishment when those worthies wanted to tear up our Constitution and flush it down the toilet.

Regards,

Inna

Screw the New Your Times, here are the depths the Obamakids are now descending to:

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html

The narrative we’re given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe–and ones that thought of themselves as German –be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

Obama will be another Neville Chamberlain if he keeps going the way he’s going.

You want Obama to win? Great. But do you have to throw cheap shots at McCain?

I don’t think quoting what McCain said in an interview is a cheap shot. But I’m willing to accept that his answer to Rubin’s question may not have been phrased the way he intended– a problem that all politicians have from time to time. Or maybe he did the interview you quote from after he gave the matter more thought. Fair enough.

“I don’t think quoting what McCain said in an interview is a cheap shot.”

You’re right.

I apologize.

Regards,

Inna

It’s absolutely ridiculous to compare Obama with Chamberlain. All he was advocating doing is what governments of all shades have always done: diplomacy. Sometimes you get to do that with people who are admirable and sometimes you don’t. The point is what is achieved from talks, not who participates in them. Furthermore, this is a process that every US administration has taken part in, so it’s incredibly disingenuous (although hardly out of character) for Bush and McCain to be taking shots at Obama on that basis. As Joe Biden correctly said, it’s bullshit.

And McCain advocated talking to Hamas,Bush talked to Qadafi.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous to compare Obama with Chamberlain. All he was advocating doing is what governments of all shades have always done: diplomacy.”

Baloney.

Obama said, in a fight for Lefty cred in a Democratic primary debate, that he would meet with a State sponsor of Terror “without preconditions.” It was gaffe, and was understood as a gaffe by everyone, even hard Lefty David Corn. Now Obama and his worshippers ahave turned that gaffe into a Doctrine. (It’s very similar to the way the race-baiting fraud Jeremiah Wright has been portrayed as a subtle theologian and a Great Man Of God.)

Sounds to me much like the way most regimes and paramilitaries (part of the “axis of evil” or no) end up laying down their arms. There’s a time honoured history of negotiations, and it’s usually right-wing leaders who have taken that correct step - cf Nixon in China.

Frankly, it’s bleedin’ obvious even on the most cursory study of political history that “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” is always either an untrue statement or empty rhetoric. In this case right-wing partisan rhetoric which raises the spectre of the Holocaust in a desperate attempt to score political points in an election year when the Republicans are expecting trouble.

neither Dems or Repubs have it right. The next prez needs to throw out present american foreign policy and come up with a whole new approach. what’s being used now isn’t working.

if obama wants to truly bring about change, the u.s. should stop sticking it’s nose into the business of other countries around the world. an american retreat from the world stage would give the rest of us a well-deserved break from the global mess they created.

Morgoth: For the record, Bruce Ramsey is a supporter of the candidate who must not be named, Ron Paul, not the candidate who must not be middle-named, Barack Obama.

Though I am sure that Ramsey would prefer an Obama foreign policy to a McCain foreign policy, because Ramsey really, really hates Israel. (So much so, that once when I emailed him I made a point of noting that I was not Jewish. He didn’t seem to realize I was insulting him by adding that. For the curious: I’m a typical American mongrel, part German, English, Danish, et cetera.)

Though I am sure that Ramsey would prefer an Obama foreign policy to a McCain foreign policy, because Ramsey really, really hates Israel.

Of course this sentence makes no sense at all.

Gene - What part of the sentence don’t you understand? “Ramsey really, really hates Israel”? That’s a conclusion I have come to, after years of reading his columns — which at least once drew an organized protest from Jewish groups in this area.

Or my implication that Obama would not be as willing to support Israel as McCain is? That seems obvious to me, considering Obama’s mixed statements on Israel, and his close association with enemies of Israel. Including some advisors. Or just take a look at how long it took Obama to criticize Carter’s meeting with Hamas.

I can understand why a supporter of both Obama and Israel would find this conclusion hard to accept, but the evidence is there — for anyone willing to look at it with an open mind.

But don’t believe me. Again, I urge you to check something yourself. Without mentioning this controversy, email Ramsey and ask him which of the two candidates, Obama or McCain, would give the strongest support to Israel. (He’s fairly good at answering email.) If he says Obama, I will apologize to you here, and on my own site.

But don’t believe me. Again, I urge you to check something yourself. Without mentioning this controversy, email Ramsey and ask him which of the two candidates, Obama or McCain, would give the strongest support to Israel. (He’s fairly good at answering email.) If he says Obama, I will apologize to you here, and on my own site.

I have no idea who this Ramsey guy is, but I don’t take his views on Obama and Israel any more seriously than I take yours. Despite some disagreements, I take Martin Peretz’s views much more seriously.

Gene–

Jews are all over the map on this one (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0508/koch.php3 ). Koch has at least as good a nose (many would argue) on these issues as Peretz. The bottom line I think is that we will have to vote the way OUR gut feeling says we should vote.

Regards,

Inna

Bruce Ramsey is an editorial writer for the Seattle Times.

Gene–

Jim is right on this one. I know who Bruce Ramsey is but he came to my attention not because of any stance he’s taken on Israel but because of his stance on anti-discrimination laws. He doesn’t like them:

“State Sen. Finkbeiner is in the spotlight regarding an anti-discrimination bill for homosexuals. For today’s story, click here. It is too bad that this whole issue is framed as being pro-gay or anti-gay, because that is not the only way to look at it. I oppose protecting gays under anti-discrimination laws not because I oppose gays, but because I oppose anti-discrimination laws.

….

“I think the private institutions should mainly not discriminate, but that it should be their decision. They should decide who to hire and fire. If a Mexican restaurant chain wants to hire all Mexicans, it should be its business, legally. If a gay bar wants to hire only gays, that should be allowed. We should all be free to criticize, or to boycott, that restaurant chain or that bar; but the decision should be its own. Most important, at an individual level, a person should be absolutely free to “discriminate” by race, sex, religion, creed, sexual orientation, or whatever. Freedom of association means freedom not to associate–for whatever reason you want. Speaking up for the freedom of association is not an endorsement of other people’s reasons for not associating. It is simply an endorsement of their rights.”

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/stop/

Regards,

Inna

Gene–

RE: Hamas and McCain, here’s the full quote (courtesy of Andrew Sullivan):

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. 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.”

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/was-rubin-disto.html

Regards,

Inna

Jim is right on this one. I know who Bruce Ramsey is but he came to my attention not because of any stance he’s taken on Israel but because of his stance on anti-discrimination laws. He doesn’t like them

Inna, I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point. As far as I know, Bruce Ramsey has no official or unofficial connection to Obama. (I’m sure all kinds of screwy people support John McCain too. I don’t hold that against McCain, unless he actively sought their support, as he did with Pastor Hagee). What do Ramsey’s views on anti-discrimination laws have to to with Obama or Israel?

Gene;

They think that because Obama would seek to broker a meaningful peace deal in the region, he must therefore “hate Israel”. This whackjob they’re talking about presumably really does hate Israel, ergo they’re trying to make a link between the two. It’s really a bit of a yawner.

I just think that McCain’t approach to both Hamas (and in all likelihood Iran) makes more sense than Obama’s (stated) position. McCain’s approach is “Let them come to us”. And that (IMO) is the right posture for the US to strike. Obama may afopt that posture when President. But he’s not Saying he will adopt it.

As for Ramsey, the whole comment thread I was responding to is whether Ramsey hates Israel and supports Obama discussion. Jim said that Ramsey hates Israel (I have no idea if that’s the case; I can only say that he most certainly hates anti-discrimination laws) to which Gene responded “I have no idea who this Ramsey guy is, but I don’t take his views on Obama and Israel any more seriously than I take yours. Despite some disagreements, I take Martin Peretz’s views much more seriously.”

So my whole point was to “introduce” Ramsey to Gene. At least the Ramsey as I know him.

Regards,

Inna

So my whole point was to “introduce” Ramsey to Gene. At least the Ramsey as I know him.

Ah. You perhaps thought I wanted to know more about Ramsey. In fact I didn’t.

Gene–

OK, fair enough re: Ramsey. However, I’m puzzled. Andrew Sullivan (not the most vociferous of Obama’s opponents) has posted the FULL transcript of McCain’s remarks about Hamas while you have still opted to retain a partial version in the article. So anyone who does not read Andrew Sullivan regularly (or does not read my most “erudite” comments) will simply not know that you are giving them only part of the story.

Regards,

Inna

OK Gene–

You’ve convinced me. I am sending out the full transcript of the remarks to my list.

I realize this may well backfire on Obama (and I am genuinely sorry about that) but I hate to see a man I respect drageed through the Clinton mud this way.

Regards,

Inna

Inna, you’re right. In fairness to McCain, I’ve added an update with the additional part of the transcript.

Thanks Gene. As I told my list:

“In case any of you are interested in my opinion on the matter—I think the Clinton camp handed Obama a poisoned fruit hoping he’d take it. (He did) They were also hoping the media would unravel the story (by and large, they didn’t).”

Regards,

Inna

Just seen James Rubin on Fox. He says the second question, that Gene quotes, was out of surprise that McCain gave the first answer, and that it is interesting that McCain still didn’t rule out dealing with Hamas in that second answer either.

If you look past the diplomatic language - diplomatic in the sense of the American and Israeli audience - it does seem to be clear that McCain did think dealing with Hamas is a viable option.

McCain’s stance vis a vis Hamas has been pretty consistent. In the Rubin interview and in the Nguyen interview (also in 2006)

NGUYEN: All right, let’s 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 I’m quoting now — “we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.” What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?
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.
It’s very, very important, though, that they renounce this commitment and I understand that maybe in some parts of their party it’s difficult, but we can’t have a situation in the Middle East where a governing nation or an organization that’s governed by a group of people who are committed to the extinction of its neighbor. It’s an untenable position.
NGUYEN: Does this throw a huge kink in the road map to peace?
MCCAIN: No, let’s hope that they understand there’s a difference between the revolutions and governing. Other entities have in the past. I think it’s very relevant and an important point that we are told that the major reason why Hamas was elected was not because of the issue of Israel, as it was total dissatisfaction with the previous government which had not given them anything but corruption and economic stagnation.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/in-search-of-mccains-mideast-doctrine/

The stance, basically, is “let them come to us”. I think that’s not a bad policy to have actually–whether it’s vis a vis Hamas or Iran.

Regards,

Inna

PS: Rubin is “surprised” because that’s the party line. We’re seeing politics as usual from all sides right now.

Not a pretty sight, is it?

Regards,

Inna

No, Clinton supporter Rubbin seemed pretty straight forward about it. He was geniunely surprised.

Given that McCain knew he would be running for president, if you read through the lines his real views seem clear.

And hell, he’s probably right. What the fuck is wrong with just talking to Hamas? It’s only wrong if you decide to give them something that they don’t deserve for no gain.

Mike–

There’s nothing wrong with taling to Hamas. So long as there are the same preconditions for those talks as there were on our talks with the PLO.

Ditto with Iran.

Regards,

Inna

No I think we should look to the future. Both sides double crossed eath other when the PLO and Israel talked, so that should certainly not be a guide, otherwise those two obstinate groups will never get anywhere. Imagine if the Palestinians declared they would never talk to Israel because they are occupying their land?

Talks should happen unconditionally, and maybe McCain is the only guy here who could get away with that in the US.

If justice in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute is your main concern, McCain should probably be your man.

Personally I would support Obama - marginally - for the wider global situation.

Obama would be so concerned with proving he is not pro-Palestinian that he would never get anywhere in the talks.

Mike–

I actually think that Obama and McCain’s positions are pretty similar on a lot of things. (Including Iraq)

I also have tremendous amount of respect for McCain who has spent eight very difficult years preserving our Constitution from Republicans as well as Democrats. I am a lifelong Democrat–and a liberal, latte sipping one at that, and I’ll probably vote for Obama.

But I won’t lose any sleep if McCain wins.

Regards,

Inna

Mike wrote:

Both sides double crossed eath other when the PLO and Israel talked, so that should certainly not be a guide, otherwise those two obstinate groups will never get anywhere.

By not recognizing this, you are sticking your head in the sand.

Italics don’t work the same as they did on the old site. Sorry.