As the old saying goes, when his lips are moving. Or, in the case of James Rubin, a Clinton administration official and sometime journalist, when he submits an op-ed to the Washington Post. Rubin accuses John McCain of a major flip-flop on Hamas:
I [Rubin] 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.”
For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that’s a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.
Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.
Rubin’s charge is clear. The old McCain “was ready to do business” with Hamas, in contrast to Clinton and Obama who say “Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism” first. Thus, Rubin is saying that McCain did not require that Hamas change its policies.
Well, firstly, the statement that “we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another” doesn’t necessarily support Rubin’s charge. After all, we dealt with Saddam, one way or another. In any case, any question about McCain’s meaning here is resolved by the very next exchange (which Rubin left out):
Rubin: So should we the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?
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 what ways we can engage them; and if there aren’t any then their may be a hiatus. But I think that part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.
(Transcript from Ankle Biting Pundits, which also has video. (Via Instapundit.))
McCain said that there may be a “hiatus” in relations, depending on Hamas’s policies, and then said further that the relationship “is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts.” In other words, McCain did require that Hamas change its policies or face an interruption in relations, which is the same thing he says now. (Incidentally, Rubin notwithstanding, it’s not at all clear that this is Obama’s position.)
An honest mistake? Not likely. CNN’s Dana Bash reports:
CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn’t have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him.
(Via the Corner.)
Oh, come on. He expects us to believe that he only has one paragraph from his own interview with McCain, and that one paragraph is the very one that, when taken out of context, can be twisted to support Rubin’s point. It’s much more plausible that he doesn’t want us to know the context, which would eviscerate his argument.
I’ve found that the Washington Post tends to be a little more honorable than most of the mainstream media, so perhaps they’ll run a correction. I won’t hold my breath, though.
UPDATE: Rubin attempts to defend himself on Geraldo Rivera’s show. Geraldo makes it easier, by leaving out the evidence of Rubin’s duplicity — allowing Rubin to characterize it himself. I don’t think his defense works with anyone who’s watched or read McCain’s actual words. (Via Instapundit.)
As a bonus, Mike Huckabee (who won’t often be praised at Internet Scofflaw) has a good comment about Obama’s response to Bush’s anti-appeasement speech. “It’s the hit dog who hollers,” Huckabee said. After all, Bush’s speech never mentioned him by name. Obama should have shrugged it off, saying he’s not an appeaser. Instead, he fell back on the old “how dare you question my patriotism?”, implicitly conceding that Bush was referring to him.
Internet Scofflaw 