There's a temptation to accuse John McCain of playing politics on Iran. I think this gives John McCain too much credit. What McCain knows is that Democrats--especially Democrats like
Obama--are always weak on defense. I don't think there's much more to
it.
Watching McCain go after Obama over Iran, is like watching Vinny Testaverde repeatedly throw deep into double coverage. McCain isn't reading the defense. He isn't looking anybody off. He's staring his reciever down. It's all he knows.
He'd do well to remember that the last time he did this, Barry took it back for six. But I wouldn't count on that.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Would that be "he took it back for 4? (or 8?)
Grrr...Yes, English is my first language.
Wouldn't that be he "took it back for 4? (Or 8?)"
took it back for 4? (Or 8?)
I am honestly not sure what you mean but TNC's analogy was to an interception returned for a touchdown in football which would net 6 points.
Yeah, a pick six analogy - and an accurate one.
It's also, I think, that the dude is just a generally bitter (I hate to say it) old man. He's a guy who, for all of the things he's endured in his life, never really got past the nature of a snotty, self-entitled kid whose father and grandfather (both of whom, whose name he shares) were admirals in the US Navy, and who thought the presidency was owed to him and, now, robbed from him.
Exactly. It also amazes me how for someone to have lost an election in a LANDSLIDE his opinion is still so valued by our media.
No reason at all other than his (and people like him) ability to stir the pot and create controversy.
What happened to the McCain of 1999? I guess he was just another one created by the media.
Yeah. The same could not be said for Kerry.
Except for the landslide part.
I know this was brought up during the election, but I've always wondered how much of his foreign policy bravado comes from him wanting to correct the mistakes he saw in Vietnam. How does the old saying go, Generals are always fighting the last war. It was the thing that scared me the most of him, his inability to see the nuances of the world today, and in the future.
Oh yeah, that defines John McCain. The modern dolchstosslegende is that America would have won the Vietnam War if the press and the DFH's back home hadn't undermined the war effort. This is something that McCain absolutely believes. Any problem can be solved if America throws enough force at it.
what's DFH?
dirty fuckin hippies?
@sv:
Yes.
I wonder if President Obama should have used a different word in the CBS interview besides "foil" when discussing the situation in Iran. You know, people at Pat Buchanan's "confernece" the other day may not speak English well enough to know what that means.
I don't really think McCain is playing politics at this point. He has nothing to play for. The threat to his seat was Napolitano and she's gone now. Clearly, he's not running for President again. It's possible he's just bitter, but I think this is genuinely what he believes; it's not Obama running it back for 6, its Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. It's a neo-conservative fantasy, and it's just wrong.
John McCain is a bitter old man who cannot accept the fact that a BLACK MAN is the President of these United States. He is wasting the years he has left destroying whatever legacy was he is supposed to have built. He has not offered a single solid solution to any of the problems we face in this country. That is because he has no solutions. His goal is to try to undermine President Obama in any way he can.
McCain, and those other clown who call themselves republicans are asssisted in their undermining campaign by what passes for journalism and journalist (99.9999% WHITE)on CBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC (except for KO, RM, and ES) and by FOX ( who sadly, has a few HOUSE NEGROs on staff), also can't bear the thought that the President is a black guy. These excuses for journalist are not trying to hide the facts that their main goal is the undermine the President and try to discredit him. Dick and Liz Cheney (22 times in 12 days) on every TV show, day and day after day. Even Fred Thompson and old Mitt are give free air time to get a little bashing time in.
Every day we see the faces of very same republicans who have obstructed the President since day on network and cable TV? Ever notice how the TV microphones are always grouped together and waiting for the republicans to stomp out of the House or Senate? Now just how do you suppose the republicans know that those microphones are waiting just for them?
How many time has you seen the H.A.C.K.S (99.9999% WHITE)on CBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and FOX actually ask a hard probing question of their republican masters? It would not surprise me one bit if the republicans gave the gasbags host the list of question they are permitted to ask. And surely you are aware of that the networks edit interview and news tape to cast the President and the Democrats in a bad light?
So don't ask why McCain is given free reign to the TV airwaves. McCain, the republicans and what passes for main stream media in this country are trying to undermine the Presidency of President Obama.
It seem tham many of you clearely are not aware that grampy WAS NOT the only American POW held captive in Vietnam. Continuing to parrott the "HE was a pow hero" meme does not make it so.
Officially, 661 recognized prisoners were returned; some 100 of those have since died. All endured sickness, starvation, and torture. SOME OF THEM WERE EVEN BLACK, though you would never know that. Most of them went on to live full productive lives.
These returning 661 POWs were/are just as much of a hero as grampy. One thing that sets them apart from grampy is that they did not spend their lives as Noun Verb POW. Nor did they have an admiral father who made sure that the records dealing with POWs were sealed.
That's all we need to know, about the seriousness of one John McCain.
It's a Beach Boys song! Why can't people let it go!?!?!
It's a tattoo on his ass that he showed us when he was drunk. You don't easily forget moments or images like that.
Actually, that's the USS Indianapolis.
I'm not going to attempt the football analogy, but I think McCain's "We are all Georgians now" sums up how he feels about this stuff: very exciting, fun to make bold statements, and he may be one who would be thrilled if those bold statements led him to follow up with a war in Iran. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" rather argues for it.
And of course the Georgians response was "How nice. Now please send Joe Biden."
It's all about the truthiness of the matter. Nuance and thinking are weak and effeminate. Real men trust their gut. And McCain's gut tells him to go raise Hell in Iran, it'll all work out.
The irony here is that Obama's approach to Iran so far isn't that radically different than what we'd see from Bush the Elder or even Nixon. Of course, the neocons despised both of their approaches to foreign policy, so that explains a lot.
Yep, Ive been saying Obama is a great fan of Bush 41's Foreign Policy for a while now. Unfortunately, the current GOP hates that 90s team.
Well, they didn't totally hate that team of the 90's. Cheney was H.W.'s Sec of Defense.
I think you folks are missing the point. I have plenty of issues with McCain, but I suspect his statements here are motivated less by a desire to play politics (what purpose would that serve him at this point?) than by a nostalgia for Cold War advocacy of democracy. Reagan is the example that most quickly comes to mind, but there were Democrats as well who spoke out and advocated for those seeking freedom behind the Iron Curtain: Scoop Jackson, Lane Kirkland, etc.
What McCain (and others who fault Obama for not siding with the Iranian protesters more strongly) miss is the different dynamics with Iran versus the Cold War. One of the biggest differences in dynamics is that everyone knew we weren't going to war with Russia over Poland, for example. That, I think, gave us more license to speak out vigorously in support of the pro-democracy protesters. Iran, on the other hand, is a potential military target for us. Another difference is that the Poles were generally pro-Western, and so welcomed our help. I know similar claims have been made about the Iranians, but history suggests skepticism is warranted. Also, due to various historic insecurities and baggage carried by Muslim nations generally and by Iran specifically, there's more of a chance that overt American support would be resented or would backfire in Iran than there was in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
I have my differences with Obama, of course, but I can't really fault him for not jumping into the Iran mess with both feet.
The main difference is in the Cold War, Poland, Hungary, Lithunia etc were under the thumb of a hostile foriegn power, so when we supported the Pols vs the Soviets we were saying that they should have the right to self determination.
In this case it is an intra country political debate, so Obama is handling it exactly right, support the principles of free expression, right to peacefully protest and elect their own leaders, but don't pick sides in the election.
Oops. Should be a close bold bracket after "Shah". I need to remember the preview button.
Cold war advocacy of what? Dude, we backed the Shah. I know most Americans only have a limited grasp of history, but I'd hope McCain would remember that we have a history of messing up horribly in Iran, that popular sentiment hasn't forgiven us for that screw up, and acting like it never happened is the last thing anyone sane should do.
I think he's just using it as a political football, or he's gone senile.
John McCain is a bitter old man who cannot accept the fact that a BLACK MAN is the President of these United States. His goal is to try to undermine President Obama in any way he can.
Period.
End of story.
Can someone please explain to me what it means to be "weak on defense?" As far as I can tell the Democrats are fine on defense, not so good on the posturing, threatening, wasting billions on weapons systems. I'm good with that.
Apparently talking is what makes you tough? I know in real life it's not the case. As far as I can tell, all of these neo-con blowhards are like that punk friend we all had who would walk into a bar talk shit with the biggest guy there then hide behind all of his friends when they had to clean up his mess. It's been my experience over time that it's never the guy talking shit that's the problem, it's the quiet guy in the back that's the most dangerous if something goes down. That's the way I believe we should be now. There's an old saying for this. Walk softly and carry a big stick.
"weak on defense?"
I think that can be laid on Carter's doorstep. The hostage crisis in '80 was probably my first political experience. Botched rescue attempt, lame negotiations. Carter was a 'peacenik'. 444 days. The hostages were released on Reagan's first day. That humiliation, followed by history's coolest bellicose administration, pretty much cemented the reputation of GOP strength and Dem weakness.
PS 'coolest' is strictly an objective assessment. I despised ol' flappyneck.
You are aware are you not that Ronald Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until inaguration day? Do you have any knowledge of what lead up to this?
In this day and age there is really no excuse for ignorance. Don't speak of thing you obviously have no knowledge of. It does not make you look good.
Try using the google for:
- reagan guns for hostages
- iran contra
- arms for hostages
- oliver north + selling military equipment to Iran
- nicaragua + oliver north
Or go to your local li-berry.
"It's been my experience over time that it's never the guy talking shit that's the problem, it's the quiet guy in the back that's the most dangerous if something goes down."
Democrats didn't get the perception of being weak on defense because people thought they were the quite tough guy in the back of the bar. They got that because they got America neck-deep into a war in Vietnam, and then actively (and successfully) worked for the defeat of our ally there. They got that because they let Iran invade the sovereign territory of our embassy and hold American citizens hostage for over a year. They got that because most of them voted against the first Gulf War, one that was backed by the UN and possibly the largest coalition in history, and was a against a third world dictator. They got that perception by sending troops into Somalia without the tanks the troops had requested, and then yanking them out after suffering 18 casualties. They got that by some of them voting for the war in Iraq and then going wobbly when the war got hard. They got that by Harry Reid claiming the war was lost before the surge. They got that for calling a highly competent general a traitor in a full page ad in the NY Times.
Hope that helps.
Yikes. That is just a crapload of half-truths and distortions, untangling that mess would take more effort than I have the strength for right now.
The kid asked for reasons why Dems were considered weak on defense, and I offered some. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive argument about the merits of different approaches to foreign or defense policy.
I'm not really sure what value there is in responding to that query from the perspective of an especially poorly-informed wingnut.
Don't rad much do you Dave?
No li-berry in your neighborhood?
Correction and addition:
Don't READ much do you Dave?
No li-berry in your neighborhood?
You can purchase used history books on line if you can't use the google.
I’ll try.
“They got that because they got America neck-deep into a war in Vietnam, and then actively (and successfully) worked for the defeat of our ally there.”
Well, it is true that during the Johnson Administration, the US’ involvement in Vietnam escalated into a full-scale war. But do you remember the policy prescription of Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s standard bearer in 1964? It most certainly wasn’t a troop withdrawal. It was a call to use nuclear weapons…surely that was the right answer???
And one can only assume that by ally, you are referring to the corrupt South Vietnamese government and its feckless military. And by working for defeat, you must mean the Democratic Congress’ refusal in 1974-1975 to waste any more money on a country on the verge of collapse for well over a decade. I mean, surely you’re not talking about the anti-war protestors. You do understand the difference between the Party’s establishment and a leftist political movement, don’t you? I think a certain night in Chicago in 1968 would serve as a very vivid illustration.
“They got that because they let Iran invade the sovereign territory of our embassy and hold American citizens hostage for over a year.”
By Democrats, I take it you mean Jimmy Carter. Ok, what was Carter supposed to do in order stop the takeover of the embassy? Yes, he could have fully evacuated the embassy before granting the Shah entry to America, instead of ordering a partially evacuation. But how was he to ultimately stop the takeover itself?
And what piece of foreign policy genus would you have prescribed that would have freed the embassy hostages? An arms-for-hostages deal perhaps?
“They got that because most of them voted against the first Gulf War, one that was backed by the UN and possibly the largest coalition in history, and was a against a third world dictator.”
If their fear was an Arabic Vietnam, what difference did it make if Hussein was a third-world dictator? The fact that their fear was ultimately misplaced is besides the point here.
“They got that perception by sending troops into Somalia without the tanks the troops had requested…”
Any citations for this? I know they had some number of armored infantry.
“and then yanking them out after suffering 18 casualties”
And the Republicans were in favor of keeping them in? Not Sen. Dole, Sen. Helms, Sen. Hutchinson, Sen. McCain, Sen. Kempthorne, etc. No, they were following the example of Pres. Ronald “I Won World War 2 by Making Movies” Regan. That example being set when he ordered U.S. forces from Lebanon after the attack on U.S. Marines that killed 241 servicemen. They were gone in 4 months.
Clinton actually increased troop levels and didn’t withdraw them until 6 months later, worried about the message a withdrawal would send to other nations involved in Somalia.
“They got that by some of them voting for the war in Iraq and then going wobbly when the war got hard.”
What weasel words are these! “Some of them”? Name names, provide pro-war and anti-war quotes and show context. The US still has over 100,000 troops in Iraq, with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress and a Democratic President.
What you call “going wobbly when the war got hard” I would call reassessing the situation when it became clear that the Bush Administration was nothing more than a collection of criminally negligent jack-asses with an aversion to the truth as it exists in the real world and more concerned with looking tough than with human life. Perhaps certain Democratic pols voted as they did in 2002 out of cowardice but perhaps others were fooled. Bush/Cheney 2000-2003 fooled a lot of people.
“They got that by Harry Reid claiming the war was lost before the surge.”
The war is already lost, if one were to remember the promises of the GOP, that Iraq would be a pro-western, pro-Israel, pro-America liberal, secular democracy. And the surge did not quiet things down. The bribing of Sunni militiamen did. Once the “Sons of Iraq” stop getting checks and they aren’t fully integrated into the Iraqi Army, things will get noisy again. Either Iraq will be in chaos once more or P.M. Nuri Al-Maliki will pull his Saddam Hussein Jr. routine.
“They got that for calling a highly competent general a traitor in a full page ad in the NY Times.”
Well, that’s just a stupid lie. MoveOn.org did that, not the Democratic Party. The Democratic-controlled US House and US Senate approved resolutions overwhelmingly condemning the MoveOn.org ad.
“Hope that helps.”
Yes, it proves that you are just another disingenuous conservative. A pity. America needs honest, intellectual conservatives very badly.
I think your taking Dave at face value, and although he's conservative, I'm not sure he's expressing his actual beliefs here. The reasons Dave gave seemed to me (not trying to put words in your mouth here) to be moments which Republicans capitalized on to give the public the perception that the Dems were weak on defense. And you know, I can see how that perception developed, and that's why you see the Dems going after people like Jim Webb and Wesley Clark.
Disingenuous? Perhaps, but hey, it worked for about 40 years before it went to shit, and it took a grossly incompetent administration to accomplish that. This is more about politics than policy--same as McCain's statement to a certain extent.
Message to "Crash" McCain (how many planes was it?), "Deferrment" Dick Cheney and the rest of the right wing pundits safely holed up in their studios and offices: I AM NOT MARGARET DUMONT! My eyes aren't lying and I don't believe you (at least not anymore.) You all may still live happily in "Freedonia" but those millions of Iranians don't and niether do I (at least not anymore.)
Ummm...I am a Sufi convert of two years and it is simply terrible for muslims to see that evil old man John McCain trying to use Neda Soltani's death as a club to beat Obama with.
He is no different from that other evil old man Khameni.
Khameni is saying that Neda was shot by western agitors as a photo-op or that she was in MEK.
They are exactly the same.
Two evil old men trying to exploit Neda's death for politcal gain.