John McCain just completed a blogger conference call. He began by referring to his speech this morning and by emphasizing that he sees that by 2013 we will have won in Iraq, meaning the government and military would be functioning and violence would be “sporadic.”
I asked McCain about President Bush’s comments in Israel and why the Democratic establishment and media had gone crazy over Bush’s warnings about the dangers of appeasement. McCain said that he took Bush at his word when he said that he wasn’t talking about Barack Obama specifically. He then explained that he suspected that the reaction was so “vociferous” because of concern about defending a policy that evidences the “highest degree of naivitee and inexperience” in pledging to sit down with the President of Iraq who calls Israel a “stinking corpse,” vows to wipe Israel off the map and supplies explosives which kill America’s military personnel in Iraq.
I also asked him about Lebanon and whether Obama’s plan to meet directly with Iran will improve the situation. He said that there is essentially a “proxy war” with Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah and that the U.N. has done nothing to enforce its resolution calling for Hezbollah’s disarmament. Again, he took issue with the notion that we should hold presidential talks with Iran: ” What is it that he wants to talk about?” He queried whether it would be Iran’s belief that Israel is a stinking corpse or its commitment to destroy Israel. He summed up, saying he concluded from this that Obama lacked the “knowledge, experience or background” to defend our national security interests.
In response to the Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb’s question as to what preconditions would be needed before he would talk to Iran’s leadership, McCain listed renunciation of its stated position to wipe out Israel, abandonment of its pursuit of nuclear weapons, a cessation of exporting of explosive devices which are killing Americans and a halt to sponsorship of terrorist organizations. He also noted that talks including Ambassador Crocker’s discussion with the Iranian Ambassador in Iraq have given us no reason to believe that Iran is interested in any of these items.
And what about the Obama campaign’s spin that Obama isn’t really promising unconditional talks? McCain was having none of it. He pointed to other flip flops by Obama on NAFTA and concluded that on this one (Iran) more recent comments suggesting that Obama really isn’t after all interested in direct talks without preconditons show a “very clear inconsistency” and a “contradiction” with his prior position.
In short, McCain made clear he believes meeting at the presidential level with Iran would merely “enhance their prestige” and that this policy position by Obama is a useful one in McCain’s own efforts to paint Obama as a dangerous novice in foreign affairs. It seems clear this will be a major point of debate in the general election.
Russ Feingold will be a long-forgotten non-entity before that paricular constitutional amendment gets passed. It would make more sense to repeal the 17th amendment.
“The Times will now be relieved of the obligation to account for facts revealed only in his columns.”
It’s a pretty taxing duty, given that Kristol is wrong about everything.
Hurf: Since I’m sure you would never glance at the Wall St. Journal, you will not have noticed that it has published an op-ed piece by John Kerry today. And it also has a regular column by a left-winger.
My point is that, if you are looking for an illiberal publication, look no further than the NY Times.
Oh, darn. The ONLY thing I’ve linked to the NYT for the last year is Bill’s column. . . now I can drop them entirely. Good riddance to their garbage.
#2: Aah, hurl is projecting again! (In multiple senses, of course.)
>>“The Times will now be relieved of the obligation to account for facts revealed only in his columns.”
> It’s a pretty taxing duty, given that Kristol is wrong about everything.
Yeah. Has *any* important conservative writer been proven wrong more frequently than Kristol during the past eight years or so?
A few great quotes from Wikipedia:
in 2003:
“There’s been a certain amount of pop sociology in America … that the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.”
“Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president.” (!)
“We’ll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction.”
“The United States may need to occupy Iraq for some time. Though U.N., European and Arab forces will, as in Afghanistan, contribute troops, the principal responsibility will doubtless fall to the country that liberates Baghdad. According to one estimate, initially as many as 75,000 troops may be required to police the war’s aftermath, at a cost of $16 billion a year. As other countries’ forces arrive, and as Iraq rebuilds its economy and political system, that force could probably be drawn down to several thousand soldiers after a year or two.”
[the actual cost proved to be closer $12 billion per month and the post-"surge" manpower requirement is 150,000 soldiers]
The Nation’s David Corn is right: nobody outside of THE WEEKLY STANDARD and COMMENTARY magazine would want to hire a guy with his appalling track record…
MARCU$
“But then why don’t McCain and his colleague Lindsay Graham actually try to block the confirmation?”
Because Bill Lynn is a good choice that the defense hawks can live with?
My grandmother claimed she once took an ocean voyage, traveling second-class, and that Garbo, who was on the ship, would come down from the first-class deck every day because she was feeling lonely up there and wanted somebody to talk to.