A reader writes:
How can you claim that McCain, in stating a truthful quote made by a member of Hamas regarding how he would prefer Obama to win the election, is somehow the same as associating Obama with Wright?
The successful prosecution of Islamic extremists around the world is, for many people in this country, a very important issue.
And, for many McCain supporters such as myself, it is the most significant reason why we back McCain over either alternative – particularly Obama. When those very people whom we believe to be our enemies speaks in a positive way about Obama, how is this not relevant? Is it not reasonable to infer that they believe that Obama, as president, will do more to advance their interests than John McCain or Hillary Clinton would? And if they think that, then maybe, just maybe, we ought to take that as a sign of the type of signals Obama is currently sending to the heart the extreme Islam, and ask ourselves whether or not this is the message America ought to convey.
If you think that this is how the next president OUGHT to handle our confrontation with Islamic extremists and terrorists in general, mainly that appeasement and discourse is the most likely path to lead to global reconciliation or at least a peaceful resolution of the conflicts that currently exist, then make that argument and stand by it. Or maybe you believe that members of Hamas are not truly our enemy at all. Either way, don’t beat around the bush if this is the case.
Frankly, I don’t think that you believe either of those things. You just don’t like the idea of people associating Obama with terrorists in any way whatsoever, and it makes your blood boil – this much is obvious. The "Obama-is-a-muslim" meme has you freaked out, and so when you hear this you immediately associate the two. But try, if you can, to take the claim as it was said, rather than imputing your own fears upon the statement. If it had been some other enemy of the United States and not an Islamic extremist from Hamas, would you believe the attack to have been so "bad?" And why?
My response is simply that honorable campaigns do not allow foreign agents, especially terrorist organizations, to insert themselves into American presidential politics. No respectable foreign governments do such a thing; and the gambits of al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other grouping to play one candidate against another should in general be ignored, not exploited.
It is, of course, a perfectly legitimate campaign issue to fight over what US policy should be toward Hamas. Are there circumstances in which we should negotiate with them? How coherent is American foreign policy when it rests on a belief that democracy should spread in the Arab world, but refuses to recognize one of the very few governments that does have some democratic legitimacy? Are we right to see Hamas as an extension of Iranian power? Etc. But you can make these arguments and talk about these issues without resorting to canards such as "the terrorists want my opponent to win." It’s a lame and cheap shot. And beneath McCain.
The Dish 