That bold Maverick and saintly Straight Talker McCain, the darling of our broken press corps, addressed the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) on Thursday. (Transcript at the McCain campaign site and also at Real Clear Politics). Here's how the bold Maverick presents himself, in his own words. My emphasis is in bold.
St. McCain waited until later in the speech to address his favorite cause, the Iraq War:
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.
I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.
Like all advocates of continuing the Cheney-Bush policy, the Maverick holds up the bad things that could happen if the US pulls its troops out, but pretends that the US presence is only causing good things to happen right now, which is far from the truth. Listen carefully to see if the Maverick explains that during the campaign with his famous "straight talk".
His adoring fans in the press corps won't jam him on it, but the peace movement and the Democrats should: exactly what does he mean by "win the war"? That the Sunni insurgents all surrender, lay down their arms and meekly agree to be arrested and tortured and executed by Shi'a death squads? That all sectarian fighting between and among Sunnis, Shi'a, Arabs and Kurds will end? The Maverick has made it clear that he intends to continue the war until we "win". He should at least spell out clearly what that means in his mind.
Does the great Straight Talker really understand "just how awful war is"? It's one thing to have his own experience. But he's not the first war veteran to be excessively willing to send other to kill and die in a war. And he may understand that war is "awful", but he was perfectly willing to pretend that his escalation plan, The Surge, was working just fine when he was strolling around a Baghdad market in a flak jacket and a huge military escort.
And what evidence in the real world is there that "the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date"? Basically none, unless you count vapid Second World War analogies which the neocons and the McCains of the world spew out endlessly.
Whatever the Maverick believes he understands about war in general, we should all understand that he offers no plausible scenario for getting the Iraq War resolved and/or US troops out. In fact, the old Straight Talker has indulged in the bizarre approach that war fans have embraced. If the violence increases, that's good news because The Terrorists are desperate, and we need to keep US troops there to finish them off. If the violence decreases, that's good news because The Terrorists are losing, and and we need to keep US troops there to finish them off. Which, being translated, means that St. McCain is clueless about how to get the US out of the Iraq War.
The Maverick also spoke about Iran:
They [Clinton and Obama] won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.
I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions. (my emphasis)
The notion that Iran's "fondest wish" is to destroy Israel is very far-fetched, to put it mildly. What does it even mean to say that Iran "pledges undying enmity" to the US? Is the Straight Talker just spouting fake propaganda? Is he writing off the possibility of diplomatic improvements with Iran? It sure sounds like it.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.
I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.
This is "straight talk" of the neoconservative variety, denying that US actions have anything to do with Muslim terrorism directed against American targets. It's all because they "despise all that is good about us". One of the strangest things about the Republicans' position on their Global War on Terrorism is that rightwingers like McCain and Karl Rove pretend that it's weak and contemptable to even try to understand what actually motivates The Enemy, other than irremediable hatred for everything about us. When did it become a sign of weaknesses to try to understand an opponent's real motivations?
And his version of "staying on offense" has meant being the biggest cheerleader for the Iraq War, which has been and remains a major distraction from and counterproductive to the efforts to combat the kind of transnational, anti-American terrorism that struck New York on 9/11/2001.
So, if you like the way the Iraq War is going and want to see it continue with full American participation indefinitely, then the Maverick McCain is definitely your guy!
The Maverick's vision for foreign policy
