For some time now I have been troubled by the assumption on the part of first Sen. Clinton and now Sen. Obama that John McSame is qualified - on the basis of his service in Vietnam and his five years as a prisoner of the Vietcong - to be president. I simply have not been able to understand the basis for this conclusion, which seems to me to fly in the face of everything McSame does and says. In other words, what is it about being a war hero - and McSame was a war hero - that qualifies someone to be president?
Sunday on a talk show Gen. Wesley Clark finally raised the same question. And Obama rushed to the nearest microphone to back off Clark's remarks. Here's how the AP characterized the candidates' responses after Clark made his comments:
A day after retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, now an Obama supporter, discussed McCain's experience as a Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam on a Sunday talk show, his remarks set off the pattern that has become familiar from innumerable earlier flaps over surrogate remarks during the presidential election year: The candidates, Obama and McCain, took the high road while the bare-knuckled language was left to their surrogates.
Toward the end of the same article reporter Beth Fouhy quoted McSame's "high road" remarks:
McCain himself said,
If that's the kind of campaign Sen. Obama and his surrogates and supporters want to engage in, I understand that. But it doesn't reduce the price of gas by one penny. It doesn't achieve our energy independence or make it come any closer. Doesn't make any American stay in their home who's at risk of losing it today. And it certainly doesn't do anything to address the challenges Americans have in keeping their jobs, homes and supporting their families.
If that's the "high road," I'd like to see what it looks like when McSame takes the "low road."
According to Friday's (June 13) New York Post, John McSame claimed the use of terms like "out of touch" and "inconsistent" were examples of "ageism" being used as a weapon against him. The reference was to former presidential candidate and Obama supporter John Kerry's criticism of McSame's comments about Iraq in an interview with Matt Lauer on Wednesday's (June 11) The Today Show (see video below, Iraq comments at end of interview). What this silly dispute shows is that McSame and his people are a very tricky bunch. If the "ageism" accusation works, every time McSame says something dumb (and he seems to do that quite often), his campaign can get off the hook by crying "ageism." What, in fact, Kerry said was that McSame was "confused" when he again compared Iraq to Korea, Germany and Japan and "out of touch" with the American people on this issue. He clearly is both, but not because of his age. If anyone believes the very limited role U.S. troops play in Korea is anything like the occupation of Iraq, they maybe or may not be old, but they are certainly ignorant about the situation. It's also quite interesting that it's OK for McSame to accuse Obama of being too young, but not visa versa “I admire and respect Senator Obama,” McCain said, with his patented sarcastic laugh. “For a young man with very little experience, he’s done very well.” One last thought (for now) about McSame and "ageism:" If these claims are as effective as the Clintons' claims of sexism against the Senator - which have much more substance - it will all be a tempest in an oatmeal pot.
Bush has learned very well how to use the McCarthy playbook from his teacher Karl Rove. That is, of course, assuming that Rove isn't still calling the shots from behind the scenes (and then commenting on them). Clearly truth plays at best an accidental role in Bush's pronouncements - particularly about international affairs. And what's even more fascinating is how completely McSame has adopted the neo-con line. After Bush stood before the Israeli Knesset and virtually said, "I have a list of appeasers in the Democratic Party," (as McCarthy once said about the State Department) McSame echoed it without even a moment's hesitation. The Straight talk Express has become the pandering vehicle. Much as Putin did in Russia. When faced with term limits he got a stooge elected, who then appointed him Prime Minister. I suspect Cheney and Bush have something similar in mind for McSame.
At one level last week's "appeasers" speech was a direct intervention into the presidential election, but at another level it is part of a debate about what a post-Bush world will look like. And that's what Bush is trying to influence. His arrow is pointed well beyond the 2008 election. But as someone suggested the Republican need to win Florida in the Fall wasn't far from his mind as he chose the Knesset as the venue in which to make his pronouncement.
With regard to the post-Bush world Mark Engler has this to say:
If pressure from the base of the [Democratic] party lets up after the elections, it would hardly be surprising to see a victorious candidate revert to Bill Clinton's corporate model for how to rule the world. However, a return to a pre-Bush-style of international politics may be easier dreamed [by the corporate elite] than done.
The Neocon Paradox
To the chagrin of the "free trade" elite, the market fundamentalist ideas that have dominated international development thinking for at least the last 25 years are now under attack globally. This is largely because the economic prescriptions of deregulation, privatization, open markets, and cuts to social services so often made (and enforced) by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have proven catastrophic.
The accompanying videos, which layout the debate Bush's Knesset speech provoked, also demonstrate the limitations of corporate-owned media to talk about a post-Bush world (which obviously can't come too soon).
May 19, 2:30PM: Yesterday I watched the Tim Russert Show (MSNBC) with JFK's closest advisor Ted Sorensen and presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. One of the main topics of their conversation was the Cuban missile crisis. I couldn't help thinking that if Bush/McSame (or even Sen. Clinton) had been president during that moment in time it's very unlikely that any of us would be sitting here today. Only talking, even to people we don't like, can resolve international problems. Bullets and bombs can't change the situation it can only (as in Iraq) make things worse. Communication requires people who are not afraid to talk, so presumably that excludes Bush/McSame and even Clinton. The truth is that even the possibility of a post-Bush world depends on what we do between now and November.
May 19, 11:15PM: I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but things keep coming to my attention regarding the Bush "appeasement" speech.
I wonder if the Knesset members knew the history of the man they were applauding because he said things they liked. The irony of a member of the Bush family talking about appeasing the Nazis boggles the mind. While many radicals, progressives and Communists (labelled by some as "premature anti-fascists" but really known as the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade") flocked to Spain to fight Franco's Fascist government, Bush's family collaborated with the Nazis in order enhance their wealth. Robert Parry writes:
The archival evidence is now clear that Prescott Bush, the president’s grandfather, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from and collaborated with key financial backers of Nazi Germany.
That business relationship continued after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and even after Germany declared war on the United States following Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It stopped only when the U.S. government seized assets of Bush-connected companies in late 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act.”
And he has the nerve to lecture us about appeasement.It should come as no surprise that the corporate-owned media has made any reference to this shameful Bush family history.
Notice who is getting a free-media ride. After all the sound bites focused on the Rev. Wright, Parsley goes virtually unnoticed by the corporate-owned media. How can we account for the love affair between McSame and the media?
I think this new MoveOn bumper sticker speaks for itself. As does the video. Sometimes I think they may be Siamese twins, who have been separated (or not).
I just took The Bush-McCain Challenge -- an online quiz to see if you can tell the difference between George W. Bush and John McCain. Check it out, and see if you can do any better than I did!
This morning while thousands of Americans were protesting the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq the president of the United States spoke the following words:
Five years ago tonight, I promised the American people that in the struggle ahead "we will accept no outcome but victory." Today, standing before men and women [at the Pentagon] who helped liberate a nation, I reaffirm the commitment. The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory. God bless.
He was wrong in 2003 on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln (see photo above) and he's still wrong.
But perhaps the most frightening aspect of this is that I think he believes these words despite all the evidence to the contrary. It seems as if the neo-con demons (who are neither neo, nor con, but old-fashioned warmongers) have taken control of his mind and he sees the world only through their eyes.
Unfortunately John McSame, who is the putative Republican candidate for president, clearly believes the same mythology.
It seems hard to imagine that a sane person could actually claim that the invasion of a sovereign nation that had done nothing to us is "noble," "necessary" or "just."
As usual, Pete seeger best sums up the situation in Iraq five years in:
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a Tall man'll be over his head, we're Waist deep in the Big Muddy! [We're actually already over our heads] And the big fool says to push on!
It seems time for both the "big fool" and his latest disciple the "little fool" John McCain to regain their sanity and realize to "push on" means only more death and destruction in Iraq. Although for them it may be too late. They have simply too much invested in this fiasco.
Just imagine (as difficult as it may be) that in Jan. 2009 John McCain is about to take the oath of office as President. Oh but wait, can one take an oath to uphold a document (the Constitution) that one's never read
Here are some comments he made to BeliefNet. If McCain really believes this nonsense, he will make a disasterous president. If he is just saying it and doesn't really believe it, he will be Bush redux.
BN:Has the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race? McCain: Questions about that are very legitimate.... And it's also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that's sort of a private matter between me and my Creator.... But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"
BN:It doesn't seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard. McCain: I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what's basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead.*
BN: People are raising similar concerns about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, which some consider to be outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. McCain:I believe that the Mormon religion is a religion that I don't share, but I respect. More importantly, I've known so many people of the Mormon faith who have been so magnificent. I think that Governor Romney's religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for President of the United States, absolutely not.
BN: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think? McCain: I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
Here's Article VI, Section III of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I think we have had enough of a President who has never read the Constitution ands even when he is told about it doesn't care.
