For it Before he was Against it

That John McCain is campaigning notably more negative and dirty than anyone, including his inflated version of himself that has been on display for much of this campaign, would have predicted is not the big news. That is reserved for the fact that he’s incredibly bad at it, and easily debunked.

Yesterday, McCain decided to throw his lot in with Bush, joining in the pile on in attacking Obama’s ability to defend this country, and nodding forcefully in agreement with the attempt to paint Obama as a Jew hating terrorist appeaser.

The only problem with that is, McCain himself was a terrorist appeaser, too. In fact, I think it’s even funnier that McCain was willing to do what Obama has thus far refused to do from beginning to end:

But 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:

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.”

Remember, this is the same guy who has recently been attempting to pin the Hamas tail on the Obama Donkey. As it turns out, only one of these candidates has offered treating Hamas as a valid government, and that would be the guy who is tossing around the politics of fear card left and right.

2 Responses to “For it Before he was Against it”

  1. daveinboca says:

    Of course, lil Jamie Rubin is CNN’s Iran-luvin’ ditz Amanpour’s hubby & what McCain said to him in Rubin’s self-promoting little Sky News interview TOOK PLACE JUST shortly after the Hamas victory. Hamas had not started its terrorist operations when lil Jamie asked McCain the question. Also, “have to deal with them one way or another” hardly amounts to “talking without preconditions.” McCain implied both retaliation &/or back-door dealing, not sit-down negotiations. This silly “pure hypocrisy” charge is pure hyperventilating hyperbole.

    Typical for leftists to read way too much into Rubin’s self-promoting two minutes with McCain—that interview was literally in the winter of 2006 just after Hamas was elected and before Hamas started its civil war with Fatah, two details Rubin conveniently leaves out. Context is everything and this is just an amateurish self-hype agitpreppie operation by Rubin picked up by gullible lefties [excuse tautology].

    The underlying fact Bush pointed out in the Knesset [though he didn’t name the gullible lefty, everyone knows Obambi is the target] is that Democrats like Obama “can’t handle the truth,” as they’re all a bunch of second-rate trial lawyers unable to figure out that bad people are not defendants whom you can plea-bargain into good behavior.. .

    Or forgive with a promise of good behavior on their part. The underlying fact is that bad people like Hamas & Hezbollah are ‘splodin’ dudes who HAVE TO BE STOPPED with more than chats around the negotiating table.

    In Rubin’s two minutes of Davos face-time, McCain said “deal with” and “one way or another” which could mean taking them down if they keep rocketing Israeli civilians. No “pure hypocrisy” there, two years later when McCain is a declared candidate & Hamas has definitively declared itself a terrorist entity. Rubin simply inflates the importance & ignores the context of the interview…….not that those little “details” will stop gullible lefties from taking the bait. Rubin is cadging for a job in the Obama administration, and this little balloon is his way of getting Obama’s attention that he wants to defect from Hillary.

    But more seriously, Bush & McCain should keep attacking on the line of leftist gullibility & bring in Pelosi with her ridiculous burka plucking the hem of terrorist-chieflet Bashar Assad’s robe in Damascus. That is what borders on treason, as Syria is a declared supporter of international terrorism & supports Hezbollah and Hamas, allowing Khaled Mashaal and Ibn Mugniyah to reside in Damascus . Gee-mah Carter has already blazed the trail that Obama wants to follow….the feckless presidential disaster is a useful reminder to voters that Dems haven’t got a clue on national security.

    And of course Obama keeps floating like a butterfly on these national security issues without being called to account by non-journalist Obamaniacs in the MSM. Taking both sides of an issue and instinctively defending culprits and mass-murderers are another set of Democrat bad habits that Bush & McCain should keep pointing out.

  2. Macswain says:

    Wow, daveinboca, talk about trying a distraction technique.

    I think the funniest thing about daveinboca’s comment though is how he creatively takes snippets of McCain’s statement to make it sound like he is saying the opposite of what he truly said in full context.

    I guess it’s okay to pluck statements out of context if that’s what you need to do to convince yourself your guy didn’t say something that makes him a hypocrite.

Leave a Reply to Macswain Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook