More intellectual dishonesty from Democrats: McCain and Hamas
- Posted by Beth on May 16th, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Blogs, General, Islamofascism, Israel, John McCain, Journalism, Moonbats, Politics, Stupid Hamas
While I was at TPM earlier reading the Greg Sargent piece on the McCain blogger call, I noticed they’re pushing yet another lie - that McCain wanted to “negotiate with Hamas.” Haha. As if.
Thankfully, I don’t have to tear that lie apart, because Ed Morrissey has already done it.
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 McCain’s opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCain’s remarks.
[...]
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.
More of the same distortions of the truth (aka lies) from the Lefty Liars, as usual. Nice try, chumps.
I wonder, will they go with this lie during the next blogger call?
Here’s the part they conveniently “forgot.” Notably, so did Obama (biggest liar ever to seek the Presidency, perhaps?)
James Rubin: Lying, inept hack | McCain Blogs says:
[...] from MVRWC) This entry was posted on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm and is filed under Democrats, John [...]
Adam Stanhope says:
This isn’t the clip that Rubin referred to in his piece in the New York Times. Rubin referred to an interview he conducted with McCain for European news media.
Adam Stanhope says:
Read Rubin’s piece:
http://tinyurl.com/6zt3xg
You’ll see that you are factually incorrect here.
Beth says:
“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.”
What did he say, even in that abbreviated excerpt, that isn’t true? It IS a new reality (or was at the time). People DO want security, a decent life, and a decent future. And Fatah (BTW, usually incorrectly called “moderate” by the media - they are not “moderate”) wasn’t giving them that.
But I don’t see how that can be misconstrued as McCain wanting to have a dialogue with them, or even treat them as a legitimate government (which they aren’t). To say such a thing flies in the face of everything McCain has stood for throughout his career. It’s as if one said Obama supports the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Suppose someone found a snip of Obama saying “I don’t agree with abortion,” which plenty of pro-choice politicians say/believe (Rudy Giuliani comes to mind). Not that I can imagine anyone would find such a thing, but for argument’s sake, just assume someone did. Then extrapolate from that “Obama wants to make abortion illegal.” Now, that would be utterly absurd, considering his record and everything else he’s said on the issue. It’s no different from this Hamas lie. It’s completely contrary to everything McCain has said and stood for.
So I wonder, considering Rubin’s professional background, does Rubin know how untrue this is, but insist on saying it anyway for partisan purposes? Or is he just that obtuse, hearing what he wants to hear and repeating what is quite obviously not based in reality? (It would be shocking if he didn’t know, considering his background.)
Stix says:
They only hear what they want to hear. It is the liberal way. Facts and truth do not count.
Lord Bitememan says:
“we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another”
The operative phrase in that is “one way or another.” That doesn’t say that McCain was for unconditional dialogue. It says he was in favor of finding a way to establish a satisfactory diplomatic footing. Bush was for the same thing. That’s why he set conditions on Hamas dialogue, renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Conditional dialogue is not the same as unconditional dialogue.