Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
McMedia whores like David Gregory and Tweety Matthews were all twitter-pattered earlier this week on news that John McCain would name his Vee-Pee this week (based upon a rumor reported by the Dark Prince, Robert Novak) in a desperate attempt to step on the media coverage of Barack Obama’s excellent adventure overseas. But Novak later told Fox News that "I since have been told by certain people that this was a dodge, trying to get a little publicity to rain on Obama’s campaign," he said. "That’s pretty reprehensible if it’s true. But we’ll find out in a few days."
Rather than concern himself with oneupmanship with the Obama campaign this week, McCain would have been better served to have scheduled a vacation this week and simply disappeared for awhile.
Instead, he has seen his campaign overtaken by events beyond his control and his own incoherent attempts to spin these events in his favor. The McCain campaign is in disaster mode.
The Bush administration’s recent policy reversals from hard line Neoconservative positions to more centrist positions favored by Democrats has undermined the very foundation of McCain’s campaign. Bush foreign policy moves shock rivals – The Boston Globe (With his moves last week involving Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, President Bush accelerated a shift toward centrist foreign policies, a change that has cheered Democrats, angered some Republicans, and roiled the presidential campaign.)
McCain has been transformed into a Johnny-one-note candidate: he is betting his entire presidential campaign on the "success" of The Surge® (which officially ended last week in case anyone missed it Troop surge is over but 150,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle). McCain, however, is a Neoconservative who defines "success" in Iraq as staying in Iraq – "for 100 years" if necessary under long-term basing agreements similar to what the U.S. has with Germany, Japan and South Korea.
Last Friday, President Bush agreed to an "aspirational time horizon" for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq (the linguistic gymnastics to avoid "timelines" for withdrawal is an impossibility under the laws of physics – the horizon is always ahead of you and is never reached, which is probably what Bush intended. Remember, "success" in Iraq is defined as staying in Iraq). Despite this linguistic gymnastics, this marked a significant shift in Iraq policy for the Bush administration. Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline – NYTimes.com
Bush was forced to make concessions to Iraqi demands in negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) currently under negotiation. The Iraqis do not want any permanent U.S. bases, and they want a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces. Remember, "success" in Iraq is defined as staying in Iraq. George Bush just threw McCain under his bus for political expediency. This move dramatically alters the debate over the war in Iraq.
Previously, anyone who even suggested a "timeline" for troop withdrawals had their patriotism and loyalty questioned by McCain for "embracing the policy of surrender" and "waving a white flag to al Qaeda." John McCain 2008 – John McCain for President This dangerous demagogue was so indiscriminate in his attacks that he included his Republican rivals in the GOP primary, particularly Mitt Romney.
Barack Obama arrived at the first stop of his overseas tour in Afghanistan on Saturday. McCain had beforehand moved to Obama’s position on Afghanistan, being forced to acknowledge that the Taliban and al Qaeda were resurgent and on the offensive, and that U.S. commanders had requested more troops needed to confront the central front in the war on terror in Afghanistan (but did not have any additional troops because they are all committed to Iraq).
Obama has long proposed removing an additional two combat brigades from Iraq to send them to Afghanistan. So McCain upped the ante and said that he would send three combat brigades. This from a man who has previously refused to recognize that Afghanistan has been what I have heard military personnel refer to as "Forgottenstan," and who has always held the opposite position, opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops, and arguing that any additional troops come from NATO. This was a major flip-flop for McCain. Crooks and Liars » McCain reverses course on Afghanistan policy, follows Obama’s lead.
The McCain campaign even tried to flog the dead horse that Barack Obama has not chaired a hearing of his subcommittee about Afghanistan. Obama did attend one hearing of the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 2007. It turns out that it was John McCain who has attended ZERO hearings on Afghanistan over the past two years. Political Radar: Hearing-Gate Exposed! McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama You had better be a saint before accusing your opponent of being a sinner.
It was reported over the weekend that Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview that he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan: report | Reuters It was actually the White House that tipped off reporters to the Der Spiegel interview. White House Tips Press Off to Maliki Interview – The Caucus – Politics – New York Times Blog. President al Maliki was quoted as saying:
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Maliki went on to say "Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."
After this attempt to discredit al Maliki’s comments by the White House, on Monday Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Baghdad’s goal was for foreign combat forces to leave by the end of 2010 if security conditions allowed. Dabbagh did not provide a specific timetable for a U.S. pullout but declared that they were working "on a real timetable which Iraqis set," and the 2010 deadline was "an Iraqi vision. We can’t give any schedules or dates, but the Iraqi government sees the suitable date for withdrawal of the U.S. forces is by the end of 2010," Dabbagh told reporters. Iraq Points to Pullout in 2010 – washingtonpost.com
For the first time in the national security debate, McCain is now on the defensive, since his reluctance to support a “time horizon” now differs not only with the position of his Democratic opponent but also with those of the White House and the Iraqi prime minister. McCain is odd man out on ‘time horizon’ – David Paul Kuhn – Politico.com The cheese stands alone in his Neoconservative desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
“It’s a devastating blow to the McCain campaign — not just that Maliki moved to Obama’s position but that Bush did as well,” said Richard Holbrooke, a former United States ambassador to the United Nations.
McCain previously answered a question about what he would do if “a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there” by saying, “If it was an elected government of Iraq … I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”
Well, Johnny, the Iraqi government has left little doubt that it favors a withdrawal plan for U.S. combat troops similar to what Barack Obama has proposed.
The debate over whether "should we stay or should we go?" is now over. McCain’s Neoconservative definition of "success" in Iraq as staying in Iraq lost the debate. The very foundation of McCain’s campaign has been blown away. His Johnny-one-note campaign no longer has any purpose or reason for being. As one McCain spokesman succinctly observed, "We’re f—ed." On Iraq, Game Over For McCain? – The Washington Independent – U.S. news and politics – washingtonindependent.com
McCain is now forced to articulate his Neoconservative agenda for staying in Iraq, despite what the sovereign Iraqis want. In a previous post I discussed how McCain was an early patron of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, and a sponsor of the 1998 resolution supporting regime change in Iraq. Chalabi and his acolyte "curveball"provided the bogus intelligence that served as the rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. McCain was a proponent for "rogue state roll back" long before George Bush’s "preemption doctrine." McCain was a vocal advocate for war with Iraq since 1998. George Bush may have ordered this country into war with Iraq, but it was John McCain who was standing beside him whispering in his ear "war."
McCain more than anyone else is responsible for Bush’s strategic failure in taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan for an unnecessary war in Iraq that is America’s greatest foreign policy disaster. The Consortiumnews.com (McCain’s Afghan Strategic Blunder, by Robert Parry).
McCain more than anyone else is responsible for this illegal war of aggression against a country that posed no imminent threat to the U.S., nor had any weapons of mass destruction. It was a war built upon a web of lies and deceit fabricated by the Neocoservative advisers with whom McCain has surrounded himself. McCain is responsible for destroying Iraq with the wave of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing unleashed as a direct result of the U.S. invasion and occupation. The invasion and occupation has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly innocent noncombatant civilians. The invasion and occupation has resulted in the partition of Iraqi cities and towns behind blast walls in a country that was once secular and cosmopolitan. McCain is responsible for more than 4 million displaced Iraqi refugees who can no longer return home. McCain is responsible for the deaths of more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers, and the injuries of more than 30,000 U.S. casualties. McCain is responsible for pissing away billions of dollars on an unnecessary war, with billions more yet to come due.
This is the record of McCain’s so-called foreign policy "judgment" on Iraq. He was always wrong from the beginning, blindly driven by ideological extremism. McCain’s hands are forever stained with the blood of innocents and American soldiers as his eternal damnation for his blood lust for war with Iraq. This is his crime against humanity for which McCain and his Neoconservative advisers will be held accountable before the eyes of God, if not the American public this November.
But of course McCain and his McMedia whores will not tell the American people this horrible truth. McCain and his McMedia whores want to compartmentalize McCain’s role in the Iraq war by air-brushing away his years of warmongering for war with Iraq and speak only of The Surge® since 2007.
In his supreme arrogance, or perhaps out of fear, McCain has become desperate. He has resorted to angrily questioning the patriotism and loyalty of Barack Obama by adopting a purely demagogic attack line:
"This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."
As Joe Klein from Time correctly observed: "I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency." McCain Meltdown – Swampland – TIME
McCain has also begun redefining The Surge®. McCain now would have Americans believe that the "success" of The Surge® was exclusively the result of a tactical decision to send additional U.S. troops to Iraq and no other contributing factor. Anyone who dares to challenge this simplistic and historically inaccurate analysis is denounced for "minimizing the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy." In other words, questioning the efficacy or the lasting effects of The Surge® is now characterized as an attack upon our troops, rather than legitimate questions about his policies and judgment. This dangerous demagogue knows no bounds of indecency to which he will stoop when he engenders the fear of being critical of our troops in order to deflect legitimate questions about his policies and judgment.
The truth is the drop in violence in Iraq was a combination of many factors including The Surge®, the results of ethnic cleansing and displacement of refugees, the al Sadr imposed cease-fire on his Mahdi army, the bribes and enticements paid to Sunni tribesmen (aka Anbar Awakening, which predated The Surge®) and other complex interactions in a complex society rather than a simplistic military tactical result that McCain now asserts. In addition, the original purpose of the surge was to stabilize Iraq to prepare for a political reconciliation, which has yet to occur, not a tactical military maneuver to reduce violence and "win the war." As General Petraeus regularly reminds us, the results are "fragile" and can easily be "reversed." The "success" of The Surge® may only be a temporary lull in violence, and illusory.
McCain is making a fool of himself in recent days by attempting to redefine The Surge® through revisionist history. The McCain campaign has now gone totally "fact free" but its McMedia allies continue to report the campaign’s wildest assertions with nary a challenge to factual accuracy, or questioning "what the hell is wrong with John McCain? Why is he making so many misstatements?"
For example, McCain’s revisionist history of the The Surge® in the now infamous "spliced" interview with McMedia darling Katie Couric on Tuesday:
And McCain’s subsequent pathetic attempt to extend the timeline of The Surge® into mid-2006 to avoid having to admit he was in error:
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.