Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
McCain Was for Talking to Hamas Before He Was Against It
washingtonpost.com — Given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:
Sinaca- 1321 diggs
- digg it
- jforjools, on 05/16/2008, -3/+66Forgive the quoting...but holy crap!
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: "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."
...I correct myself: Holy *****.- 9bpm9, on 05/16/2008, -18/+3I would really love to know what words are missing in that quote, or what two quotes were spliced to make that one quote.
- staticneuron, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6RTFA!
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The confusion is what appears to be an ellipses after ",so...".
After viewing the video it's obvious that he just didn't finish the first thought. The quote is pretty much word for word what he said.
However, I thought the argument was that we shouldn't meet with Hamas without preconditions. Has anyone said "Don't meet with them... PERIOD" or has the controversy been over laying out preconditions to a meeting?
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The confusion is what appears to be an ellipses after ",so...".
- knumbknuts, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1I read the article and I am also interested in what's missing.
Biased pieces, which this may or may not be, often rely upon selective quotations. Even what is quoted is not saying that he wants unconditional negotiations with Hamas.
We dealt with, one way or another, the Viet Cong while McCain was getting beaten in a POW camp.
Even from the selective context, it seems to me that McCain is simply acknowledging that Hamas won the election.
At the time, there was talk about not even recognizing them as the leaders of the Palestinians, treating the Fatah as the de facto government. We all know how well that's worked for us in China.- Acewrap, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The year was 1968. We were on recon in a steaming Mekong delta. An overheated private removed his flack jacket, revealing a T-shirt with an iron-on sporting the MAD slogan "Up with Mini-skirts!". Well, we all had a good laugh, even though I didn't quite understand it. But our momentary lapse of concentration allowed "Charlie" to get the drop on us. I spent the next three years in a POW camp, forced to subsist on a thin stew made of fish, vegetables, prawns, coconut milk, and four kinds of rice. I came close to madness trying to find it here in the States, but they just can't get the spices right!
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I don't know, you tell me "what's missing". here's the video clip of the question. I guess it must be doctored! That isn't even McCain it is CGI!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive ... - OwdenBowden, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2It really doesn't matter because there should be no person from the United States of America having any dealings with HAM-ASS. They are TERRORIST! They support other TERRORIST. They train with and other TERRORIST. They are the SCUM of the earth and should be eliminated along with all other Islamic TERRORIST and Supporters of Terrorist. ALL KORANIMALS MUST DIE!
- staticneuron, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6RTFA!
- raybury, on 05/16/2008, -11/+3Thugs have grown into leaders after elections before (e.g. Sein Finn, Nelson Mandela*), but in short order it would be apparent that Hamas was not going to. There were noises at the time that they might recognize Israel, still the standard, so I find this something short of damning.
My objection is Obama's dual simultaneous positions, not McCain's position evolving in the right direction.
* Mandela was jailed for violent activities -- he had led the ANC's military wing; he won with his brain when that was the only weapon he had left.- redcosmic, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Mandela never targeted civilians. Hamas target civilians in Sderot daily with rockets. One hit a mall this week - a ***** mall. Hardly a good comparison.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2An Israeli civilian is a former or future soldier.
- StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2"An Israeli civilian is a former or future soldier." So if someone were to go to war with them, they'd be justified in killing all of them because they're all military targets, right? /s
- MWeather, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1No, I'm against pre-emptive attacks, but some countries are not, and they shouldn't bitch when they're on the receiving end.
- sodade, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3How can you people call a man who fought against Apartheid a "thug?" Here is a simple rule of thuggery: the guy with the biggest gun - he's the thug.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2So Al Qaeda aren't thugs, the US is? Ok, bad example...
- redcosmic, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Mandela never targeted civilians. Hamas target civilians in Sderot daily with rockets. One hit a mall this week - a ***** mall. Hardly a good comparison.
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4watch the video, the question and answer could not be more clear. for all of those who want to say McCain was actually talking about nuking Hamas "by dealing with them" you are full of *****.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive ... - Hillsfar, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2We gotta find a way to amp this up. Amp his so it goes through the blogosphere, through to mainstream media. Have Obama campaign extensively use McCain's own words to point out this inconsistency over and over again. More of the same!
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1He didn't even answer the question. This is a textbook political dodge. He didn't say yeah we should meet with, or no we shouldn't - he said eventually we'll have to deal with them, which I don't think ANYONE would disagree with.
The controversy is HOW do we deal with them. Do we sit and talk unconditionally? Do we make them agree to a ceasefire before allowing talks? Do we threaten them with military force?
How do you get "We need to sit down and talk with them" out of "...sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another..."? It's such a broad answer it could mean anything - classic political dodge/answer. - Gorgamel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Since when does 'deal with them, one way or another' mean 'sit down and have a chat'?
- 9bpm9, on 05/16/2008, -18/+3I would really love to know what words are missing in that quote, or what two quotes were spliced to make that one quote.
- CassandraCruise, on 05/16/2008, -12/+5dugg it :)
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/16/2008, -26/+36McCain like all republicans are a joke.
- actorboy, on 05/16/2008, -10/+9Seeing that you're an Obama supporter, you might want to let go of that attitude. Or did you miss the whole "uniting America" bit.
- murraj2, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7All? Really? You realize that there's plenty of Republican's that don't like the war, the current administration or John McCain and prefer the original beliefs of the republican party including small government, low taxes and less regulated market places among others. To make blanket statements about an entire group based on a few individuals is really ***** stupid.
But I'm sure you and 75% of the people that digg you up were chanting for Ron Paul to be the next President four months ago.- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"You realize that there's plenty of Republican's that don't like the war, the current administration or John McCain and prefer the original beliefs of the republican party including small government, low taxes and less regulated market places among others."
Yeah, but only one of them is in office.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"You realize that there's plenty of Republican's that don't like the war, the current administration or John McCain and prefer the original beliefs of the republican party including small government, low taxes and less regulated market places among others."
- BabushkaBlue, on 05/16/2008, -7/+13Why am I not surprised by this?
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 05/16/2008, -5/+50You have to understand that McCain follows the Bush doctrine. So, "sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them" doesnt mean talking to them. it means sooner or later we will bomb you into submission.
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1"Sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another..." is a dodge. It's a non-answer.
He's not saying we should talk with them, he's not saying we should bomb them. He saying eventually Hamas is going to be an issue we'll have to deal with. It's a politically safe answer.
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1"Sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another..." is a dodge. It's a non-answer.
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/16/2008, -24/+7Americans are supporting the Palestinian resistance:
http://yellowcakewalk.net- stfucupcake, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Supporting uprooted Palestinian people gets a digg down??
- rewinn, on 05/16/2008, -3/+39Candidate McCain is not the same person as Senator McCain. It may seem amazing, but his mother had identical twins and gave them the same name; it's not fair to say he's flipflopping when all he's doing is repudiating the position of his twin!!!!
- actorboy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Can't be true. No pencil-thin mustache on the candidate one.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Which one is the evil twin? I don't see a beard.
- TheFoshizzler, on 05/16/2008, -5/+26The guy's a hack that'll say anything to get elected.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Thanks, I didn't realize he was a politician.
- frankingeneral, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Not all politicians are hacks, just the ones that pander to the base and go compeltely against their beliefs or espoused views in hopes of getting elected (I'm looking at you too Annie Oak--I mean Hillary Clinton)
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2", just the ones that pander to the base and go compeltely against their beliefs or espoused views in hopes of getting elected "
Coincidentally, those are the only one who do get elected, with very few exceptions.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2", just the ones that pander to the base and go compeltely against their beliefs or espoused views in hopes of getting elected "
- frankingeneral, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Not all politicians are hacks, just the ones that pander to the base and go compeltely against their beliefs or espoused views in hopes of getting elected (I'm looking at you too Annie Oak--I mean Hillary Clinton)
- PolishLogic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Hmm, reminds me of two other candidates as well.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Thanks, I didn't realize he was a politician.
- diargasm, on 05/16/2008, -7/+28How the ***** did McCain weasel himself to be the Republican Candidate? He's too old, too fake, and full of *****. I'm a registered Republican and there is no way in hell I'd vote for him.
- macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8Did you see the spread this year? The rest of those assclowns made McCain look good.by comparison.
- diargasm, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Yea at this point I would have went with Paul (preferably) or Romney. Romney was full of *****, but he was the CEO candidate - you know.
- TJ22, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2McCain only looks good because he is out of the cycle and not under attack, we'll see how good he looks once the general begins.
- frankingeneral, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I think what you're seeing is people voting for personality, not necessarily the friendliest, or nicest, but who SEEMS like a leader. Love it or hate it, even if you think it's all rhetoric and BS, Obama is charismatic, he presents the image of a leader. With McCain it's the same thing. People see his distinguished military record, his time in the prison camp and his long history of public service, and he comes off as a leader.
- murraj2, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3On the whole for this election, this is one of the worst group of Candidates that I can remember. If Gore had run he would have won this thing by the time he finished his speech announcing his candidacy. It's like no one serious wanted to step up and try to clean up Bush's mess.
- diargasm, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2yea, it's depressing.
- geneticlone, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1man bear pig?
- homanh, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1To be fair Gore won the first time as well but got cheated out of it.
- Flamancot, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1who u votin for?
- j.carcinogen, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Pau ...
- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4The conservatives split their vote between Romney and Huckabee so McCain shot his way up from the backfield. Maybe if your primaries weren't "winner take all" and all of those 2nd-place wins Romney had counted for something...
- SheilaNoya, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I was hoping that the predictions were right during the beginning of this election season and that Giulliani would be the GOP's Nominee. I wanted to see the heads explode on the evangelicals when their official Republican nominee was a man who had several divorces, was gay friendly, and who dressed in drag a few times.
They didn't get much of their wish list with McCain either, so maybe I'll get to see a few heads explode afterall.
- macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8Did you see the spread this year? The rest of those assclowns made McCain look good.by comparison.
- MrFurious2k, on 05/16/2008, -22/+3Sadly, McCain is almost as bad as Obama.
- macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Yeah, we really need a president who has the courage to just carpet-bomb the ***** out of people for no good reason.
- MrFurious2k, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3No - it's better to kiss our enemies asses because that's worked really well in the past.
Obama is nothing new. He's like Carter part deux. He'll continue to lead us down the path of socialism and failed policies just like his other leftist counterparts. Unfortunately, out of the jokers we have to pick from this year, Obama actually makes McCain look good (which really ought to tell you how bad a candidate Obama is).- TJ22, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Oh yeah, because bombing and killing everyone who disagrees with us has worked so well within this administration.
- macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Oh, STFU you neocon shill. You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. You clearly know nothing of history or foreign policy, but that's apparently not gonna stop you from coming in here and shoving your foot in your mouth. How was the Cold War ended? Huh? How many bombs did we have to drop? How many bullets were fired? How many Soviets did we have to kill before they finally gave in?
- MrFurious2k, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Someone has anger issues. lol
- macweirdo42, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5That's funny, coming from the guy who apparently endorses wholesale slaughter as the only feasible means of diplomacy.
- rthakidn, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Wow Mac, you might need to bump up the meds. First, McCain flew a fighter/bomber. His missions targeted military or strategic infrastructure sights. He was not involved in "carpet bombing" as you describe it. Second, after his accident on a carrier (I can't recall which one) he expressed reservation about using weapons such as Napalm, etc. So he certainly wasn't a maniacal killer who advocated "wholesale slaughter". And lastly, the Soviets succumbed because they went broke trying to keep up with the west's military build up and couldn't feed their people. So while a bullet did not end the communists grip there, it was a military solution, albeit only the threat or capability of military action. I can see you still want to believe our military, especially during the Vietnam era are/were "baby killers". Nice platform.
- macweirdo42, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I wasn't talking about McCain! I was talking about MrFurious2k here.
- mickman17, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1So what about Nixon opening the door to Communist China? I guess that was ok to talk to that enemy since a republican picked up the phone first.
And Reagan with Gorbachev - again ok since it was a republican making the call...
Do yourself a favor - and STFU
- LukasSmith, on 05/16/2008, -20/+4This is stupid. He aknowledged that Hamas was the government of Palastine... because Gasp! the people of Palastine voted for this government in McCain's view that was because the people of Palastine didn't get the security they needed from Fatah. He also said we would have to deal with Hamas one way or another that can imply getting on our knees and sucking for peace as Obama wishes or bombing their asses or looking the other way while Isreal does. His comment just explained the reality of the day, not his position on bombing the ***** out of them.
- kgunn66, on 05/16/2008, -12/+6Are you kidding me with all this? Did any of the other commenters actually READ the response? What did you expect him to say? I'd rather our leaders have reasonable, logical responses, than the normal sound-bite-tripe we hear...
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6are you an idiot (that is rhetorical, I already know the answer)? McCain and Bush have just this week been comparing Obama to a "Nazi appeaser" because he has spoken of communicating with Hamas - the very thing that McCain is here acknowledging is inevitable. McShame will say anything, will disregard any previous stance and any shred of intellectual honesty to get into the white house.
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Where is he saying we need to sit down and communicate with them? He said we'll have to deal with them.
That's such an open-ended, political non-answer it could mean anything. "Dealing with them" may mean forcing a cease-fire prior to talks. It may mean talking unconditionally. It may mean using the threat of military force.
- thebaron2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Where is he saying we need to sit down and communicate with them? He said we'll have to deal with them.
- quarkie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2@dn11.
He never said Obama. I actually thought it was Carter that he was referring to.- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1i believe he was talking about both of them. there has been such an effort by the right to link Obama with some sort of anti Israel sentiment supposedly emanating from associations with Carter's advisers. but the way McCain pivoted off the remarks was clearly aimed at Obama
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6are you an idiot (that is rhetorical, I already know the answer)? McCain and Bush have just this week been comparing Obama to a "Nazi appeaser" because he has spoken of communicating with Hamas - the very thing that McCain is here acknowledging is inevitable. McShame will say anything, will disregard any previous stance and any shred of intellectual honesty to get into the white house.
- TheBogie, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7McCain is starting to sound like Hilliary. I wonder if he was also for NAFTA but is now against NAFTA.
- Cyberdactyl, on 05/16/2008, -13/+6Ahhh. . .just another of the myriad anti-Republican articles that will wash across digg in the coming months.
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5buckle up buddy, we haven't even gotten started on McShame yet
- G5745, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1So let me get it straight: McCain wanted to talk to Hamas about peace. Hamas, whose main source of power and income comes from committing terrorist acts (because let's face it - this war between Israel and Palestine is all about profit)? Wow, way to go Johnny, you showed a deep understanding of middle-east politics.
- knumbknuts, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4RIF
"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."
"Deal with them, one way or another" != "talk to Hamas about peace."
Reading is fundamental. You might want to upgrade your brain to 32-bit processing. - rthakidn, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1It appears you didn't get it straight. McCain did not say "we'll have to talk to them". If you'd bother reading the article, he said, "we'll have to deal with them, one way or another". Most of you will want to believe that means talk, so there's no point in arguing it.
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2***** "the article" watch the video. the question was about diplomacy and the current administrations lack there of, and the answer is pretty clear to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive ...
- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2***** "the article" watch the video. the question was about diplomacy and the current administrations lack there of, and the answer is pretty clear to me.
- knumbknuts, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4RIF
- bionh, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4I dont understand why this is a big deal. Do we want our leaders to make one decision and blindly follow it to the end of time? I would much prefer a president who has the guts to change his mind. Read Self-Reliance, by Emerson. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Lets step back from the fanboyism and actually look at the issues...make your choice of president based on their voting records, not the latest media soundbite!- eggsovereasy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I dislike McCain as much as anyone, but you're right. We got where we are today because we have "leaders that make one decision and blindly follow it to the end of time."
- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4So he changes his mind less than two years later, then attacks Barack Obama as a threat to the country for having the position that McCain had, thus making McCain two years ago a threat to the country, except for the fact that Barack Obama does not actually hold that position.
So he's a lying hypocrite you can't get a bead on but you'll vote for him anyway because everything bad he does is really just courage and progressive thought?
I was saving this until I read the rest of the responses but I'm going to use it here. "No wonder this country's so ***** up, some people will vote for a *****-covered ticket to Hell and cover themselves with gasoline while they wait."
- slappy83, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9McCain is just a pandering whore. Look at his NEW views on the environment and our tax system.
- PolishLogic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Reminds me of Obama on gun control. It's weird to think that politicians will say what they need to get votes, isn't it.
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -9/+4Opinion pieces like this and the comments from some of the diggers here are so awfully ignorant I don't know whether to laugh at you idiots or feel sorry for you. The verbal and logical gymnastics you go through to "smear" McCain are actually impressive. No, this wasn't a flip flop. Sorry if your last attempt at a candidate couldn't be consistent on issues.
- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4It's called common sense. The only gymnastics is the one you're engaged in to justify the vote you've already made in your head.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+19I want McCain to answer the following question on television:
"What the ***** happened to you? You were a good guy just 5-6 years ago, now you're the exact opposite of yourself"- Homerr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7McCain sold his soul to the devil to stay a viable politician after the South Carolina primary in 2000. Recall Rove's bag of dirty tricks that sunk McCain (saying he had an illegitimate black child) and gave Bush the win and McCain was PO'd, but then a month later McCain was suddenly Bush's biggest supporter.
That's what happened.- frankingeneral, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3And now Karl Rove is a consultant for the McCain campaign.
- Homerr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7McCain sold his soul to the devil to stay a viable politician after the South Carolina primary in 2000. Recall Rove's bag of dirty tricks that sunk McCain (saying he had an illegitimate black child) and gave Bush the win and McCain was PO'd, but then a month later McCain was suddenly Bush's biggest supporter.
- knumbknuts, on 05/16/2008, -11/+3"Dealing with (Hamas) one way or another" with and saying you'll unconditionally negotiate with (insert various enemy states here) are two different things. It takes more than the 8-bit resolution of thinking I'm reading here, but there ya go.
The desperation of Obamabot diggers and the vociferous reaction of the Dems on the whole issue betrays weakness.
90% of the presidency revolves around foreign policy, in terms of the stated powers of the office in the Constitution. Obama will need OTJT and this may not be the best time for it.
Look at the last two presidents, they were both foreign policy amateurs and their administrations were colossal *****-ups overseas.- dn11, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6McCain doesn't even know the the difference between Sunni and Shiites or that Regan negotiated with Iran (US history 101). That is just flat out frightening.
- moduc, on 05/16/2008, -5/+6
Communists murdered so many people and commit so many atrocities, but we talked to them. He said someday we have to deal with them one way or another. What is wrong with that? If the terrorist is as strong as us, we wouldn't treat them this way. We would have to fight them, and also work with them in someway, because they would have controlled a large earth population, and many people are affected by them. Just another day to see many more pro Obama posts and posts that trash his opponent. I have nothing against him, but reading Digg often, and this offended me. So, I won't vote for him for sure. Just because all these posts.- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2That's not the ***** point. The point is that he held that position, now he holds the exact OPPOSITE position while attacking his opponent for supposedly holding that position even though his opponent doesn't hold that position.
It's not WHAT he believes, but what he is SAYING and DOING that makes John McCain full of *****.- PolishLogic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yes, how dare he change his mind.
How dare he to believe that when Hamas gained a leadership position, rather than being just a fringe group, that they might be able to be diplomatic in solving their problems. How dare he reverse himself when it became clear that Hamas is still the same organization as they were when they were just a terrorist group with no governmental power.
Damn him for hoping to solve problems through talks, only to realize that this is probably not going to happen.
We get it, you don't think people are entitled to change their minds about things.
- PolishLogic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yes, how dare he change his mind.
- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2That's not the ***** point. The point is that he held that position, now he holds the exact OPPOSITE position while attacking his opponent for supposedly holding that position even though his opponent doesn't hold that position.
- namar777, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6That just shows you how easily he can change, no true principles, not a stable basis.... weak....
- MadN, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5I would have though that McCain, as a Republican, would take a wider stance on this issue.
- Crisender111, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Before, many here start pouring in with their smart-ass comments, please do take time to read this...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/
http://www.occupation101.org/
Btw, I dont care for McCain & I denounce the terrorist activities of Hamas as much as I detest the well-covered (terror) activities of Israel against the impoverished Palestinians. - Verchiel77, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1With a man of his "experience," I'm sure it's quite common to occasionally forget what one has said.
- VengeanceNight, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0I just have to really wonder what was between the "so . . . but". Already he is making a pretty big leap in his assumption that McCain is open to talking with Hamas since he never really says it. Can anybody find the full original quote?
- clippypog, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0jsut like calling people sweetie is not even a guy thing -it's an Obama "get me in the news" thing to boost perception again (vs. what McCain said to his wife) (just like the PR dump on the guy who met with Hamas that by his own admission, had nothing to do with Obama campaign) this clone stamped politican should be booted out on his ass
- jimmies, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3And in other news, politicians lie in addition to flip-flopping!
- FutureAEI, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4FLIP FLOPPER!!! He's Flip Flopping! He's flipping his flops! He's... he's... AAAAAAGGHHHH!
- net48734, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Im digging this only because he said hes flipping his flops.
- Strungout, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2bu...but wait, I thought flip floppers were reserved for the democrats?
- knot2hazy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1McCain is an idiot who says what he’s told. Nobody listens to a PTSD victim who refuses to get help.
- brandozilla, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0what does PTSD have to do with this? McCain was never diagnosed with PTSD. Are you a doctor or do you like to play one on internet forums?
- brandozilla, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1From another interview at the time.
MCCAIN: "Well, hopefully, 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."
It is important not to be an intellectual retard and to take McCain's position in the context he had at the time, and not pick a single sentence which you can use to call him a flip flopper.- nblsavage, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sauce for the goose. The repubs used the same tactics against Kerry. I'm not saying it's right but it's certainly karmic.
- brandozilla, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0It is nice to see an Obama supporter embracing Obama's calls for a civil campaign and a new kind of politics. At least you acknowledged being an intellectual retard.
- nblsavage, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What part of "I'm not saying it's right" did you miss? I'm wondering tho, where did you stand when the republicans were attacking Kerry? Or is it ok when it isn't your candidate being attacked?
- brandozilla, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If attacks are baseless partisan bickering, i call them out democrat or republican.
- nblsavage, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Fair enough. I prefer debating on the issues also.
- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Context he had "at the time" or the context of the actual paragraph and entire interview in which he said it. Because those are two very different things.
- nblsavage, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sauce for the goose. The repubs used the same tactics against Kerry. I'm not saying it's right but it's certainly karmic.
- RealHyperX, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1McCain is a ***** liberal... ***** them all.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7McCain has more flip-flops than a discount shoe store...
- JohnDakota, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1McCain said he'd talk to Hamas if they renounced violence, agreed on a two state solution, and respected Israel's right to exist. If Hamas did that theyd' be a legitimate government and not a terrorist entity. This differs from Obama as we now know with 2 years of experience that Hamas is not going to renounce violence or respect Israel's right to exist. So Hamas is still a terrorist entity, and one Obama would negotiate with.
Keep things in context for god sakes.- ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2You don't add context MONTHS after the fact.
- techweenie, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2McCain is a flip flopping idiot, but let's get real here: Hamas is two different entities, and Bush & co. are exploiting that fact to confuse the public. The political wing of Hamas has to be "dealt with" because they are a governmental entity. The military wing of Hamas is better dealt with by force. Confusing the two benefits the Republicans.
- joshzweig, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Clearly this is a reason not to vote for McCain. We need a president who thinks the same thing on Wednesday that he thought on Monday. No matter what happened on Tuesday.
/sarcasm
Not a plug for McCain, but the way the media spazzes out at somebody changing their mind is ridiculous. - maiku00, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't vote for McCain in a a hundred years, but the quote in question ("They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another") doesn't necessarily mean talk to them. It just means we can't ignore them. It could easily mean "bomb the ***** out of them and put on a cowboy hat". The context of the quote is being stretched a bit.
- j.carcinogen, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Appeaser!
- banderwocky, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Ah, more "straight talk" from John Sidney McCain the 3rd. I wonder if his Black Centurion card can buy him out of this flip flop?
- cambob76, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5SHHHHHH!!! Don't use up all the good stuff against McCain too soon. People will forget it by November!
- harry8227, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0Kinda like Hillary was for the war before she was against it. People are allowed to change their mind, preferably without some doh doh making a big deal out of it
- cultureforall, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Here is some context:
http://tinyurl.com/5ugrqw - normalkid0615, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I wish we did not have to worry about choosing a good president out of so many bad people. I wish we had decent candidates. NormalKid in 08'
- forgottenhope, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2this terrorism talk has been all bush can use. its his only ***** card. its a joke card and the joke is a lie.
9/11 and terrorist dont go together, unless you mean domestic terrorist like the government that was behind the attacks.
How you should know the 9/11 story is a lie is because of the frivilous way george bush touts it as his only way to show he cares.
We all should know george bush doesnt give a ***** about anyone. 9/11 is story he can sell and has sold and repeated and you people who believe it only make people that lie about terrorism more prominent.
***** you - momydearestc, on 05/16/2008, -3/+0"we will deal with them sooner or later" does that mean talk to them or kick their a**es?? where is the flip flop??? Looks like Obama is the flipper this election. And Im no fan of Mc Cains.
- forgottenhope, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1none of you asshats know that hammas was formed by the people in Lebanon? They are doing the will of the people to get isreal to back off the land some assholes gave them for getting the united states into world war 2.
i quit, ***** idiots are brainwashed to no end. good riddance. - momydearestc, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0forgottenhope,,,,,,,,your name fits you.....loser,,,,michael moore assclown
- deepseas, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1How a candidate runs their campaign gives you a good idea how they would run the country. McCain speaks with a forked tongue, contradicting himself to suit the audience. Bush and McCain are giving Obama all the ammunition he needs during the run-up to the election in November. They are really showing their stupidity.
- Barackalypse, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0That sounds a lot like Obama being against the Iraq War before he voted to continue funding it and how we didn't like the Patriot Act all that much until he voted to re-authorize it. Of course you liberals probably don't like to hear that, but that's the very essence of a hypocrite, someone who points out flaws in others and ignores or excuses those same flaws in themselves or those they support.
- Hillsfar, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1He voted to fund it as it was already continuing and it's not like you can just strip away funding for the troops.
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by