Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

John McCain's Shameless Call for Escalation in Iraq

By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast. Posted December 15, 2006.


"Straight talking" John McCain's call for thousands more troops in Iraq is just a pathetic ploy to seem like a patriot for the presidential elections.
121506story
John McCain's Iraq Mutiny

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Allan Uthman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." -- Senator John McCain

Funny -- it's the same way with elections.

So John McCain has joined Bush in throwing a shit fit over the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. What's bothering him? Well, it's certainly not the fact that no one who participated in the ISG had the foresight to oppose the war in the first place. McCain yelled at Baker and Hamilton last week because they didn't like his proposal to increase troop strength in Iraq by a number somewhere between 20 and 40 thousand. But the real bone in McCain's increasingly freakish craw? If the ISG recommendations are followed -- an unlikely event considering Bush's classic "whatever" dismissal -- US combat troops will be out of Iraq before McCain has a chance to get his election on.

While McCain's insistence on "re-invading" Iraq and holding out for a miracle has been assailed as unrealistic except by diehard hawks and Bush loyalists, it has also been absurdly misinterpreted as the brave, bold stance of a man who puts the welfare of his nation above his own presidential aspirations. The common take is that McCain is "jeopardizing" his electability by continuing to support an unpopular war. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said McCain is "swimming against the tide." CNN's Wolf Blitzer gushed that it was "a Profiles in Courage kind of statement." Even the UK press got in on the act, with the Times of London's Bronwen Maddox arguing the report "damages" McCain, making him look "like the nation's maverick, not the next president." Anatol Lieven wrote on the Guardian's website that McCain "seems to have committed himself to a course which could very well cost him the presidency in 2008."

These opinioneers are either lying or stupid. Mainstream journalists are loath to engage in "straight talk" about McCain in deference to his heroic legend. In the simplistic, shorthand narrative of American political coverage, McCain's flashcard has the word "integrity" on it in big red letters. It's as if a few years of torture and imprisonment renders one immune to ambition, vanity or dishonesty for a lifetime. That may sound callous, but the truth is that McCain has time and again proven willing to change his tune on issues of conscience for maximum convenience, and has even admitted as much. In May, McCain told Fox News' Chris Wallace all about it: "I've found in my life that when I do what I think is right... it always turns out in the end OK. When I do things for political expediency, which I have from time to time, it's always turned out poorly."

Asked for an example, McCain elaborated: "I went down to South Carolina and said that the flag that was flying over the state capitol, which was a Confederate flag, was -- that I shouldn't be involved in it, it was a state issue. It was an act of cowardice," he said, admitting he had done it to help his chances in the South Carolina primary and seeming only to regret the act because he "lost anyway."

Early indicators of the depths to which McCain will stoop to win include his freshly appointed campaign manager, professional scumbag Terry Nelson. Nelson, Bush's national political director for his 2004 reelection campaign and an unindicted coconspirator named in Tom Delay's money-laundering indictment, is responsible for the infamous below-the-belt white bimbo ad which helped sink Harold Ford, Jr.'s senatorial campaign this year by exciting the powerful anti-miscegenation Neanderthal demographic in Tennessee. The appallingly racist ad drew so much heat that Nelson was fired by Wal-Mart, but McCain apparently has lower standards.

Further examples of McCain's shamelessness come in the form of flip-flopping: On abortion, from "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations" in 1999 to "I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support" last month. On the gay marriage amendment, from "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" in 2004 to "reconfirming" his support for the same amendment to Baptist gasbag Jerry Falwell and doing two commercials for an Arizona ban. On Falwell himself, who McCain called an "agent of intolerance" only two years ago, only to eat shit at Falwell's Liberty University this year and now supporting teaching the idiot theory of Intelligent Design in schools. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts, but has since voted to make them permanent.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, john mccain

Allan Uthman is the editor of the Buffalo Beast.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
John McCain's Day Is Over
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 15, 2006 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There once was a time when I took John McCain seriously, can you believe it? Those days are long gone, my friends. Whatever the reasons behind his latest take on the war in Iraq might be, they are all but irrelevant. The fact is this: while a staunch supporter of this obscene war will no doubt receive the republican nomination in 2008, they will not win the general election. Whomever the democrats nominate in a year and a half will be the next president of the United states. (Note to Hillary Clinton: the democratic nomination will go only to someone who opposes this war; give it up, gir)l.

I once had great respect for John McCain. In a party chock full of nuts and half-witted extremists, he at least seemed reasonable. You live and learn, ya know what I mean? John McCain's day has come and gone. folks.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: derfb1
» RE: John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: cottontail
» RE: WW II analogies Posted by: tiellis
» RE: John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: symcokid
» RE: John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Iraq Never Attacked America Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Iraq Never Attacked America Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Iraq Never Attacked America Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Tell it to the media... Posted by: SteveB
Military Service
Posted by: timebomb734 on Dec 15, 2006 12:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that when someone (unless they are john kerry) has served in the military, they cannot be wrong about anything involving foreign affairs? People like to act as if disagreeing with them makes you disrespect military service in general. I must have forgotten that every enlisted soldier gets and education in diplomacy and IR theory with basic training. This happens not just at the level of the federal government (ala John McCain), but even in political discussions between individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Military Service Posted by: paschn
» RE: Military Service Posted by: opeluboy
"...who do you think voters will trust..."
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 15, 2006 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, that's what it's all about. That's why Bush Jr got elected. And pointing out that McCain needs the war continuing in 2008 is also right. Right out of Orwell's "1984," where the same dynamic of constant warfare somewhere else on the globe justified the domestic suppression.

Right now, voters don't trust anyone. The Demos were elected as the lesser evil. We want someone to trust. But we will settle for a known evil, since we only get to vote for politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» trust you with power? Posted by: zipper696
Hypocritical Piece
Posted by: xi_people on Dec 15, 2006 3:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After railing against other journalists who "don't do their homework" and report falsely on McCain, Uthman then commits the same crime himself with this absurdity:

And a still-roiling quagmire in Iraq would be huge boon for McCain in a run against soft-on-slaughter Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, his most likely opponent.

Has he heard any of those supposedly "soft-on-slaughter" democrats speak on the subject of Iraq in the past year? If so, he would have noted that Hillary is just as blood-thirsty as McCain, and is lusting over "getting tough" with Iran. I'm guessing that doesn't mean just giving the Mullahs a noogie or two.

And notice that he projects Hillary as the "likely" opponent of McCain. I don't know any democrat who is the least bit interested in voting for Hillary as the democratic nominee. Not one. But yet we keep hearing from the so-called "progressive" media that she's some kind of prohibitive favorite. In seeming to criticize McCain, Uthman is doing nothing else than acting as a disinformation agent and imputing a legitimacy to Hillary's presidential ambitions that doesn't exist.

Even thinking about running that woman is pure folly. But the money men and the media are championing her cause, which means that the rest of us should run away from her like a prime Carl Lewis on an Olympic racetrack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: cottontail
» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: xi_people
» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: xi_people
» a triangulating asshole. Posted by: zipper696
Call a newspaper by its correct name.
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 15, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such newspaper as the The Times of London, just as there is no such newspaper as The London Times. The newspaper is called The Times. I notice that the writer did not refer to The Guardian of London, or maybe that was because he couldn't remember if it was still published in Manchester.

I couldn't see anything else in the article worth commenting on. I suspect John McCain's attempts to gain the Republican Presidential nomination will be as numerous and successful as those by Lyndon Larouche to gain the Democrat one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never trust a Republican who opposes torture.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 15, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He probably has a thumbscrew up his sleeve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain: Mr. Republican
Posted by: Moonray on Dec 15, 2006 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain is a pathetic political prostitute who will take any position or espouse any nonsensical cause to garner votes from the ignorant, the parochial and the xenophobic.

In short, he's the perfect Republican. And that's why, in all likelihood, he will be our next president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blood Lust
Posted by: stephennnn on Dec 15, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the blood lust is upon someone all reason, decency and moral values are cast aside. I blieve that McCain is at that point in his life. Too bad that the the chaos and killing of war has not taught him more. Certainly he does not exhibit the cool, reasoned demeaner of an elder statesman, a quailty sorely needed in the excutive office today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe.....
Posted by: custersbud on Dec 15, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually contributed money, and made phone calls on this guy's behalf in 2000. I won't make the same mistake in '08!

If his kissing Bush's ass for the past 6 years after what Bush's buddies, the Wyle brothers, did to him in the 2000 primaries wasn't enough, now he wants to send more Americans off to the Bush inspired chaos in Iraq.

McCain defines the term political opportunist perfectly. He's a political whore that's sold his soul to be president. Fortunately, it's not gonna happen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I can't believe..... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Clintons..... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Clintons..... Posted by: seltzer
» Obama Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Obama Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Obama Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Obama - Yikes -- too impatient - N/T Posted by: Conservasaurus
He killed enough people already
Posted by: ng1944 on Dec 15, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During Vietnam he did not go to jungle and drink
rotten shit as Kery and other regular Joes had to do,
because his father was a big shot.
No they were flying high and dropping napalm bombs
on so called strategic willages.
And because everibody was called to Vietnamese army
14 yers old and up, it was women children and
elderly people left in these villages.
How many thousands or hundred thousands people
he burned alive only god will know.
He is as bloody as his boss Bush, sick warmonger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually, you're insane Posted by: brunowe
» Typical "logic" from you Posted by: brunowe
» Get used to it Posted by: rwa
» Armchair cheerleaders Posted by: mirimac
» Boy Ann, you must be fuming! Posted by: mirimac
» RE: Boy Ann, you must be fuming! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» No it isn't. Posted by: brunowe
» Psychopathic Posted by: rwa
» Et Tu, Brute Posted by: Douglas
maninmoon
Posted by: maninmoon on Dec 15, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is a turncoat. In other words...a traitor.
Didn't you noticed how he "changed" after his threatdown by Bush & Co?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DAMN FOOL
Posted by: fg on Dec 15, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . and that damn fool wants to be President?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

poe
Posted by: janiepoe on Dec 15, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mccain surely has a chip in his head!! ugh! this man is dangerous to america, he supports torture of human beings, he wants more of our sons and daughters in war and deaths path, everybody knows the civil war between saudias and iran is happening in iraq between the shites and sunni's.where are our leaders ?to intervine between these 2 countries and religion? the neo-cons are hiding behind religion for murder,AGAIN!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: poe Posted by: MrAllen
Scandal in 80s?
Posted by: riley on Dec 15, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that all of us have short memories, what wasn't there a really bad financial scandal involving McCain back in the 80s around the time of the Savings and Loan fiasco? Can anyone refresh my memory?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scandal in 80s? Posted by: ignition
» RE: Scandal in 80s? Posted by: VZEQICVA
cactusannie
Posted by: ladybugmrg on Dec 15, 2006 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We call him PANDER BEAR in Arizona because there is no behind he won't lick to grab power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's quite simple really . .
Posted by: MAD on Dec 15, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain's illogical insistence on throwing more meat into the grinder will be understood in short order. Wait and see which defense contractors, oil companies and other assorted war profiteers get on board McCain's "New And Improved Baghdad Express". AIPAC will surely be taking tickets.

To the outsider, it would appear that McCain is committing political suicide by continuing to support this failed war. McCain is no dummy, so he must know something we don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush makes a “Clean Break” with the Baker Plan by Mike Whitney
Posted by: rwa on Dec 15, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pressure from the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure." ( John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt)


Poor Ehud Olmert.

A couple of weeks ago every thing was hunky-dory. The Palestinian death-toll had just topped 400, 1,000 or so homes had been demolished by Israeli bulldozers, the main power station in Gaza had been knocked-out, the blockade of food and medicine was still going strong, and the IDF was gearing up for another rampage through the occupied territories.

In Lebanon, Pierre Gemeyal had just been assassinated; making it easier for the US and Israel to continue hectoring Syria at the UN. And, in Iraq, the American army was busy transforming the once-vibrant Iraqi society into an ungovernable slaughterhouse headed for decades of anarchy.

All in all, things were looking pretty rosy for Olmert.

The neocon master-plan, "A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm", appeared to be lurching forward according to plan and it was beginning to look like the whole Middle East would be converted into a balkanized hodge-podge of warring factions, armed militias and Islamic extremists killing each other well into the next millennia.

Only one country would prevail in this tempestuous stew of battling factions and broken states; Israel, the soon-to-be dominant power in the entire region...

But Olmert’s plans appear to have hit a few well placed speed-bumps; sending the neocon bandwagon rumbling towards the cliff. The first setback was the Baker-Hamilton report which grabbed headlines across the country and restarted the national debate about the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. Baker aptly summarized the Iraqi fiasco as a "grave and deteriorating" crisis in which military victory is no longer possible. The report galvanized the public and sent Bush’s approval ratings through the floor. According to a new CBS News Survey only 4% of the American public now thinks that "the US should keep fighting as it is now" while 75% "disapprove" of Bush’s handling of the war. A mere 21% of the public still supports Bush’s handling of the war.

As for Olmert, the prospect of an American troop withdrawal signals the end of his regional ambitions. There’s no way the Israeli PM can "secure the realm" without the aid of his "proxy army" continuing the fight in the West. That may explain why the neocons have launched a major "media blitz" in the US to discredit the report and disparage its author, Baker, as an anti-Semite.

Baker, an anti Semite?

Perhaps he can join that other great "human rights abuser", Jimmie Carter.
The armchair warriors at the Weekly Standard, The National Review, The New York Post and the Wall Street Journal are leading the charge; each taking shots at Baker while promoting the same worn "stay the course" strategy.

An article in the Washington Post "Hawks Bolster Skeptical President" provides a list of pro-Israel hawks who have lined up against Baker. Among the more familiar names are William Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and Michael Rubin; the same lineup that will forever be identified with the catastrophe in Iraq. It’s revealing that the Washington Post still provides an open forum for neocon views even though, as we said, less than 4% of the American people still support a "stay the course" strategy. Apparently, that doesn’t affect the editorial policy at the Washington Post where the war-mongering incitement of neoconservative fantasists still gets unlimited coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush makes a “Clean Break” with the Baker Plan #2
Posted by: rwa on Dec 15, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This tells a great deal about the state of media in America today and whose interests are really served.

It is also interesting to see that a signatory of the Project for the New American Century was a member of the 5-man panel advising Bush on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. After 4 years of unmitigated failure, Bush is still getting counsel from the same coterie of right-wing radicals who pushed for war in the first place. It’s extraordinary. As Middle East expert Juan Cole said, to have a member of PNAC on the advisory-panel "contradicts the basic principle that when someone gets you into a mess, you stop following their advice."

Not Bush. Bush seems to believe that the chimera of "global empire" is still within his reach.

The media blitz has had no effect on public opinion. In fact, the public is more fed up with the war than ever. All it’s done is draw attention to the handful of extremists whose views are at odds with 96% of the American people.

The Baker report has torpedoed Olmert’s plans to reinvade Gaza and forced him to reconsider talks with the Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas. It’s all for show, of course, but it does illustrate how quickly things can change.

Two weeks ago, Dick Cheney rushed over to Saudi Arabia to try to calm-down King Abdullah who was fuming over the mass-slaughter of Sunnis in Iraq. Abdullah naturally wanted to know why "Iranian-backed, US-trained" Shiite militias were purging Baghdad of its Sunni population. Cheney’s response is unknown, but we do know that he contacted Olmert and asked him to stop the killing in Gaza and extend the olive branch to Mahmoud Abbas. Astonishingly, Abbas complied with this charade and allowed himself to be photographed "hand-in-hand and smiling" with Olmert just two weeks after 18 members of the same Palestinian family were butchered by Israeli tank-rounds in Beit Hanoun. Abbas’ craven behavior speaks for itself. As for Olmert, the escalating violence in Iraq has put a temporary halt to his plans to reinvade Gaza.

Score one for James Baker.

Olmert’s plans for Lebanon have apparently hit a block-wall, too. The largest demonstrations in the country’s history took place last Sunday after 7 days of nonstop protest in the city center. Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah mobilized an estimated 2 million Lebanese who took to the streets to call for American-stooge, Prime Minister Siniora, to step down. Siniora lost all credibility during the Israeli onslaught when he refused to defend his country by taking any action to repel the Israeli invasion or to deploy the 80,000 troops in the Lebanese army to the south where they were needed. His negligence caused the deaths of 1,300 civilians who were killed while trying to escape Israeli bombardment.

A recent poll showed that 51% of the people believe that the Siniora government "lacks legitimacy" and "73% support the forming of a unity government". These numbers confirm that Siniora no longer has any base of popular support and that the US-Israeli war has made Hezbollah the most powerful player in Lebanon’s political system.

Hezbollah poses no threat to Israel. What Olmert fears is an independent Arab regime to its north which may develop a credible deterrent to Israeli belligerence. (Israel has invaded Lebanon 4 times) Nasrallah is a fierce nationalist and not a puppet of Iran as Olmert claims. He has no plans for establishing an Islamic Theocracy in Lebanon although it’s an effective device for demonizing him as a fanatic and a terrorist. What he really wants is sufficient military power to convince Israel that future incursions will come at great cost to the IDF. No country in the region needs to improve its national defense and "power of deterrents" more than Lebanon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush makes a “Clean Break” with the Baker Plan #3
Posted by: rwa on Dec 15, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Olmert’s plans for Lebanon were articulated in "A Clean Break". He wants to divert "Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize control of Lebanon", thus, creating a de facto "Israeli protectorate" to their North. The 34-day war sabotaged this plan and further strengthened Israel’s main rival, Hezbollah. The Shiite star continues to rise in Lebanon just as it is in Iraq.

This is not the result that Olmert (or Bush) had in mind.

Baker: "Negotiations with Iran and Syria and a New Madrid"?

The Iraq Study Group made two key recommendations which are pivotal to regional peace. Both have sent tremors through the Olmert regime. First, Baker wants Bush to convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to address the deteriorating security situation and the steady escalation of violence. Bush is resisting this effort believing he can cobble together a miraculous "victory" at the eleventh hour. This, of course, will not happen and Bush will soon be compelled to make concessions whether he wants to or not.

The last thing Olmert wants is to see Bush negotiating with Iran which might forestall a preemptive attack on its nuclear and military facilities. If the US enters discussions with Iran, then Iran will naturally demand security guarantees that will lead to a "non-aggression" pact. This would prevent Bush from initiating hostilities "at the time of his own choosing". This explains why the neocons are so adamantly opposed to dialogue with Syria and Iran. They don't want Bush to be bound by treaty obligations.

Second, the Baker report states unequivocally:

"The United States will not achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the US deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." (We must make a) "renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts."

Fortunately, Baker recognizes the centrality of the issue and is pushing to create a suitable framework for negotiations. That doesn’t mean he will succeed. Olmert stated plainly before the US Congress that (he believes) that Israel has a right "to all the land", which is the traditional Zionist position. His belief is grounded in a rigid ideology that doesn’t accept the authority of the international community or the rights of the people who have clear title to the land. On top of that, as Uri Avnery said:

"No president will quarrel with the government of Israel if he wants to be re-elected, or-- like Bush now—to end his term in office with dignity and pass the presidency to another member of his party. Any senator or congressman, who takes a stand that the Israeli embassy doesn’t like, is committing Harakiri, Washington-style. The fate of the peace plans of successive Secretaries of State confirms, on the face of it, the thesis of the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, that caused a great stir earlier this year. According to them, whenever there is a clash in Washington between the national interests of the US and the national interests of Israel, it is Israel’s interests which win."
Full article:
http://www.urukn et.de/?p=m29033&hd=&size=1&l=e

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain is right on
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Dec 15, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First the author obviously is a "bit" biased ..and his analysis is off base. McCain has always spoken with a reasonable voice and this time is no exception.. McCains comment is 100% on, you either fight the war or get out.. there is no middle ground.. Additional troops could help, in McCains view, reduce attacks and give the US what it needed to begin with, reasonable troop strength.

The military doesnt necessarily want additional troops so I'd have to go with a "military at the scene" plan but both want to see this to conclusion and not just up and leave..anyone with sense, regardless if you agreed with going in Iraq in the first place (I didnt) sees leaving ASAP would do more harm than good and probably result in many more deaths without a stabilized government!

I'm assuming the author is motivated purely by political views with little regard for strategic outlook and more importantly long term impact on the region!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Rolomax