Politics – Two years ago, in an interview with James Rubin for Sky News, Sen. John McCain expressed a willingness to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas -- the very group that McCain has been relentlessly using to smear Sen. Barack Obama over the last several weeks.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
112)
Wait, wait, wait. I am sure they Hamas was not the terrorists then that they are now. I bet they changed.
Or maybe we should just stop pretending those hoof beats are zebras. So that would mean. . .
FLIP-FLOP!!!
So again, I ask my Cons, how is a flip-flopping gigolo electable this time around?
Speaking of flip-flopping around, Barack's not too shabby himself:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/14/...
Speaking of flip-flopping, here's another example:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/15/...
"A crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. 'Maybe 100,' McCain replied."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/1...
"Senator John McCain declared on Thursday that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013. The remarks offered no proposals for how he would achieve that vision.
During his primary battle, Mr. McCain accused his rival Mitt Romney of setting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though Mr. Romney was merely speaking generally about timetables that might be set in private discussions among Iraqi and American leaders. Since then, Mr. McCain himself has come under repeated fire for offhand comments that he could envision a United States peacekeeping presence in Iraq for 100 years."
Compare this:
"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."
Dr. Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official is a foreign policy adviser To Obama. And yet, in the YouTube debate... (Cont'd)
SOTM:
"Compare this"
Actually, this is not how I interpreted Obama's answer in debate. You conveniently truncated Obama's answer to "I would" while ignoring his further elaborations. The full quote reads:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/2...
"COOPER: In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire."
Obama was in favor of opening lines of communication in the same way Reagan did--by sending a member of his administration to meet with these leaders unconditionally.
Heh heh heh.
Aidenag said ... "He was FOR it before he was AGAINST it".
I remember how much fun we Christian ConserVatives had with that line when Kerry did it.
All my friends laughed and laughed at Kerry for that one ... It was a definin moment for our Right Wing Media Machine.
We had it playin on the National Mainstream Media for WEEKS!
But I dont think THIS example will get much air-play. After all ... MSM only runs storyes bout our right wing OUTRAGE ... it makes the best sound/video package after all.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-leffl...
"A briefing book was prepared for Vice President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State George Shultz to use in their talks with the new Soviet leader in Moscow after Chernenko's funeral. Bush and Shultz met with Gorbachev."
Obama would be willing to send members of his administration to meet with these leaders unconditionally and lay the diplomatic groundwork that would eventually lead to an:
"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."
Personally, I didn't think Obama's position was that difficult to comprehend. But I guess when you truncate his quotes out of context, you can end up confusing yourself.
Nothing could have been clearer than Obama's response to Anderson Cooper during the YouTube debate. (transcript)
{Cont'd}
COOPER: In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would..
I think you're right. Obama's positions aren't difficult to comprehend...until you realize that, at different times, they say different things about the same subject.
That part is confusing to most, but obviously not to his supporters. They can take what they like when he gives it to them and not bother about the rest...even when it's demonstrated to them in black and white.
For sure, that is exactly what the McCain supporters do - take what they like when he gives it to them and not bother about the rest.
One of the very big differences between the two is that McCain has a rather vociferous element of critical "conservatives" that are none to happy about certain of his positions. So, your suggestion here, while having some truth in it, is hardly comparable to many Obama supporters who simply hear "hope" and "change" and "I'm not Bush" and walk away with a smile...and never see the flip-flopperies that are there for the finding.
I would say a change back to what we had in 2000 would not be a bad thing.
One thing is for certain. The present policies of this administration aren't working and McCain is the nearest candidate to continue them. He has went on record as saying that the economy is doing well. Another senior moment or out of touch with reality??
You don't see "flip-flopperies" from Obama because there are none ...
McCain supporters apparently hear nothing and just like him because he is a Republican, because they certainly are not registering the many change-ups in his stands on most if not all of the MAIN issues.
Thats why we Christian Conservatives HATE Obama.
Who does he think he is bein all normal and so unliek the normal politician.
I remember hearin ... since I was a kid ... 'all politicians are the same'.
Well, this Obama fella AINT the same.
He dont campaign the same.
He dont respond to sityations the same.
However, we Righties will REFUSE to vote for him.
And by NOT votin for him, we demarcate Number 1,574,027 instance of hypocrisy.
Yeah!!! 1,574,027!!!
"You don't see "flip-flopperies" from Obama because there are none ..."
Wrong. They are there, but Obamaniacs don't want to see them for what they are. I hear a lot about "28-percenters" that supposedly just blindly support Prez Bush...you Obamaniacs sound like you're a lot closer to the reality of "blind followers" than those you like to criticize.
;)
You are going to have to supply more than your propellor article that has no substance and your 'example' of one thing Obama said versus one thing his advisor said in order to document your accusation of multiple "flip-flopperies" by Obama.
Obama has said he would negotiate with Iran and not bomb them whenever he has been asked about it.
Whereas, McCain has always been the one that spoke and has contradicted HIMSELF on MANY issues.
Fair enough to elaborate on the quote. However, it does not help, because Obama was replying for himself, as potential president:
"...would YOU be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? Senator Obama?"
Not sending diplomatic personnel or a plenipotentiary.
SOTF:
"Fair enough to elaborate on the quote. However, it does not help, because Obama was replying for himself, as potential president"
You continue to ignore Obama's full response. I understood the word "you" in the quote to mean "your administration"--and it's clear from his reference of Reagan's diplomatic strategy with Moscow that this is how Obama's answered Cooper's question.
This would be obvious to anyone who bothered to read Cooper's ENTIRE question along with Obama's ENTIRE response within the proper context. You, however, persist in quoting truncated excerpts out-of-context, just as you did in your post above, so it's not surprising why you continue to be confused.
Is that the best you have? Are you telling me that you truly honestly think that the question was about the "administration" and not Obama as potential president? Really, truly? Cuz, I'm really doubting that those leaders would come to Washington (read Cooper's question again) only to meet with someone "else" in the adminstration.
You can keep saying that YOU interpreted and that's fine, but I'm thing you MISinterpreted the plain question and response.
Especially when Cooper's question was prefaced with:
"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since."
Want to try your interpretation again?
SOTF:
"I'm doubting those leaders would come to Washington to meet with someone "else"."
And why is that? There are MANY leaders who have NEVER been to Washington and may welcome the chance to warm relations with the U.S., even if it meant meeting with the VP or Secretary of State first.
SOTF:
"You can keep saying that YOU interpreted, but I'm thing you MISinterpreted the plain question and response."
Read your own article again. Cooper certainly phrased his question in a way that implied a personal, unconditional meeting between Obama and leaders of enemy nations. But, Obama chose to take that question in a different direction by saying he would open the lines of communication IN THE SAME WAY REAGAN DID. This tactic is NOT uncommon in presidential debates.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. It seems as if you're more interested in confirming your misconception than understanding Obama's position.
Typical.
LOL...nice try. You can avoid the plain question and answer all day and night. Obama answered with a simple, declarative statement: "I would". It's an unambiguous reply to the question that EVEN YOU finally accept was phrased to imply a personal TRIP a la Anwar Sadat to meet with other leaders.
Let me know when you're done with "spinning" this into something that it isn't.
Ah, it's late for me. Thanks for the LAUGHS! Keep trying!
SOTM:
"Obama answered with a simple, declarative statement: "I would"."
There you go again quoting truncated excerpts out of context. "I would" was NOT Obama's entire response. A paraphrase of Obama's full response would be "I would [but only in the same way Reagan did]."
The sooner you can wrap your mind around this simple concept, the sooner you will be able to truly understand Obama's position.
But then again, I've overestimated you before. Perhaps, I'm overestimating you again here and you won't be able to understand this simple concept.
That would actually explain quite a bit. LOL.
Pathetic.
LOL, nope. As I said before and continue to say, you're MISinterpreting it. The simple declarative statement was in reply to whether or not HE as president would meet with other leaders, unconditionally, in the first year of his hypothetical presidency.
It's simple. He said yes. The full context of the statement inevitably leads back to his affirmative.
This is just to hilarious. I tried to leave to go to bed, but your continued defense of a ludicrous line of reasoning has kept me titillated. I think rather than underestimating me, you've overestimated yourself.
Good night, Mr. Pathetic.
SOTM:
"It's simple. He said yes. The full context of the statement inevitably leads back to his affirmative."
Clearly, reading comprehension is not your forte. Maybe that's why you persist in truncating Obama's full response to two words "I would" and ignoring the meaning of his full response. What's the matter? Did Obama's full response use too many polysyllabic words?
Must be that infamous Republican education that I hear so much about.
LOL.
Pathetic.
Snore.
Had enough?
LOL.
Yes, I was bored to sleep with your repetitively inane comments last evening. I'm wake again now, but just re-reading them is making me want to go back to sleep. Tediously incorrect thinking, ybd. You're better than that. Usually.
Back again so soon?
LOL. You must be a glutton for punishment.
Maybe Kennedy,Nixon, and Regan were traitors for meeting with Russians during the "Cold War". Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would meet with the leader of a foreign country for a peaceful settlement before taking military action. We could not have had a more combative enemy than the USSR during the "Cold War" but our presidents still talked to them. Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan talked with the USSR before their collapse. The only problem I see here is the continuous threat of military action by the current Republicans against anyone that doesn't do as they demand. What a bunch of idiots.
Oh! For the record, the USSR would have been considered terrorist by the present definition used by this administration.
Exactly.
It was ok for us to talk to our BIGGEST enemy, the USSR, but its not ok to talk to our "enemies" now?
"Fightin' words" is sure easy for the chickenhawks who get to crow like warriors and then send someone else to kill, be killed, or be permanently maimed, all for NOTHING.
...its all just an excuse not to do anything...since the Bushies were going to do nothing anyway! Haven't you seen how well the Repugs can rationalize their failures and do nothings... generally to place blame anywhere else but on themselves! Bush and his cronies... with the most failures in modern history of any US president... and should have been impeached but for those sycophant senatorial repugs that still back his vetos and would not support his impeachment conviction (party over the rule of law is standard with repugs, the terrorist party of America).
Dog don't hunt lfergie.
The issue was whether or not Mr. Obama would meet "unconditionally" with the leader of a state such as Iran and his foreign policy advisor said that wouldn't happen.
Except, of course, that Mr. Obama personally said as straight-forwardly as possible that he WOULD do EXACTLY that. THe New York Times even had to print a correction to that effect. Whoops.
Whether or not the policy is good, bad or indifferent the issue was whether the Obama camp was flip-flopping on it...they tried, but got called out on it.
No wonder the Palestinians are eagerly phone-banking on behalf of Mr. Obama's candidacy.
Dog does hunt. I think the article under discussion is whether McCain would have talked to Hamas leaders and he is now smearing Obama's position. My point is that great leaders have talked to the "enemy" during moments of crisis in the past but now it isn't acceptable. Your discussion, along with others, is bringing Obama into it when McCain has stated he would have talked to them until he heard the criticism that was leveled at Carter for talking to them. That would be a political flip flop change of position I believe.
What does it matter whether Obama would or would not have talked to them? The issue is McCain criticizing Obama for taking the position he himself had but evidently changed for political reasons and forgot what he once said.
I missed this one last evening. Valid points about McCain saying he might meet with Hamas.
But, the reason I said "dog don't hunt" is that you were introducing a separate (albeit related) discussion. My point centered on the fact that Obama too is quite guilty of flip-flopping. My original comment wasn't that McCain hasn't flip-flopped on subjects (he has), it was "Speaking of flip-flopping around, Barack's not too shabby himself"
Note that I didn't say, "McCain doesn't flip-flop, Obama does". I said Barack's not too shabby at flip-flopping either...meaning that they both do it.
You said it yourself ... you accuse the Obama "camp" of flip-flopping.
It is McCain HIMSELF that is doing the flip-flopping, all on his own, from his OWN lips.
It is not Obama himself that is flip-flopping.
Thus, your attempt to put that label on Obama is bogus.
Go see jordan11's comment below...it is far, far more apropos as a reply to you than it was as a reply to me.
Deflection Alert!
Exactly! But you didn't have to repeat it back to me...I already knew you were deflecting.
Nope ... it was aimed at you ...
I'll repeat, just be clear --
You can't accuse Obama of flip-flopping unless Obama HIMSELF said it one way and then said it another later on.
It was McCain HIMSELF that made contradicting statements about his own positions, from his OWN lips.
So, your example of flip-flopping is bogus.
Dr. Rice is Obama's "adviser" - she is not Obama, and Obama doesn't have to take her advice 100% of the time. That is what an adviser is - a 'recommender', not a commander who controls what Obama says or does.
SOM
I think if you follow the line upward, he is making a reply to your comment.
LOL...ya think?
ROFLMAO< I think you need to go baclk and re-read YB's responses. WHen you read the comment Obamna made its very clear YOU are twistingand spinning to achieve an end of making him look like a flip flopper to cover trhe fact that the REPUBLICAN candidate resembles a fish outr of water when talking about the issues facing the nation.
Altho what continues to amaze me is after YB has handed you your ass on a platter you continue to wanbt to strut around the room showing it off on that platter.
So ... what, pray tell, is wrong with that?
When people TALK to each other, no one gets shot or blown up.
And, the "rogue state" label put in Iran is an OPINION, because there is and NEVER HAS BEEN any proof that they are doing anything to make any nuclear weapons.
The point was not the potential efficacy of the proposed unconditional meetings with leaders of "rogue" states...rather it was an example of the about-faces and flippity-floppities that abound in Obama World.
So, because Obama said one thing, and what his ADVISER said conttradicts what he said, THAT is flip-flopping?
Not unless Obama HIMSELF said it one way and then said it another later on.
It was McCain HIMSELF that made contradicting statements about his own positions.
So, your example of flip-flopping is bogus.
Dr. Rice is Obama's "adviser" - she is not Obama, and Obama doesn't have to take her advice 100% of the time. That is what an adviser is - a 'recommender', not a commander who controls what Obama says or does.
LOL, okay. I'm glad that Obama isn't responsible for what his spokespeople say. Whew! That's a relief.
I'm not sure which is scarier...that you believe what you're saying here or that Obama's own advisers don't have a clue what they're boss man "really" means...
Actually, maybe all that Obama flip-flopping and purposeful vagueness really HAS left his spokespeople a bit in the dark...
Who said Obama is or isn't responsible for what "his people" say?
What is Obama supposed to do, line all of "his people" up every day and review what he wants to say that day so that no one says it any differently?
Not even every person in Bush's administration agrees with or takes the same stand on issues that he does. Is Bush "responsible" for what they say? Is that flip-flopping by Bush??
You really are trying to pull that needle out of the haystack to make a point that is an orange compared to Mccain's apple ... multiple apples, actually ....
Oh that's just one of many, bubba2. Go read the article in the link I provided.
Or just think through all the different things he did and said on one simple subject: Rev Wright.
If that wasn't prima facie evidence of flip-floppery multiple times, nothing else would ever qualify as flip-floppery.
ROFLKMAO, what is amazing is after you get shot to pieces by YB you seem to have this facisnation with running around and telling everyone you got shot to pieces by YB. The article you mewntion doesn't support the position your making (except possibly to the 20%'ers), when the comments you;ve chosen to cherry pick in truncated for ARE read in their entirety it becomes obvious what is happening is an attmepot at right wing spin.
What dunkirk said ...