« BFD Learning Moment: Citizen engagement
:: BFD Learning Moment: CIncinnati’s youth IT initiative »
3.27.08
0
A response to Sen. John McCain’s speech on Foreign Policy, delivered on March 26, 2008 in Los Angeles, CA
by Angela Shuckahosee
Yesterday Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the Republican presidential nominee, delivered an awaited speech on foreign policy. Vying for what some are calling Bush’s third term in office, many wondered what the speech would hold in terms of his alignment with the current Bush administration. Senator McCain has said on many occasions that he would maintain a presence in Iraq for as long as 100 years and in the speech given today reiterated that “a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interest and our values.” Sen. McCain went on to describe his strategic military planning and that “we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later.”
Coincidentally, PBS broadcast one of the most comprehensive historical documentaries ever produced, Bush’s War, this past Monday and Tuesday night. Detailing who was at the helm of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 all the way to present day, this documentary gives a frightening, truthful picture of how the conflict in Iraq was born on a piece of paper, how the media was manipulated throughout, and how the hubristic administration orchestrated the chaos that ensued. Another notable, Academy-nominated documentary, “No End in Sight” gives a similar, detailed look at the war in Iraq.
After viewing the two aforementioned documentaries, one is left at the bear minimum, shaking your head in disgust and worst case scenario, feeling violently ill. The documentaries illustrate the apparent reality that a handful of players, including Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and President Bush himself, masterminded the tie-in between Iraq and 9/11 and fabricated intelligence that was the basis of critical decisions along the way. The sole voice of reason, Colin Powell, ended up forced to resign, despite testifying at the U.N. and unknowingly using fabricated intelligence given to him by CIA Director George Tenet. The administration successfully coerced every resource at their disposal, including the Prime Minister Tony Blair, worldwide media outlets, and the American people. Above all, the Bush administration has taken advantage of the trust instilled in the Presidency, trust that most Americans believe in and assume will not be broken, trust that has never been questioned in my lifetime, and trust that will now forever be questioned.
Prior to 9/11, I suspect the majority of Americans were not savvy to such words as Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, or even the idea of terrorism. Terrorism was something that happened somewhere else, in places that were unstable because of their own doing. Although I voted for Al Gore in the 2000 general election, I looked to President Bush for guidance after that terrible day and trusted that he had a stable support system, particularly a military that had capabilities beyond my wildest imagination. I trusted (and still do) our military to be a strong and capable entity despite any of President Bush’s military shortcomings. I supported his decisions knowing that when the news media reported of intelligence and weapons of mass destruction and “differentiating between terrorists and those who harbor them”, it was failsafe. Somewhere, in some part of the world, our American men and women were providing valid information for our President to use to make the important decisions. I never questioned it or wavered my support, especially because Prime Minister Tony Blair supported Bush. Blair’s support gave President Bush an immense amount of credibility for me personally. In Britain, 1997, Tony Blair was the Barack Obama of 2008. Incidentally, it is not surprising to me that if I trusted our own President, and if the Prime Minister of Britain trusted our President, then it makes sense that so many Senators, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, trusted our President. We took his words to heart, but he betrayed each and every one of us.
4000 American deaths later and upwards of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, Sen. McCain insists that he is the best candidate to inherit the nightmare in Iraq, a nightmare that may have started with Saddam Hussein, but that was enhanced infinitely by our American government, by the Bush administration. Considering his speech today, one is left wondering what differentiates him from the current administration. Sen. McCain spoke of what contains some, admittedly, rational conclusions about what the future holds for an American presence in Iraq. But he also spoke of a broader doctrine that includes the idea of a “League of Democracies”. Beyond the sound bites, the speech paints a troubling picture of a continued elitist logic that the United States must save the world from themselves. It is also a precursor to the scare-tactics his campaign will use in the general election, one that will insist Democrats are ill-prepared to take on terrorists and “finish the job” in Iraq. Senator McCain speaks of war through his dedication and experience, but one is left wondering if he wouldn’t make a better National Security Advisor. As for Bush’s third term, there is no doubt that McCain can deliver.
The American people are unwilling to take credit for the misguided trajectory of this conflict, but as an American, I do feel a sense of obligation to repair the damage our government has caused in the best way the Iraqi people desire. When McCain uses words like victory, defeat, and win, it lessens the hope that he is rational and can see this war for what it is-a certifiable disaster. The United States has not won anything. We aren’t going to win anything. There is no victory in this war. No one has won. We have not won, the insurgents have not won, and Iraq has not won. The only thing the American people can hope for in regard to Iraq is a President who sees the utter failure of the Bush administration and can repair the damage to the reputation of the Presidency itself. We need a president who is going to bring credibility back to the White House. It might take years, beyond the scope of even a prospective 16 years with a Clinton or an Obama. I have my candidate, but I am looking beyond superficial rhetorical analysis and what suit someone is wearing on what day, or what name a candidate bears, whether it’s Hussein or “another” Clinton. I am asking what every American should be asking, especially those Americans who support Senator John McCain. Why should I trust you?
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Realize, Angela, that there are two sides to this argument and, for the most part, you and the public are only hearing one side. Read this article, which appeared a few days ago, for an alternative viewpoint. Link.
Here’s a sample:
And this:
John McCain certainly has access to classified information that you don’t, and the media doesn’t. He is as trustworthy a figure as there has been in public life over the last 30 years. Can you say the same about Hillary (”I landed under sniper fire in Bosnia”) Clinton or Barack (”I have academic theories by no experience”) Obama? And you’re willing to trust our security to one of them?
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 27, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Jonathan:
You would do well to dig deeper.
The report’s findings are mixed. Read more.
This example is yet another instance where the opinion of the WSJ should be taken as opinion, not fact.
Rate this comment:
+2 | March 27, 2008 @ 10:15 am
For an objective view of the study mis-read by the editorialists at WSJ: “Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida”
Quoting: “An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network.”
And more: “Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.”
For a discussion of the Pentagon decision to suppress the study because its findings directly contradicted the pre-war statements that Hussein and Al Qaeda were linked: “Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report”
Why would they fail to publicize the report if it confirmed their fantasies?
As for McCain’s trustworthiness: I see no reason to trust him. And plenty of reasons to distrust him.
kj
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 27, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Opinions and interpretations about the intelligence underlying these reports differs. It’s an imperfect world of imperfect information. I watched the Frontline report, too, and one of the most fascinating things about it, for me, was how two people could take exactly the same information and interpret it in opposite ways. I make no judgements about this, or call one of the interpreters “right” and another “wrong” (though there are those of you who appear quite willing to do that).
It’s clear to me that many of the people interpreting intelligence results (on this string, too) view them through preconceived ideological filters. That blinds them to considering alternative viewpoints and causes them to label their opponents as “liars.”
Just witness the recent, contradictory conclusions about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The CIA had the gumption to go public with its conclusion that the program had been shut down, but in fine print it was only one portion of the program–the easiest one to restart–about which they had received information of a shutdown. The harder parts of the program, such as nuclear enrichment, are proceeding full steam ahead, in violation of UN resolutions and economic sanctions.
One could conclude from the available data either that: Iran is not intending to build nuclear weapons; or that Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons. Which contingency would our government–and the governments of our European allies who are much more geographically at risk–be best advised to plan for?
kj, I’m clear that you “see no reason to trust” McCain. It is your sight, not McCain, that I question.
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 27, 2008 @ 10:51 am
By the way, McCain has it right. He said that the argument over whether Al Qaeda was in Iraq five years ago, or not, is irrelevant. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, and it would be unconscionable to abandon Iraqis to their murderous rage.
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 27, 2008 @ 10:56 am
It’s an imperfect world of imperfect information.
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 27, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Why should you trust him?
Because when he said he was shot at by snipers, he really was.
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 27, 2008 @ 11:38 am
kj, sorry, but you’re just wrong when you write that “none of it supports the conclusions drawn by the WSJ editorial you cite.” That’s the type of absolutist judgement against which I am arguing.
Here’s a quote from the McClatchy analysis that Ed linked to:
Please note that the report relies only on that documentary evidence that was available, which is not the entire set of evidence that could have been available.
It’s ridiculous to call WSJ editorialists “liars” because you disagree with their conclusions. You’re speaking as if all of this was black-and-white, and it’s not. That’s what makes it so hard. It’s not me, at all, who is taking corrosive actions and linking to inflammatory material. It’s rigid, doctrinaire ideologues like you (and those opposite you) who are the real problem.
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 27, 2008 @ 11:55 am
And, by the way, McClain still has it right by claiming that arguments over yesterday are irrelevant. Al Qaeda is in Iraq today.
Rate this comment:
--1 | March 27, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Above are two quotations from your posts. The first is you quoting–approvingly–the WSJ. The second is you quoting–apparently, also approvingly–the link that I (not Ed) provided to the McClatchy analysis.
You figure it out.
kj
(hopefully i get my html code right this time)
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 27, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
kj, yep, as I wrote, in my own words, “It’s an imperfect world of imperfect information” and “two people could take exactly the same information and interpret it in opposite ways.” Welcome to the world of interpreting intelligence. It’s not absolute, it’s not black-and-white, and seldom is it possible to definitively say it’s “right” or “wrong.” We live in a nuanced world.
Do you think Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, or not?
Rate this comment:
--1 | March 27, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
My analysis, admittedly imperfect, says this is a slugfest between Sunni(Saudi-financed) and Shiite(Iran-financed) militias, with a host of supporting characters, alQaeda, Kurds, Turks, etc. Not unlike the lid coming off post-Tito, although clearly Saddam was no Tito. Militias on all sides have shown willingness to turn on alQaeda, for money and protection of Coalition forces.
Iraq is not, and won’t be, any great success for alQaeda in the margins, other than fodder for recruiting films. Stopping the massive inflow of munitions should be the focus for regaining some semblance of a nation and ending the slaughter of soldiers and civilians alike, and should be conducted by a true stakeholder effort on the border regions, easier said than done. Follow the money.
Rate this comment:
+2 | March 27, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
J Murray,
Regarding Iran, since you asked, I’d say based on what I know, not yet. They don’t seem to be refining nuclear material fast enough in sufficient quantities to reach a fissionable quantity in the near term.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Unlike Israel and North Korea, for example. The NPT allows signatories to pursue civilian nuclear activities.
How do we know whether Iran is truly conducting research for civilian power or medical reasons vs. bomb-making reasons?
Seems to me that the UN already has a system in place, inspections. I believe that system can work.
In my opinion Iran generally has behaved well within its rights. Send the inspectors back in and make sure they continue to behave. Seems like an easy resolution.
(President Ahmidijad’s incendiary remarks aside. He is mostly a figurehead without any real power. The Revolutionary Council controls the military and generally wields power in the country, so Ahmidijad is just a blowhard.)
But even if they do acquire nuclear weapons, what would that change?
In the modern era Iran has never invaded another country. They lack a missile to send a nuclear warhead into US airspace. So they hardly seem to be much of a threat. Better to engage them, open up a dialogue and trade negotiations and start doing business with them. The Russians and Chinese are certainly eager to do so.
And having a nuclear weapon (or at least the threat of one) has prevented North Korea (by all accounts a bad actor all around) from being attacked. So having a nuke or a credible threat of having a nuke seems to be a necessary and smart defensive move, wouldn’t you say?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 27, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
It’s possible to say one side is wrong when you discover time after time that they’ve been making stuff up.
Just last week John McCain got busted for inventing a link between Iran and the group known as “al Qaeda in Iraq” (which by the way is not the same as the al Qaeda of 9/11/2001 infamy). Joe Lieberman corrected McCain in public, and McCain confessed to a slip, but the fact is that he’s been telling this tale for weeks and it is simply untrue.
So no, you don’t get to say “hey, it’s complicated, things aren’t black and white, it’s hard to know the truth” when your own side is making things up.
It’s true that there are two sides to this argument. There’s the reality-based side that was right to be skeptical of the shoddy claims of “weapons of mass destruction” and did not assume the occupation would go smoothly. Then there’s the side whose spiritual leader has
personally profited in the amount of $7MM from the war and occupation so far.
Rate this comment:
--1 | March 27, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Foraker, but the question wasn’t whether Iran was being successful in creating enough nuclear material for a bomb, but whether they intended to make one. You answer is a non-answer to that question.
However, your response does highlight exactly the dynamic I am talking about when I say that interpreting intelligence is difficult. You give a very factual answer–”They don’t seem to be refining nuclear material fast enough in sufficient quantities to reach a fissionable quantity in the near term”–while avoiding answering the real question, which is how to interpret their actions and divine their intentions. That’s the difference between raw data and interpreted intelligence.
Do you believe they intend to make a nuclear weapon?
Regarding the UN inspections regime, you’re either naive or ill-informed. Iran has denied the inspectors access to information they have requested and facilities they want to visit, and has refused to follow UN resolutions. Your analysis of President Ahmadinejad is a bit glib, too, for someone sitting over here reading newspapers. Neither you nor I really knows what the political dynamic is inside Iran, and I doubt that our intelligence services do either.
Iran may not have invaded another country as a nation, but they have trained and subsidized terrorist groups like Hizbullah, which murdered American soldiers and initiated last summer’s war with Israel by kidnapping an Israeli soldier, and then sent missiles into populated civilian areas of Israel. Iran has been clearly identified as the perpetrator of the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, among other crimes. It has trained Hamas terrorists, who continue to lob missiles into populated civilian areas of Israel. And you’re willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt?
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 27, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Jonathan:
McCain has it right insofar as he focuses on the future not the past. Extricating ourselves from Iraq will be complex and costly, no matter who is president.
It seems to me, the choice will come down to two candidates who differ in the balance that they strike between military and diplomatic initiatives. Our diplomatic posture in the Middle East has virtually collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. But how? Republicans and Democrats are likely to have different answers to this question.
A core, albeit unspoken issue, comes in US policy toward Israel. Former President Carter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have put forth convincing arguments that US policy toward Israel should be more balanced.
Another core issue will be the extent to which the US engages with terrorist groups. A couple of weeks ago, a key aide to former Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested that we will have to talk to terrorist groups. This, he suggests is the lesson of Northern Ireland.
McCain is mistaken, however, to imply that we need to move on from the past without further examination. The Frontline report, bolstered by a range of other reputable sources, underscore that our system basically broke down.
Understanding how this breakdown occurred will take years to sort out, but understanding the underlying dynamics is all part of engaging in the democratic experiment. The fact is that we are engaged in a war that will end up costing somewhere between $1 trillion and $3 trillion, according to Joseph Stiglitz. Read an excerpt.
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 9:00 am
I thought I did answer your qeustion. Let me be clearer.
Do you believe [Iran] intend to make a nuclear weapon?
I don’t know. Insufficient data.
I am willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, but I believe that they should be watched closely. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Sanctions and “axis of evil” don’t further that goal.
My recollection is that Iran allowed the inspectors until after sanctions were imposed. What they refused to do was to stop enriching uranium since they have a right to do so under the terms of the NPT. How do you prove that you’re not seeking nuclear weapons while still developing a civilian nuclear industry?
As I understand it, there is a huge difference between the enrichment required for nuclear weapons and that required for civilian reactors. And each incremental increase in the enrichment process is much more difficult. It isn’t just a matter of running the centrifuges for another hour. So if we have inspectors in place we should be able to keep track of the progress fairly easily.
India and Pakistan both have nuclear bombs, and neither has signed the NPT. Iran has — could they be trying to play by the rules? What proof do we have that they’re not?
Meanwhile we’ve offered to sell civilian reactor technology to India — we’re rewarding India for nuclear proliferation and not signing the NPT? If you’re Iran, what message does this send?
Hizbulla and Hamas aren’t much different from the Irish Republican Army. They have “civilian” wings that build schools and hospitals and thus have the support of the population. Yes, they also have terrorist wings that have done bad things. So did the IRA.
What were our troops doing in the middle of Lebanon’s civil war in the first place? One of the combatants in that war apparently objected to our presence — I don’t see how that could have been unexpected. You enter a combat zone and you’re probably going to get shot at. And those were US Marines not the Red Cross. I hardly lay the blame for that on Iran.
Yes, Iran has sponsored terrorist actions. So has the US. Correllation, causation, lack of data to definitively say that Iran intends to build a bomb.
What is your answer to the question? And how do you propose we should deal with Iran? Senator McCain thinks we should bomb them if they don’t stop refining. Do you agree?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Hey guys,
I’ve enjoyed reading your dialogue. I think the bigger picture I was trying to put forth is the question of how can we really trust a McCain administration when it is clear the Bush administration fabricated evidence of nuclear activity. McCain is slowly realligning himself with Bush, something he needs to do to win the right. It appears the backbone he had three years ago is vanishing before our eyes. Shall I even mention the whole Jerry Fallwell/John Hagee flip/flop? Did I say flip/flop? And I can’t believe that isn’t mentioned in the same sentence every time the media brings up Rev. Wright. I did not vote for Obama, by the way.
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 28, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Foraker, okay, but you’re dodging the question again when you say “I don’t know. Insufficient data.” Our intelligence agencies and our leaders don’t have the luxury of doing that.Inaction is a choice. They have to decide, based on whatever information is available, whether they think Iran is building a nuclear weapon or not, and take appropriate action based on that conclusion. Given the incompleteness and uncertainty of the available data, it is natural that different leaders would draw different conclusions and recommend different actions accordingly.
I believe, based on the same evidence to which you have access, that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon. They were offered the opportunity to receive all the enriched uranium they needed from Russia to run civilian nuclear plants, and turned it down flat. If powering nuclear reactors was their only intention, guaranteed supply should have been satisfactory. This debate will be settled, I believe, when Iran announces that it has a bomb, or conducts a test, as North Korea did last year.
Regarding India and Pakistan, neither of those countries has attacked American interests or citizens, threatened to, or sponsored terrorist groups that do so. Iran has. Neither India nor Pakistan has threatened to obliterate Israel from the map, as Iran has. This makes the evaluation of Iran’s intent fundamentally different from the analysis of India and Pakistan, which have developed nuclear weapons targeted against each other because they have fought three wars in the last 60 years.
The IRA was ultimately defeated because the British had embedded so many agents within its leadership that the organization became crippled–not because the IRA was engaged diplomatically. The IRA accepted peace from a position of weakness. There have been a number of revelations about this recently. The lessons to learn from that are to weaken Hizbollah and Hamas, because that’s the best way to bring them to the negotiating table.
Rate this comment:
--1 | March 28, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Ed, for future reference, it will be hard for me to listen to any argument you make that uses as its justification anything that Jimmy Carter says or does. He was the worst President of my lifetime, and likely to go down in history as one of the worst of all time. His dithering around the Iran hostage crisis emboldened Islamic extremists for generations to come and contributed to many of the problems we face today and are discussing here. He is not credible on this, or any other subject. He would best serve the public interest by keeping his mouth shut and building more homes as part of Habitat for Humanity.
I don’t know what you, or anyone else mean when you say that U.S. policy towards Israel should be more “balanced.” That’s a talking point from the P.R. strategy of terrorist groups and their supporters.
Does it mean that we should urge Israel to accept a certain level of rocket attacks at populated civilian areas without responding? That seems to be what some people mean when they use the term “balanced.”
Does it mean that Israel should desist from warring against the leaders of Hamas, whose charter is to destroy Israel? That seems to be what some people mean when they use the term “balanced.”
Does it mean that Israel should offer support for the creation of a Palestinian state–oh, I forgot, they already did that in the Camp David accords, which were then rejected by Arafat.
So what does “balanced” mean, exactly?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 11:03 am
And Ed, here you go. A news flash just in from the Jerusalem Post:
Balance with these nuts?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 11:06 am
J Murray,
I ask you to try to imagine yourself in Iran’s shoes.
With regard to Iran, you said “They were offered the opportunity to receive all the enriched uranium they needed from Russia to run civilian nuclear plants, and turned it down flat. If powering nuclear reactors was their only intention, guaranteed supply should have been satisfactory.”
I disagree. After all, Saudi Arabia has all but guaranteed that the US can have all the oil that we need. Guaranteed supply alone without a reasonable price point is not much of a guarantee.
Iran has plenty of reserves of uranium. Why should they have to pay Russia for it? And at what price?
Iran has declared that they have no intention of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that such a weapon violates the tenets of Islam. Why believe Ahmadinejad’s statements about wiping Israel off the map but not his statements about nuclear weapons?
I’m not saying that Ahmadinejad should be trusted. But I believe that finding a way to support and monitor their ability to manage their own civilian nuclear power industry would be more beneficial and less expensive (and perhaps even profitable for the US) than dropping bombs.
I disagree with McCain’s stated intent to bomb Iran unless they stop all enrichment activities. Bombing Iran seems unlikely to make them obedient.
Please answer your own question. Do you support Senator McCain’s intent to bomb Iran if it does not cease all nuclear enrichment? How do you suppose Iran will react?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Foraker, I understand Iran’s position. They say their reason for enriching uranium is because they want to control their own destiny. I don’t believe them, of course, but there’s another, economic argument to make, too.
Trade with other countries and embedded relationships with mutual interest, forestalls war–not isolation and independence and not diplomacy either. Price is a function of complex market forces, not bilateral relationships–especially if you believe the free enterprise system and wish to extend it throughout the world, as the U.S. does and has throughout its history.
I’m not in favor, at this time, of bombing Iran if they continue enriching uranium. If they test a nuclear weapon? I’m not so sure then. But that’s probably a moot point, anyway, because Israel will beat us to the punch and they likely have better intelligence than we do about what Iran really intends.
Rate this comment:
--3 | March 28, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Angela, just saw your post. Here are some thoughts. You wrote:
It’s wrong of you to attribute Bush administration actions to McCain. McCain is in the Senate, ran against Bush in 2000, and has been vocal in his opposition to multiple Bush administration policies. He has 30+ years of foreign policy experience. Over the course of that time, he has exhibited consistent principles, and been forthright in stating his opinions, even when they are unpopular with his own party. It’s his maverick image that has gotten him the nomination in this year of mavericks (Hillary excepted).
You wrote:
This is not a serious analysis of beliefs or policy positions, but an election-year political calculus driven by media fascination with the mechanics of elections. It’s like explaining the rules of chess, when what is really wanted is to examine how someone actually plays chess.
The religious thing, well I agree with you that all examples of intolerant religiosity are distasteful, including Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, and Rev. Wright’s utterings. The thing that distinguishes Rev. Wright from the others, however, is the virulent anti-Americanism of his speeches. Neither Rev. Hagee or Rev. Falwell has ever been so negatively anti-American.
Rate this comment:
--2 | March 28, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Plenty of nuts on both sides of the never-ending Arab-Israeli standoff.
Rate this comment:
+1 | March 28, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
“Neither Rev. Hagee or Rev. Falwell has ever been so negatively anti-American.”
I disagree with that opinion.
Jerry Falwell said about September 11:
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
Quite un-American to me. To me being an American means tolerance for others, and Mr. Falwell is hardly a paradigm of tolerance.
Moreover:
In the 2000 Presidential election primaries, Senator John McCain accused Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson of being “agents of intolerance”, and McCain called George W. Bush anti-Catholic for courting the political support of evangelist Bob Jones and for visiting Bob Jones University - which up until Bush’s visit had prohibited interracial dating. Bob Jones called the pope the “anti-Christ” and the Catholic Church a satanic cult.
Senator McCain said that if he were invited to Bob Jones University he would have told Jones to “get out of the Sixteenth Century and into the 21st Century. What you’re doing is racist and cruel.” Now, in the 2008 presidential election, John McCain has aggressively courted, and enthusiastically accepted, the political support of John Hagee, who calls the Catholic Church “the great whore” and a “false cult system” and McCain’s accusation, in the 2000 election, has come back to haunt him ; by his own measure, John McCain has chosen the Sixteenth Century.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EdvKRJAspI
Another difference is that Senator Obama never stood on a stage with Rev. Wright, actively sought nor accepted his endorsement. In fact, he came forward and said that he denounced the statements made by Rev. Wright.
Whether you like Senator Obama or not, Senator McCain embraces men who are clearly more un-American.
Rate this comment:
+2 | March 28, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Foraker, you’re attempting to equate statements that, in your opinion, are un-American based on your opinion about American values, with actual utterances that are undeniably un-American. Here is some of what Rev. Wright said:
An Barack Obama sat through this type of stuff for 20 years, not to mention (the conveniently forgotten) similar utterances from his wife (notice she’s not appearing anywhere anymore?).
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
J Murray,
While I am truly grateful for your interesting choice of words, “This is not a serious analysis of beliefs or policy positions, but an election-year political calculus driven by media fascination with the mechanics of elections” I beg to differ. Actually, what you just said is right on in the respect that I could say that same phrase in regard to what McCain is doing with his rhetoric and stances right now. He’s compromising himself for a few votes and thereby losing credibility in the process. The more he is seen arm and arm with the Prez, the easier it’s going to be for the Dems to win in Nov. We may not seem united now, but keep putting those images up and have McCain bring Hagee and Co back into his life….we’ll be united. I have a tremendous amount of respect for McCain and I hate to see him doing this.
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Angela, but see, you’re absorbed in the political calculus of the moment–the trees–and ignoring the career of a distinguished American–the forest. There’s getting elected, and then there’s governing. A politician can’t do the latter without being successful at the former.
With McCain, at least we know that he will have a governing philosophy developed over a long time, that has been relatively consistent, and that has earned respect from people across the political spectrum. Can you say that about Hillary or Obama?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 28, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
John McCain, member of the Keating 5, is “as trustworthy a figure as there has been in public life over the last 30 years?” So, of literally thousands of figures in public life in the last 30 years, the most trustworthy of all is also a prime enabler of the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 80s/early 90s? That’s an interesting perspective.
Rate this comment:
--2 | April 2, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Taken as a whole, yes, John McCain’s career represents a high level of trustworthiness for an elected official. He has acknowledged that he made mistakes in the Keating 5 debacle, was never alleged to have done anything approaching criminal, and apologized.
This is much, much more than Hillary has done, denying and covering up her role in Whitewater, Travelgate, her remarkable one-time success at the roulette of options trading, etc., etc., etc.
Barack Obama has a shorter track record but, surprise, surprise, any politician who emerges from Chicago has had to wade into the pig’s trough that is Chicago politics, and the extent of his shady connections is just beginning to come out. He has continued to backpedal, expand his admissions, and obfuscate. There is likely more to come.
Rate this comment:
+2 | April 2, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
I’m trying to figure out what Ian Hoffman wrote that was worthy of a thumbs-down rating.
Rate this comment:
--2 | April 2, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
The words “prime enabler.” As I understand it, McCain was doing what any elected official does, which is being responsive to a constituent and campaign contributor who wanted access in Washington. It was only after the fact that the extent of the savings and loan problem was clear, or that Keating’s role in it was revealed. I don’t think McCain took any legislative actions on behalf of Keating or S&Ls or pressured regulators to do anything untoward. He admitted to being incompletely informed and apologized. End of story.
Rate this comment:
+0 | April 3, 2008 @ 9:04 am