Twenty-four hours after CNN started giving covering fire for Barack Obama in response to President Bush’s "appeasement" remark, the network has now aided the Democratic spin machine in attacking John McCain as a hypocrite with regards to Hamas, based on a 2006 video clip provided by Clinton adviser James Rubin. In the excerpt, the Arizona Senator appeared to be endorsing negiotiations with the terror group. But CNN conducted its own interview of McCain at the same time, January 28, 2006, in which he insisted that Hamas "renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again." So CNN is trusting Rubin as the authority on what McCain’s stance was two years ago, instead of their own archival video [see video clip below]
UPDATE, 6:30PM ET: National Review's The Corner has a post up indicating that the full Rubin-McCain interview from 2006 also seriously undercuts Rubin's claims of hypocrisy.
CNN substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, in a segment that included a "breaking news" graphic, interviewed Rubin, who himself conducted an interview of the Arizona Senator in 2006 for Sky News. Rubin used a clip from this interview (which is being hosted on the liberal "Huffington Post" website) to charge that McCain has performed "the ultimate flip-flop in American politics," that the senator once wanted to deal with Hamas without preconditions, and has now taken the opposite position.
The interview of Rubin, which began 13 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of Friday’s "American Morning," began with Phillips playing a clip of President Bush’s "appeasement" remark. She then remarked that "John McCain piled on more, attacking Barack Obama for saying he would talk to U.S. enemies and consistently points out that Hamas, a militant organization, endorses Obama's candidacy. But there's word this morning that McCain actually hasn't been consistent in his opposition to Hamas."
After asking Rubin to comment on the President’s speech, Phillips asked the former Clinon State Department spokesman, "[W]e see John McCain responding yesterday, the new John McCain. But there's an old John McCain that we discovered, and that comes from an interview you did when you were working with Sky News in 2006, I believe, correct?" After Rubin confirmed this, Phillips played the clip of McCain supposedly endorsing negotiating with Hamas. In it, McCain stated that "[t]hey [Hamas] are the government and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another. And I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espoused but practice. But it is a new reality in the Middle East."
Rubin called McCain’s supposed position then versus his position now "the ultimate flip-flop in American politics." He continued:
RUBIN: When he was in Davos amongst the European crowd and I interviewed him there, two years ago, he was talking as if it was appropriate and natural and reasonable to negotiate with Hamas, the new government of the Palestinian territories. And then two years later, he's taking a very, very different position, saying anybody who wants to talk to them is somehow an equivalent to terrorists, smearing people for suggesting that one ought to talk to Hamas, when it was he himself who was prepared to talk to Hamas two years ago. And the great irony of all of this is that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama even want to talk to the Hamas government. They both said we shouldn't negotiate with them or deal with them properly until they renounce terrorism in Israel. So John McCain doing this 180-degree flip flop and then attacking Barack Obama for it, it's just the height of hypocrisy.
Philips then brought up how former Secretary of State Colin Powell, during a 2007 interview on NPR -- three years after he left office -- also apparently called for the Bush administration to negotiate with Hamas. In response to this, Rubin continued to spin:
RUBIN: Well, here's the tragedy here. Apparently, it's a fairly acceptable view in the upper reaches of the Republican Party -- Colin Powell, John McCain two years ago -- to negotiate with Hamas, to deal with them as a government. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Democrats have rejected that. So then this very same candidate, John McCain, takes that argument, turns it on its head, pretends he never said what he said, maybe he forgot, and attacks the Democrats as somehow the friends of terrorists. Maybe this experience, and I hope and I pray, that this experience for John McCain and the Republicans of watching what happens when they try to use these sort of Nixonian campaign tricks will be so bitter for them that we can get back to the real issues. We have a big election coming and a big issue.
Phillips concluded the interview by asking, "So let's get away from the dirty politics and get away from the games on both sides and you think this will eventually or will now bring things back to the issues?" Rubin predicted that the general election in the fall would be a "virtual referendum on Iraq" and that McCain and Bush should just concentrate on that issue.
Absent from this entire discussion was CNN’s own interview from what appears to be the same day in January 2006. CNN correspondent Elaine Quijano introduced the sound bite of McCain: "One prominent senator says it’s an untenable position to have a government in the Middle East led by a group committed to the destruction of its neighbor, Israel." McCain then said in the clip, "Hopefully, that Hamas -- now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this -- this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again -- we can resume aid. We can resume the peace process. It’s very, very important though that they renounce this commitment."
In both Rubin’s Sky News/Huffington Post video and in CNN’s own interview, McCain wore a red tie and a blue dress shirt underneath a gray scarf and black winter coat. This leads one to conclude that the two interviews were conducted on the same day, raising the question of whether McCain forgot to state his conditions when talking to Rubin -- or whether Rubin left them out of the video he supplied to both Huffington Post and CNN.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obvious, childish - "he
May 16, 2008 - 17:17 ET by mattmObvious, childish - "he started it!" crybaby ass-covering. The goal, for the millionth time, is to obfuscate, confuse, deflect - it's all they have, really - other than gay marriage, abortion, welfare and appeasement.
They don't call it the Clinton News Network for nothing.
Downloadable videio?
May 17, 2008 - 08:57 ET by dronetekIs there anyway to get a download link for this video? I'd like to make a compilation video to show their trickery.
Well Rubin and Amanpour are
May 16, 2008 - 17:17 ET by bigtimerWell Rubin and Amanpour are the be all know all for CNN doncha' know. Just ask them.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
You hit it right on.
May 16, 2008 - 17:35 ET by the curatorI agree entirely, Mr. Balan.
McCain's comments to the SkyNews reporter - given what we hear in the CNN interview - can be viewed as incomplete.
I'd like to dove-tail something here, if I may, though.
McCain never explicitly states (in the SkyNews bit) that he would talk with Hamas. Just that we would need to "deal with them one way or another."
Even before I heard the CNN bit, I was skeptical of the connection from that to "McCain will talk to Hamas."
Long way of getting to my point: We can conclude McCain was infering he would talk with Hamas only if they renounced their violence - even though he never directly said it in the SkyNews bit... Just like we can conclude President Bush was talking about Sen. Obama in his "appeasement" speech without ever mentioning him by name.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
For the record, Bush need
May 16, 2008 - 18:44 ET by BDFor the record, Bush need NOT have been referring to Obama in his speech, he was referring to a failed liberal mindset that has come down through the years.
Then obama himself self-identified with it. What a BONEHEAD.
All Obama had to say was "GWB is right, chatting-up terrorists and those countries who support them is wrong and I will not do it"
Bingo, issue defused. But instead he self identified with the comment, and now is spiraling into the drink with his tail on fire.
Why? Because liberals still cotton to the failed belief that "Talk-talk" is always more effective than "war-war."
All Due Respect...
May 16, 2008 - 18:51 ET by the curatorhe was referring to a failed liberal mindset
You could also call it a successful republican mindset. President Reagan engaged in several talks with Gorbechev. And, the USSR wasn't planning on wiping Israel off the map. They were planning on wiping us off the map. Their nukes were pointed at US.
And, McCain did approve of then-Sec. of State Collin Powell's face to face visit with Syria.
Also, I do have to point out... at every turn, Sen. Obama has explicity stated he will not talk to Hamas.
If otherwise, please provide a link.
(and, can we lose the name-calling, please.)
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
You could also call it a
May 16, 2008 - 19:03 ET by BDYou could also call it a successful republican mindset. President Reagan engaged in several talks with Gorbechev. And, the USSR wasn't planning on wiping Israel off the map. They were planning on wiping us off the map. Their nukes were pointed at US.
And, McCain did approve of then-Sec. of State Collin Powell's face to face visit with Syria.
Also, I do have to point out... at every turn, Sen. Obama has explicity stated he will not talk to Hamas.
and, can we lose the name-calling, please.)
Great Points
May 16, 2008 - 19:08 ET by the curatorYou make reasonable points the whole way through. I don't totally agree with some of them... but, I see where you're coming from and I think they're legit arguments.
On the subject of the name-calling... I just think it drags the level of conversation down, often times to the point where people don't want to participate (no matter to whom they are hurled).
And, they leave a childish tone to your otherwise very intelligent points.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
What words should I have
May 17, 2008 - 14:06 ET by BDWhat words should I have used to describe Obama stepping on the surface laid landmine that was so obvoiusly avoidable?
Foolish - Nope that is not strong enough.
Naive - Nope, that is not it.
Unwise - Nope.
Plebian - Does not fit.
Silly - Too childish.
Amateurish - Nope, gives him too much credit.
Lets Face it, it was a bondeheaded mistake for Obama to have professed taking offense at the Presidents comments to the Knesset as it self identified him with those comments. His self identification, when not mentioned by name nor title, and then fighting against the rather reasonable comments of President BUsh now positions Obama AS a member of the same vein as Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter.
All Obama had to say was "I agree with the Presidents comments which is why I will not do so" or words to that effect. That is, unless his base wishes him to actually sit down and pull a Neville Chamberlain with our enemies. THIS IS a possibility with the "America is an Evil Place and we must unilaterally disarm" crowd int he Democrat party that supports BHO.
THe only people who do not realise this are members of the press who have drank severe amounts of Obama Kool-aid.
Bonehead
May 17, 2008 - 14:14 ET by Blondeis a perfect description.
Extremely "childish" is an apt word to depict the way Obama and the rest of the dems (Pelosi & Biden spring immediately to mind) wailed and railed over the President's statement.
Personally, I took it as being aimed at Jimmuh Carter.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
»→ Me too Blonde
May 17, 2008 - 14:18 ET by Cool ArrowBut danged if there weren't a whole passel of ugly sisters fightin' over a chance to try on that glass slipper.
Lydsexics untie
Ooooh, that is an EXCELLENT
May 17, 2008 - 14:22 ET by BDOoooh, that is an EXCELLENT characterization.
»→ Thanks, BD
May 17, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Cool ArrowSometimes a stray nutrino hits the right nuron and I'm powerless to withstand the sarcasm.
BHO, Oh Wait!!
Yes, well
May 17, 2008 - 14:26 ET by BlondeAs I'm so fond of the phrase...I'll post it again.
"If the shoe fits, Cinderella....."
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
»→ Rogers & Hammerstein
May 17, 2008 - 14:30 ET by Cool ArrowTen minutes ago I saw you.
BHO, Oh Wait!!
hi Blonde
May 17, 2008 - 14:19 ET by botgBal and i agreed on this yesterday
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
I concur that it was aimed
May 17, 2008 - 14:21 ET by BDI concur that it was aimed at the Jimmu C and the Euro's who now support the Pali's openly.
Leads you to wonder. There it is, a big old landmine laid on the surface with nothing covering or obscuring it in any way it in the broad daylight.
And Barry Obama does a running swan dive onto it.
Makes one wonder if he is doing it to keep his base in line? You know, the left of the Democrat party, the "Yep, we are appeasers and damn proud of it" crowd that populates Poli-sci departments int he Ivy League?
Running Swan Dive
May 17, 2008 - 14:28 ET by BlondeAs the German judge, I'll award him a 8.5 for that dive.
Notice Pelosi is too stupid to believe the comment may have been aimed at her (and the rest of the whacked out Pinkos), too. Funny.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Caution - Hack working
May 16, 2008 - 18:18 ET by acumenRubin wasn't making anything up. He was simply restating the way the facts presented themselves to him as any dishonest leftist Dem shilling for their candidate should. The fact that CNN never challenges these Dem hacks or presents an opposing view is without excuse.
Side bar -- Former unthreatening media darling maverick McCain wake-up call. Not to worry John, this is just temporary....It's only going to get worse until November. Shame you couldn't work out another of those compromises with the left of which you are so proud. And I wouldn't be relying on the conservatives in your party to bail you out. They're still smarting from McCain-Feingold.....Nah, it will just be you against the whole demedia attack-machine sixty days before the election. Good luck with that.
Obama will give terrorists FreeDumb awards.
May 16, 2008 - 18:25 ET by Biff McCainPut the Dims in charge and they'll be talking to terrorists: Lil' Kim
Jung il and Mummar "Flight 103" Gaddafi. They'll probably give them the
FreeDumb award.
delete
May 16, 2008 - 20:42 ET by motherbeltdelete
cnn
May 16, 2008 - 20:48 ET by jaywlThis is a headline from WashPost today: "
Saudis to Increase Oil Output by Roughly 300,000 Barrels a Day"
This is on CNN today: "
Saudis rebuff Bush's request to pump more oil"
By the third paragraph CNN gives the lie to its headline. They try to discredit and embarass the President by saying the Saudis told him no increase because he asked for it, BUT they will because of increased demand. Gee, for once the WaPo is more truthful than CNN.
Its an updated story
May 16, 2008 - 20:58 ET by the curatorI was watching all the cables this morning waiting for the Obama speech... and EVERYONE was reporting the Saudis had told President Bush, 'no'. In fact, I believe both MSNBC and FOX did Breaking News bits about it.
And as of right now (8:50 est) NONE of the cable news websites have the story. Only the Post.
So, I believe you're refering to an UPDATED Post story (which looks to be exclusive at this point)... and a CNN story from earlier today (at which time the story was accurate).
That's not really a fair critcism.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Time
May 16, 2008 - 21:55 ET by jaywlI don't know when the stories were written, but the time that both were posted or updated (for CNN) was the same, appx 5:00PM. The criticism is valid, as I said in CNN's third paragraph they wrote production would increase. So that means the Post's story was not exclusive. It is another example of a misleading headline from a biased news organization.
You're right...
May 16, 2008 - 22:39 ET by the curatorMissed that bit about the third paragraph saying production would increase. You're right on this one.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
As usual
May 17, 2008 - 00:15 ET by ProudAmerican33Trying to make the news instead of reporting it.