Obama criticizes McCain, Bush on appeasement talk

advertisement

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.

Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals — comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them. McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days, " Obama told about 2,000 voters at a town hall-style meeting in a livestock barn.

Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."

During his swing through South Dakota, the Democratic front-runner said he had intended to focus on rural issues, but felt compelled to respond to the criticism from Bush and McCain.

"They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits," said Obama. "But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."

Bush did not mention Obama by name in his speech, but Obama and other Democrats said the implication was clear.

"That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world," Obama said. He vowed to turn the foreign policy debate back against both Bush and McCain, rejecting the notion that Democrats critical of the war in Iraq are vulnerable to charges of being soft on terrorism.

"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said. He blamed Bush's policies for enhancing the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.

In response, the McCain campaign said in a statement, "It was remarkable to see Barack Obama's hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama."

The Illinois senator also said that he has stated "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas."

Meeting with reporters, Obama argued that tough-minded diplomacy and engagement with rivals is a bipartisan foreign policy that dates to former Presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan.

"That has been the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently," said Obama, who said he was comfortable engaging McCain in a foreign policy debate. "I find it puzzling that we view this as in any way controversial. This whole notion of not talking to people, it didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s ... When Kennedy met with Kruschev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."

He also noted that former President Nixon opened talks with China, "with the knowledge that Mao had exterminated millions of people." He said he was confident making the case that McCain's policy is flawed.

Some worry that Obama would fall victim to criticism from Republicans that he's soft on terrorism.

"I'm happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," said Obama. "If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, any time to have a debate about our respective policies ... that is a conversation I am happy to have."

Other Democrats accused McCain of hypocrisy Friday, saying the certain GOP presidential nominee had previously been willing to negotiate with the militant Palestian group Hamas.

In Charleston, W.Va., speaking before Obama's speech, McCain told reporters: "I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy."

McCain contended that Obama wants to "sit down and negotiate with a government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers. He wants to sit down face-to-face with a government that is very clear about developing nuclear weapons. ... They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That's a huge difference in my opinion. And I'll let the American people decide whether that's a significant difference or not. I believe it is."

In an op-ed published Friday in The Washington Post, former Clinton State Department official James Rubin said that McCain, responding to a question in a television interview two years ago about whether U.S. diplomats should be working with the Hamas government in Gaza, said:

"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 toward 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."

Rubin, who interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News, said McCain is "guilty of hypocrisy" and accused him of "smearing" Obama.

___

Associated Press Writer Glen Johnson in Charleston, W.Va., contributed to this report.

  • 17 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
8.6
7.0
5.0
{"commentId":1807358,"authorDomain":"miasma"}
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them. ( Adlai E. Stevenson)
{"commentId":1807358,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"miasma"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Fri May 16, 2008 9:57 AM EDT
{"commentId":1807467,"authorDomain":"kylen"}

And I thought Democrats prided themselves on intellectual nuance or was that just a catchy phrase for the last losing Democratic presidential campaign?

Obama said he would talk to rogue terrorist states leaders, McCain said we should 'deal with them'. Can Mr. Rubin seriously not tell the difference? I give him the benefit of the doubt and say he does but amusingly knows hypocrisy all too well.

{"commentId":1807467,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"kylen"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:31 AM EDT
{"commentId":1807833,"authorDomain":"geejay"}

Was flip flopping just a catch phrase for the Right? For they seem to be embracing an unparalleled flip-flopper in McCain.

Looks like McCain's time under the microscope has begun.

{"commentId":1807833,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"geejay"}
  • 7 votes
#2.1 - Fri May 16, 2008 12:03 PM EDT
{"commentId":1807948,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
And I thought Democrats prided themselves on intellectual nuance or was that just a catchy phrase for the last losing Democratic presidential campaign?

C'mon, Kyle. You're leaving out an awful lot of context when you say quote McCain as having said we should 'deal with them'.

In your version, it sounds as if McCain is going to put them in their place.

In the context of the quote from the article, it's clear that McCain is saying that we're going to have to engage them (deal with them) diplomatically on one level or another, and that's exactly where the hypocrisy comes from, and it's not really any different than what Obama is saying.

{"commentId":1807948,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"brianford"}
  • 5 votes
#2.2 - Fri May 16, 2008 12:29 PM EDT
{"commentId":1808166,"authorDomain":"techgnostic"}

When compared to our overall foreign policy, issues like these are moot points and distractions. At this point I am preferring McCain over Obama for other reasons, but I am not fooled into believing that either one has a superior foreign policy over the other... or that anything will change if either one of them win this election.

That said, there's a subtle difference between diplomacy and keeping lines of communication open (ala McCain) and have high-level Presidential sit-downs with these nutters (ala Obama). During WWII we kept more lines of communication through back-channels with the Nazi's than this administration keeps with Iran and North Korea. We always need to engage our enemies, but it isn't always wise to do it at the highest levels.

{"commentId":1808166,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"techgnostic"}
  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:23 PM EDT
{"commentId":1808325,"authorDomain":"kylen"}

I didn't mean to imply deal with as in violence versus diplomacy but as Tony says the proper place to deal with them is at a level below the Presidency through the State Department which is what McCain has said and isn't what Obama said. I don't see a change from McCain, he will not personally talk to leaders of terrorist states but somebody at the State Department should 'deal with them' as in keep open diplomacy to that state.

So why should we take Obama's 'I will talk to them' to mean the royal 'We' but McCain's deal with them is hypocritical? There is less leeway in interpretation for Obama than McCain.

{"commentId":1808325,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"kylen"}
  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:57 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":1807583,"authorDomain":"bluecollarbytes"}

"And I thought Democrats prided themselves on intellectual nuance..."

Ha. They do, which is undercut by the koolaid drinking Democrats around here, and their fearless leaders in Congress.

Then there's Obama, who stumbles over things not written down for him. "Obama for President"-the movie, would have made for some biting satire if wasn't happening in real life.

Besides blind faith in the guy, I see no compelling reason to vote for him. If I was an African-American I'd probably vote for him for that reason alone. Symbolism is part of every election and the first Black President is hugely symbolic, in a good way.

{"commentId":1807583,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"bluecollarbytes"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:05 AM EDT
{"commentId":1807940,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}

are you kidding? Obama is one of the best off the cuff orators since Regan.

{"commentId":1807940,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Fri May 16, 2008 12:26 PM EDT
{"commentId":1808205,"authorDomain":"nitewingsg1"}
Then there's Obama, who stumbles over things not written down for him

Be real, Bush stutters saying his own name, he is as close to a certifiable moron as there is. On any given day I bet his IQ drops to a level below that of moron As long as Bush is pretending to be the leader of this country he is held responsible for his actions. Bush had 7+ years to accomplish something positive, he has done nothing, Zero.... As a Democrat I thought of voting for McCain, but after listening to King George's last rant, and followed up by McCain, I will be voting for Obama. It's nice to have archives of past presidential campaigns, you should watch some of the old debates between Bush and McCain. McCain is a old, out of date politician. He would have been a better President than Bush, but, hey, a trained monkey could do the job Bush has done. I think Daddy Bush proved that.

{"commentId":1808205,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"nitewingsg1"}
  • 4 votes
#3.2 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:31 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":1807953,"authorDomain":"steelerdog"}

He wanted to deal with them? And still, they endorsed Obama? Wonder why.

Dems should stick to the stuff they actually have to upper hand on. Keep the conversation on the economy and the toll of the war. If they get dragged down into trying to paint Obama as just as tough on terror as McCain, they''ll be fighting the fight the McCain campo wants them to fight.

{"commentId":1807953,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"steelerdog"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Fri May 16, 2008 12:29 PM EDT
{"commentId":1810133,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}

who cares what Hamas says? are you stupid enough to let a terrorist make your decision for you?

{"commentId":1810133,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
  • 2 votes
#4.1 - Fri May 16, 2008 7:36 PM EDT
{"commentId":1818806,"authorDomain":"steelerdog"}
who cares what Hamas says? are you stupid enough to let a terrorist make your decision for you?

I care about what everyone says. I take it into account when I make a decision when I'm voting. In this case, what I'm saying is, Obama does not have the upper hand here. He sould avoid discussions of this kind. Because, I do want to eradicate terrorism. I'd also like to have our troops out of Iraq. So, Obama should stick to the part that is his strength, getting the troops home, not fighting terrorism.

{"commentId":1818806,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"steelerdog"}
    #4.2 - Mon May 19, 2008 2:59 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1821403,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}

    You want to eradicate a tactic? good luck.

    {"commentId":1821403,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
    • 1 vote
    #4.3 - Tue May 20, 2008 9:47 AM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":1808114,"authorDomain":"observationist"}

    Blue collar, why did you vote for Bush? cause i know you did. was it his incredible foreign policy experience?
    and Kyle you know that you wee just trying to "spin" with that "deal with them" Quote.

    {"commentId":1808114,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"observationist"}
    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:10 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1808775,"authorDomain":"geejay"}

    I first read the headline as "hypocrisy on llamas"

    Time to clean the monitor.

    {"commentId":1808775,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"geejay"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#6 - Fri May 16, 2008 3:25 PM EDT
    {"commentId":1810503,"authorDomain":"miasma"}

    When Llamas are outlawed...

    {"commentId":1810503,"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622","authorDomain":"miasma"}
    • 1 vote
    #6.1 - Fri May 16, 2008 8:52 PM EDT
    Reply
    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"265353","isPrivate":false}
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    {"threadId":"265353","contentId":"1492622"}
    Start TrackingStart Tracking
    Stop TrackingStop Tracking