It's Official: McCain Rolls A Pair of Ones

TPM calls it 'indescribable.' It does kinda speak for itself:



Watch CBS Videos Online

My lord is this Palin dangerous.

McCain-Puppet '08: The Snake Eyes Ticket

Back in the USSR: The Intersection of McCain's Confusion and McCain's Hotheadedness

Last night I had a spirited debate with a friend of mine about the US electoral implications of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. We had a few agreed-upon points.

-The McCain camp had effectively controlled the news cycle as it related to Georgia.

-McCain controlled the cycle by ratcheting up provocative rhetoric.

-The long-time close ties of McCain's advisers to the the Georgian government, McCain's proud disclosure that he speaks to the Georgian president every day, and his decision to immediately send Senate allies to Georgia underscore McCain's tendency to the staunchest neoconservatives of the Bush administration.

-Close ties between people in the McCain camp and people in the Bush camp have colored the official US response to the conflict. That essentially insinuates that the less neoconservative Bush advisers have been quieted by stauncher colleagues in an effort to assist John McCain's efforts to boil down this conflict to good v. evil and make Barack Obama seem not sufficiently on the side of good.

-All of this is bad for America.

So we agreed on all of those things but disagreed as to how McCain's decision to play the Soviet Union card will effect voters.

My friend argued that McCain's gambit would fall entirely flat. First, he argued McCain looks old and confused for dusting off Cold War rhetoric. More forcefully, he speculated that the close ties between McCain's people and the Georgian government and his campaign's unprecedented political interference on the handling of a national security crisis will ultimately be painted as dangerous and inappropriate.

I argued that McCain's furious reaction to Russian aggression in Georgia had already effectively pressured Barack Obama to depart his initial and appropriately moderate reaction to the conflict in order to sound more overtly pro-Georgia. I argued that McCain's Russia-bashing earned cheap points with a lot of moderate swing voters or amongst whichever electoral cleavages that intersect with the stereotypical 'nuke the bastards' attitude or whatever bastardization of values occurs when pride in America intersects with testosterone and cross-cultural ignorance. I also said that what it does more than anything else is give right wing pundits and McCain surrogates something that, at the very least, they'll be comfortable taking to the airwaves. They'll be able to pontificate about how this solidifies McCain's 3am phone call credentials or how Americans want the experienced hand when situations like this arise without getting totally laughed out of newsrooms or kicked off their side of the split-screen.

I also pointed out that Senator Obama has already decided to lay off the attack on the Georgia issue. While I see Obama on the attack on domestic issues with targeted swing state ads, he has largely decided to hold off on the national level. For the most part, I agree with the strategy. Americans are watching the Olympics and the convention is approaching. Obama can wait and let McCain's constant running of the sleazy 'celebrity' ads ultimately tick off everyone just wanting to watch Michael Phelps kick everyone's ass. Yet, had Obama already been on the offensive against McCain by tying him to Bush and hitting the behind-the-times/confused/hothead memes, he might have been better positioned to hit Bush-McCain for their overall handling of Russia, allowing the arguments of my friend to factor more prominently in the mainstream media "discussion."

Either way, the pleasant Olympic distraction will ensure that neither candidate's response to the conflict in Georgia will have too much electoral bearing. And in that way, my friend was at least partially correct. McCain's aggressive interference, however, may have already damaged our credibility to lead any productive diplomatic efforts there. McCain's war-mongering against Russia makes us look weak.

-

Just some thoughts, hopefully not too incoherent. I'd love to know where y'all weigh in.

Tougher Than Hell

So I was watching the Daily Show the other day and caught an interesting interview with Fareed Zakaria, who writes for Newsweek. He'll also soon have a show on CNN. He's an interesting character politically. Some might say that he comes from a neoconservative background. He's a big supporter of free trade and globalization. Well, anyways, you can wikipedia him. Whether or not you disagree with some of the underlying ideological assumptions, he is incredibly learned and has a fascinating perspective.



Here, he discusses the decline of the United States as the world's sole economic superpower. Generally, Zakaria tends to paint a rosier picture of our overall outlook than that which seems to be depicted on the television but his characterization of our power sent chills down my spine.

We have the biggest military in the world, by far. One of the things I think has happened . . . is that we look at every problem now really through the prism of the military because we're so damn good at it. So you look at what's going on in Africa and you say 'there's Islamic extremism there.' So we say 'well, let's set up Africom. You know, a command center, US military, four-star general.'

Wait a minute, is the answer to the spread, the rise of Islamic fanaticism to set up a kind of US neocolonial military presence in these countries and start having American troops go around there beating people up? I'm not so sure.

*Note, Jon sort of gives the rub to Tulane University at the end of the interview

The biggest military in the world. Every problem through the prism of the military. A neocolonial military presence.

And Mr. Zakaria should know, because he was at least one meeting with Paul Wolfowitz in November of 2001.

Another person who should know is former Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who since leaving his post as commander of the coalition troops in Iraq, has roasted the Bush administration's reckless consideration of American and civilian lives and their constant nods to political considerations over military objectives:

Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez joined the White House videoconference on the second day of house-to-house fighting between 2,000 Marines and entrenched guerrillas in Fallujah.

Crafted in Washington as a brass-knuckles response to the gruesome deaths of four Blackwater security guards killed the week before and strung up on a bridge, the battle had the full support of President Bush.

Sanchez, in a memoir to be released Tuesday, said Bush “launched into what I considered a kind of confused pep talk” about the battle for Fallujah and an upcoming campaign to kill or capture radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and cripple his militia.

“Kick ass!” Bush said. “If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell!”

Fueled by images beamed by the Al-Jazeera television network, the administration quickly reversed course, stopping Operation Vigilant Resolve. Soon after, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer dropped plans to capture or kill al-Sadr, even though the president had said during the April 7, 2003, meeting, “It is essential he be wiped out,” according to the memoir.

Kick ass. If someone tries to stop the march to democracy we will seek them out and kill them. That's the mindset. Real classy. Never mind the fact that the President withdrew the orders because he thought it might hurt his reelection campaign.

Meanwhile, let us travel to the present, to Red Square in Moscow, where new Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and new Russian President Vladmir Putin put on a display of military might not seen since the days of the USSR.

The Kremlin’s decision to parade its military hardware has been a subject of competing interpretations, viewed variously as symbolic confirmation of Russia’s pride, or aggressiveness, as a marketing show of Russian arms, and as a nationalistic festival ordered by Mr. Putin, for Mr. Putin.

Mr. Putin insisted earlier in the week that the parade should not be viewed as “saber rattling.” “It is not a warlike gesture,” he said. “Russia is not threatening anyone.”

But it followed a year during which the Kremlin asserted its case against what it regarded as reckless American foreign policies. Mr. Putin has strongly protested an American-led plan to install a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. As tensions rose, Russia’s aging strategic bombers conducted international patrols, entered British airspace and approached American carrier groups on the high seas.

The United States' response?

Let's just speculate for a moment before I share it with you.

Remember, President Bush was very close with President Putin, he explained that he trusted Mr. Putin not to entrench himself as an autocrat because he "looked the man in the eyes" and was able "to get a sense of the man's soul." So, though Bush likely doesn't appreciate Russia's opposition to the missile defense project or Russia's incursions into former Soviet republic elections, President Bush probably doesn't want to aggravate Russia further. The administration will probably want to through a wet blanket on media attempts to fan flames. The President's policy toward Mr. Putin already looks abominable, might as well minimize damage, play off the significance of the military demonstration by talking up US-Russian friendship.

Well, here is the US reaction:

“If they wish to take out their old equipment and take it for a spin and check it out,” said the spokesman, Geoff Morrell, “they’re more than welcome to do so.”

WOW!

So the official United States reaction to Soviet-style military escalation by the Russians is to backhand them in the face, insult their might, and challenge them to spend more money on their military.

You know, the Bush administration, for years, has insisted that we all have to adopt "a post-9/11 mindset." Reliance on diplomacy and the United Nations was naive in the face of the dangerous new world landscape. The United States needed to act more unilaterally to protect its interests, the argument was.

But, you know what, you know who never adopted a post-9/11 mindset?

The Bush administration.

Because they're still very clearly living in the midst of the Cold War.

We've dictated a foreign policy marinated in the same juices as the Domino Theory. If we can just use our guns and our planes to carve out spheres of influence in the Middle East, the terrorists and the unfriendly states will topple over in turn.

On the count of three, arms race: one.... two.....