Skip to comments.Israeli reporter challenges McCain to polygraph after spat over interview[Return To 1967 Borders]
Posted on 02/08/2008 10:03:51 AM PST by BGHater
Senator John McCain and his Mideast policy inclinations are being challenged over an interview that he granted two years ago to Amir Oren, a journalist from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, on May 1, 2006, in which McCain declared that his administration "would send "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East: "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker."
McCain reportedly added: "I would expect concessions and sacrifices by both sides."
When Oren asked McCain if that meant a "movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications," the reporter wrote, "McCain nodded in the affirmative."
To deflect criticism that he has encountered on the 2008 campaign trail, the McCain campaign has been quoting an article by John B. Judis, senior editor at The New Republic, who wrote in an article in that publication on October 25, 2006 that McCain was "miffed at his portrayal in Haaretz," saying that "after reading the Haaretz article and subsequent report in The Jewish Press [in New York]," he felt the need to "clear up several serious misimpressions." McCain said that "in contrast to the impression left by the Haaretz article, I've never held the position that Israel should return to 1967 lines, and that is not my position today."
The senator repeated this week what he said to the New Republic which was that "in the course of that brief, off-the-cuff conversation, I never discussed settlement blocs, a total withdrawal, or anything of the sort."
Reached at his desk in Tel Aviv, Oren said that McCain is "not telling the truth", and that he would gladly invite him to a polygraph to see who is telling the truth. He said the Republican frontrunner indeed recommended Baker and Scowcroft as potential candidates to deal with the Middle East, and that he clearly answered in the affirmative when it came to McCain's expectations of Israel, and how it should relate to further withdrawals.
Oren said that McCain stated clearly that Israel's policy should be one of "defending itself and withdrawing, defending itself and withdrawing." Far from an off the cuff conversation, Mr. Oren told the Bulletin that this was a formal interview that McCain provided him at the the Brussels Forum for American-European Relations, following an interview that McCain provided to the Washington Post. Oren mentioned to the Bulletin that the interview was conducted in the presence of McCain's aide, Richard Fontaine.
Oren was clearly upset to hear McCain was challenging the veracity of the interview from two years ago. In Oren's words, McCain should "show the same courage on the campaign trail that he showed in Vietnam."
David Bedein is a reporter for the the Philadelphia Bulletin (http://www.thebulletin.us), in which this article first appeared.
McCain and Bush embrace: united in their Mideast policy inclinations?
Gee Baker again. Yeah that wholly owned stoodge of the House of Saud is really the guy to send to Israel. After all, his Iraq plan was such a great idea. /s
Guess we can “anti-Semite” to McCain’s resume, too....
In 1948 the Pali’s were offered a “2 state solution” but rejected it in favor of opposing the existance of Israel.
In 1992 the Pali’s were offered 95% of there objectives but rejected it in favor of opposing the existance of Israel.
The ONLY acceptable solution to the Pali’s is the elimination of Israel.
The goal, shared by Pres. Bush, is to reduce Israel to the enclaves of 1947, not the pre-’67 contiguous boundaries.
I don’t think McCain supporters know just how much dirt the press has on him. If they only knew.
We'll all find out very shortly.
This could be simply resolved by looking at Oren's interview.
Senator John McCain wants to push Israel to withdraw close to Green Line After Bush, the Green Line
By Amir Oren Haaretz 1 May 2006
BRUSSELS - Even if it is too soon to anoint him as U.S. President George Bush's successor, Senator John McCain marks a swing in policy from the Republican right to the middle of the map, close to the leading candidates in the Democratic Party. McCain is nearly ready to decide whether to run again in 2008 for the Republican nomination, which he lost in 2000 to George W. Bush. However, as long as he is not a declared candidate, his comments to Haaretz on Saturday, during a weekend break from American politics here in Brussels, reflect the personal opinion of a senior and influential figure in the area of defense policy in the United States Senate, rather than an attempt to formulate policy guidelines for his administration.
The marks of having been wounded and held captivity as a naval combat aviator in Vietnam are clearly evident in his face and his bearing. His military background prepared him for his current profession less than did other experiences, and of his various military duties, he cherishes most of all his year at the National War College, after his release from captivity and prior to his retirement from the military with the rank of navy captain. Yes, captivity also taught him a lot, but then it was clear what his capabilities were and who the enemy was, which is not the case in politics.
McCain does not volunteer his opinions regarding Israel and the Arabs. In a speech of about 3,500 words that he delivered at the Brussels Forum for American-European Relations, Israel was mentioned only as being threatened by Iran. Although he mentioned that the range of Iran's missiles also extends to European capitals, the main and deciding argument for thwarting the Iranian nuclear program - via a military operation, if softer means prove to no avail - is Iran's explicit threat to annihilate Israel. The Pentagon does have plans in its drawer "for every place on the globe," and in the Iranian context, he believes that these plans can be implemented - but only after an assessment is made regarding the second phase of the operation, the counterattack that the Iranians are no doubt planning.
He is as hostile toward the Hamas government as he is toward its patrons in Iran. Financial aid must be kept from Hamas, he says, and action must be taken to isolate it in the international arena. Hamas aspires to topple the government of Jordan by calling for free elections there and to help Hezbollah gain control of Lebanon. What should be done? Moderate Palestinian elements should be encouraged - Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is "a good man, but not the strongest" - but there is no point in an effort to topple the Hamas government, because the organization would likely win again in new elections, for the second time in a row, and this would strengthen it. He expects Israel to do, more or less, what it is doing: "Defend itself and keep evacuating."
As president, McCain would "micromanage" U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because in his opinion, this is still the source of the ferment in the region: Every time an Arab leader wants to provide a distraction, he argues that the problem is due to Israel, and also in the matter of Iran, "we would not have been so concerned" over its nuclear program had it not threatened Israel with extinction. He is fed up with the evasiveness of the Arab states - and most of all with Egypt, which has not given adequate return for the extensive American aid it has received - with regard to helping to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.
A McCain administration, alongside his close supervision from the White House, would send "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East. And who is that? "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker, though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker." This is a longing for the administration of the first president Bush, or even for the administration of president Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s. In both of them, general Scowcroft was the national security adviser. McCain will act to bring peace, "but having studied what Clinton did at Camp David, perhaps not in one try, but rather step by step, and I would expect concessions and sacrifices by both sides." In general, a movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications? McCain nods in the affirmative.
Whoever the next American president is, the overall impression from a conversation with a leading candidate like McCain is that the government of Israel is deluding itself if it believes that "convergence" into "settlement blocs," as opposed to a nearly total withdrawal from the Green Line, will satisfy the next administration. In 2009, it will be a different show: Neither Bush nor settlement blocs.
If McCain didn't question the quotes at the time, then he needs to explain that either he was talking off the top of his head, or has changed his mind. Essentially he's taking the Clinton position, marginally more pro-Israel than the current administrations.
The one who denies that kind of a challenge is the one who’s lying.
Excellent. John McCain will send James “F the Jews” Baker to solve the problems in the Middle East. Should make the State Department hacks happy, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.