McCain: 'It's very clear who Hamas wants' in the White House

motivez · 04-26-2008, 11:26 AM

(CNN) — John McCain said Friday that “it’s clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States” — the second time in as many weeks that his campaign has referenced positive remarks by Ahmed Yousef, a member of that group, about Barack Obama.

On Friday, the presumptive Republican nominee was asked about the Hamas leader’s comments on a campaign conference call with bloggers.

“…I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States,” said McCain. “So apparently has [Sandinista leader] Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare…If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

A week ago, the Arizona senator’s campaign sent supporters a fundraising e-mail that said Hamas approved of Obama’s foreign policy vision, and is hoping for his victory this fall.

The Obama campaign condemned the remark. "We want to take Senator McCain at his word that he wants to run a respectful campaign, but that is becoming increasingly difficult when he continually tries to use the politics of association and makes claims he knows not to be true to advance his campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman, Hari Sevugan.

"This type of politics of division and distraction, not only lead to a campaign not worthy of the American people, but also has failed to help our families for too long."

McCain adviser Steve Schmidt told CNN's Dana Bash that the Hamas view was "a fair issue for the American people to ponder should he be the Democratic nominee for president."

“Hamas has said they want Barack Obama to win. The reason for that is his policy. He wants to negotiate with the terrorist-funding, nuclear-aspiring, holocaust-denying, Israel-threatening dictator of Iran.

“This election is being watched all around the world. The Hamas spokesman made his comments because of his [Obama’s] policy pronouncements.”

McCain himself told reporters Friday afternoon that the Hamas nod was "just a fact."

Hamas, apparently their North American spokesperson is endorsing Senator Obama. People can make their own judgment from that. I don't view that as anything but a statement of fact. If that…. is wrong, that the North American spokesman of Hamas has not endorsed Senator Obama, I'd be happy to retract my statement, and I hope there'll be corrections in the media that state otherwise."

(UPDATED with campaign, McCain response)

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain: ‘It’s very clear who Hamas wants’ in the White House « - Blogs from CNN.com

This really further illustrates why McCain is just 4 more years of Bush, 4 more years of fear mongering, trying to scare the American people into thinking if they dare vote for anyone other than a Republican, the new leadership will be sending out invitations to terrorists to come blow us up

I think it also shows that McCain is a warmonger who's eager to start more conflicts we have no hope of winning instead of working towards peaceful solutions that (gasp) include compromise with people we may really really dislike.

That's the only way things are going to change, unless McCain is advocating nuking the entire middle east and killing everyone, you aren't going to kill your way to a peaceful resolution, you're just going to train fighters and incite the youth of another generation to join and fight instead of provoking them to think for themselves and work towards a peaceful resolution of issues that have been facing the region since the day we first got involved there.

Scrum · 04-26-2008, 11:59 AM

I've been watching this story for a few days. McCain is either a liar or he is so inept at comtrolling his own campaign that he shouldn't be running for President.

Here's some more good stuff about this.

McCain Campaign: Associating Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game

By Eric Kleefeld - April 25, 2008, 6:48PM
The McCain camp has just blasted out a statement saying that Obama's alleged "endorsement" by Hamas will "definitely be an issue in the election," an indication that McCain intends to honor his promise of a "civil" campaign more in the breach than in the observance.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers called the supposed endorsement by Hamas, something that McCain hit Obama for earlier today, "a legitimate issue for the American people to think about," on the basis of Obama's call for negotiations with Iran.
Rogers added: "It is not only responsible to raise these critical issues in this election, but it would be the height of irresponsibility not to have this discussion with the American people."
Today's commotion was sparked by McCain's active defense of their fundraising e-mail warning that Hamas wants Obama to win the election, during a conference call today with conservative bloggers.
McCain also used the conference call to go after Obama for his past association with former Weatherman and current University of Illinois professor Bill Ayers. "Not only repudiation," McCain said, "but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due to the American people."
McCain's remarks prompted a response from Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan: "We want to take Senator McCain at his word that he wants to run a respectful campaign, but that is becoming increasingly difficult when he continually tries to use the politics of association and makes claims he knows not to be true to advance his campaign."

Scrum · 04-26-2008, 12:00 PM

More...

So much for John McCain's promise of a "civil" campaign. In a conference call with bloggers today, McCain defended his campaign's fundraising e-mail declaring that Hamas wants Barack Obama to win.
"All I can tell you Jennifer [Rubin] is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States," McCain said. "So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare ... If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly."

IminWonderland · 04-26-2008, 01:22 PM

Well, I don't know about the rest of America, but I want a leader that Hamas and Al Quada would be willing to talk to without wanting to slit his throat first. If there is one thing that has been stifled the past 8 years, it has been discourse.

And as far as the association of with the Weathermen.....

Many have not agree'd with their tactics. But, they are no different than any internal militia that wanted to create a change in their country. And their movement, and their larger social movement has made changes that still resonate today.

JaJae · 04-26-2008, 01:50 PM

I wonder if this thought process will continue to hold when McCain receives the inevitable David Duke endorsement.

motivez · 04-26-2008, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I wonder if this thought process will continue to hold when McCain receives the inevitable David Duke endorsement.

I really think guilt by association is retarded unless that person is involved in your political campaign..

kombayn · 04-26-2008, 03:27 PM

We have a bunch of nut-jobs running for office.

thewise1 · 04-26-2008, 03:50 PM

I agree, but it does work. Just look at Stormfront + Ron Paul...

Stylerod · 04-28-2008, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Well, I don't know about the rest of America, but I want a leader that Hamas and Al Quada would be willing to talk to without wanting to slit his throat first.

I agree. I think it's great that Democrats get endorsed by organizations that go around the world killing innocent people. Hell, it's all our fault anyway, right? I mean, if America didn't exist, imagine the peace in the world.

motivez · 04-28-2008, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I agree. I think it's great that Democrats get endorsed by organizations that go around the world killing innocent people. Hell, it's all our fault anyway, right? I mean, if America didn't exist, imagine the peace in the world.

A lot of it is our fault because we've meddled in middle eastern affairs when we should have been minding our own business.. I know a lot of people would rather ignore the problems we've caused, but I prefer reality to fiction.

That's hardly what she said, though. If there's ever going to be peace in that region with our involvement, we have to have someone who's capable of talking to those we dislike and disagree with.

IminWonderland · 04-29-2008, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I agree. I think it's great that Democrats get endorsed by organizations that go around the world killing innocent people. Hell, it's all our fault anyway, right? I mean, if America didn't exist, imagine the peace in the world.

I think the guns a blazin' way has been pretty successful getting peace in the middle east, don't you? I mean, what stunning successes of puppet governments, hostile leaders, and flourishing terrorist organizations we have to represent the brilliance of our foreign policies.

The rest of the world has been talking smack about our failing foreign policy, and how insane we are. Your remark just goes to prove how right they are. Americans suffer from global arrogance, and its time we really faced that they do not "hate us for our freedom."

Stylerod · 04-29-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think the guns a blazin' way has been pretty successful getting peace in the middle east, don't you? I mean, what stunning successes of puppet governments, hostile leaders, and flourishing terrorist organizations we have to represent the brilliance of our foreign policies.

The rest of the world has been talking smack about our failing foreign policy, and how insane we are. Your remark just goes to prove how right they are. Americans suffer from global arrogance, and its time we really faced that they do not "hate us for our freedom."

Us being isolationists didn't work in the early part of the last century either. You thinking that all the worlds problems are because we are involved is bullshit. Those countries would have problems no matter what we did.

motivez · 04-29-2008, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Us being isolationists didn't work in the early part of the last century either. You thinking that all the worlds problems are because we are involved is bullshit. Those countries would have problems no matter what we did.

Who said they wouldn't have problems?

Ardentfrost · 04-29-2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Us being isolationists didn't work in the early part of the last century either. You thinking that all the worlds problems are because we are involved is bullshit. Those countries would have problems no matter what we did.

She never suggested we be isolationist. She merely said we shouldn't have meddled... or, as others of us often say, non-interventionist. That has certainly worked for Switzerland for many many years. That and a strong defense, neither of those that anyone is against.

IminWonderland · 04-29-2008, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Us being isolationists didn't work in the early part of the last century either. You thinking that all the worlds problems are because we are involved is bullshit. Those countries would have problems no matter what we did.

You are really taking a lead with what "I think".

Those countries have serious problems, and some of those problems ARE BECAUSE OF US. That is not revisionist history. I think the CIA calls is...BLOWBACK.

But, as far as the isolationism is concerned, I think that the pre-emptive idealogy has sunk us greater than isolationism would have.

Bush jumped the gun. And we all know it. And if he knew he was jumping the gun, he is war mongerer.

thewise1 · 04-29-2008, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Us being isolationists didn't work in the early part of the last century either. You thinking that all the worlds problems are because we are involved is bullshit. Those countries would have problems no matter what we did.

what if instead of guns blazing or isolationist, we went with non interventionist instead?

Trade with anyone who wants to trade fairly, and enter into alliances with none

kombayn · 04-30-2008, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

what if instead of guns blazing or isolationist, we went with non interventionist instead?

Trade with anyone who wants to trade fairly, and enter into alliances with none

Then sir, you'd have to be a Libertarian... And by all means I must...

Before those extremely smart and prosperous policies.

IminWonderland · 04-30-2008, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

what if instead of guns blazing or isolationist, we went with non interventionist instead?

Trade with anyone who wants to trade fairly, and enter into alliances with none

I think the profit margin is too low for those ideas.

Ardentfrost · 04-30-2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think the profit margin is too low for those ideas.

The profit margin is too low for the companies that funnel tons of money into the government so their desires get catered to.

Overall, though, the profit margins go WAY up on free trade.

Politicians suck at looking at the big picture.