100 years in Iraq.

[icarus]

Have you seen the Democrat's ad against McCain?

They play and replay McCain's reply that it would be fine with him if the US stayed in Iraq for 100 years.

The Republican party hates this clip and this ad so much, they're threatening legal action against TV stations that play it.

But if that's not enough, let's bring back the cold war!

I'm looking for the article, but wildernessguru tells me that yesterday McCain suggested Russia should be removed from the European Union G8.

Ah. Found the article on Reuters: McCain would exclude Russia from G8 nations


Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:45pm EDT
Reuters

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCainsaid on Monday if elected he would push to exclude Russia from theGroup of Eight conclave of major industrial nations to punish Moscowfor rolling back political freedoms.

"We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia," McCainwrote in a Foreign Affairs magazine article outlining his views onforeign policy looking ahead to the November 2008 election.

The Group of Eight, known as the G8, includes the United States,Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Japan and Russia. Theirleaders gather each year in one of their countries to discuss majoreconomic and political challenges facing the globe.

Russia is a fairly recent entry into the group, joining the Group ofSeven in 1997, and President Vladimir Putin played host to the annualG8 summit in St. Petersburg in 2006.

McCain, an Arizona senator who frequently denigrates Putin, said theG8 should again become "a club of leading market democracies: It shouldinclude Brazil and India but exclude Russia."

"Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, aleadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers,efforts to bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts tomanipulate Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas," McCain wrote.

At age 71 trying to become the oldest American to win a first termas president, McCain said the challenges facing the country are suchthat "there will be no time for on-the-job training."

McCain sought to distance himself from the foreign policies ofPresident George W. Bush in the article, never mentioning the currentpresident, while singling out Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, forpraise for forming a broad international coalition during the Gulf Warof the early 1990s.

He said years of "mismanagement and failure in Iraq" are proof thatthe United States should go to war only with sufficient troop levelsand with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success.

But he said the current U.S. troop build-up is working in Iraq andshould be pursued, dismissing Democratic candidates who promise a quickpullout.

"The war in Iraq cannot be wished away, and it is a miscalculationof historic magnitude to believe that the consequence of failure willbe limited to one administration or one party," he wrote.

McCain said if elected he would set up a new intelligence agencypatterned after the Office of Strategic Services, the World War Twopredecessor to the CIA, to fight "terrorist subversion around the worldand in cyberspace."

"It could take risks that our bureaucracies today rarely considertaking -- such as deploying infiltrating agents without diplomaticcover in terrorist states and organizations -- and play a key role infrontline efforts to rebuild failed states," he said.

To fight climate change, McCain said he would do what the currentadministration has refused to do. He would agree to set reasonable capson emissions of carbon dioxide and provide industries with tradableemissions credits.

Comments

[thalia]

OK, McCain is officially scaring me.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yep. He's bad news.

[sarka.livejournal.com]

*lifts both eyebrows*

Yes, because excluding Russia from the G8 would so work. Sheesh.

And what the US really needs right now is another Secret Service. Obviously.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Like we have any influence over the G8 anyway because, you know, they really love the US now.

There already is another Secret Service. It was started under Rumsfeld, run completely under the auspices of the Department of Defense and therefore without any of the controls and reporting required by the CIA.

[jackoweskla.livejournal.com]

That article is from last fall -- why are we just hearing about it now?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

From my side -- because I just heard of it now.

From the side of the press -- good question. It's been there. But somehow it just got buried.

Hmm. If I recall, this was around the time the press was dominated by stories about whether or not the troop surge has had an effect in Iraq, and the ramping up in the press about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program.

Russia was sceptical about US claims that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Later the CIA released documents that made it clear they'd told the Bush administration in August 2007 that Iran had discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Both France and Russia had revealed the sattelite info that the US had nuclear submarines in the Gulf, and they'd asked the US: "What's the deal?" Nuclear subs serve no purpose for Iraq operations. They're a missle launch platform, or a platform from which we would drop off special ops teams. The US is not going to launch missles at locations in Iraq where we have our own troops. But we might launch missles at locations in Iran.

We don't need a nuclear sub base from which to launch troops into Iraq. We have entire air bases for that now. But we would need them to send special ops teams into Iran in advance of an attack.

Some on my f-list suggested that the nuclear subs might be there to prevent arms shipments to Iraq? But they serve no purpose in dealing with Iran's laughable 3-sub "navy."

Anyway, Russia had blown the whistle on the US and France had confirmed it. Coincidentally, the Bush adminstration then started making noises about "human rights violations" and "decay of Democracy" in Russia. If I have the timing right, Cheney went along with the Bush administration like a seal pup. Only louder.

[faithfulreader.livejournal.com]

Russian media reported about McCain’s plans a long time ago. He also said somewhere that he wants to transform the UN into some sort of League of Democratic Nations and thus exclude Russian and Chinese influence in UN Security Council (both can block any decision of the Council).

Russian media also analysed the two Democratic candidates and found that they have more or less similar views on US foreign policy as far as Russia and China are concerned.

US foreign policy is not defined by the US president but by the political elite and it’s not about to change its views.

Anyway, I think that major confrontations between Russia and the US and between China and the US are inevitable.

100 years.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I probably should not have posted both the video and WG's article in the same post.

Russian media also analysed the two Democratic candidates and found that they have more or less similar views on US foreign policy as far as Russia and China are concerned.

Hmm. I'd have to see some proof of that, and not just their campaign platforms (which are going to be bullshit designed to attract voters, like the elderly who don't like Russia, and well, pretty much everyone doesn't like China) but their actual words and voting records.

US foreign policy is not defined by the US president but by the political elite and it’s not about to change its views.

Untrue. Up until 2006, the Republican party exercised tremendous pull over what was nicknamed the "vampire" congress (because of their late night secret votes intended to circumvent Democrats from even being present). Bush's neo-con policies were rammed through with minimal opposition -- including his foreign policy. Republicans who did not go along with Bush were retaliated against.

It went so far that the Attorney General's office was given a list of attorneys to be removed from their positions, solely because they didn't support Bush's policies. (This, by the way, was a huge scandal and is highly illegal.)

When a State Department official spoke out in the press about Bush's so-called WMDs in Iraq, the Bush administration leaked the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. This sank whatever operations she was involved in, and potentially killed her contacts. That's the degree of retaliation the Bush administration has exercised. "Scooter" Libby was found guilty of the charges in this case and sentenced to prison -- but Bush commuted his sentence. (An executive privilege that's usually reserved for elderly dying prisoners with cancer, not political buddies that have covered your ass.)

Every general that has opposed the Bush administration's plan in Iraq has been forced to retire. (The military tends to vote Republican.) Our failure in Iraq is largely due to the Bush administration's autocratic "do as we tell you" dealings with the military.

In my own state, my senator, Maria Caldwell, went up against the Bush administration's attempt to give oil companies the right to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The Republican party spent massive amounts of money in 2006 to unseat her in retaliation. (They lost.)

In 2006, the Democrats took over the House and more or less tied for the Senate. Still, Bush has been autocratic and has little or no concern for his legacy or impact on Republican success in the next election. For example, not too long ago he vetoed a bill that would extend already existing health care benefits for low income children during a budget battle.

We have never had a president exercise this much control.

Re: 100 years.

[faithfulreader.livejournal.com]

Well, I don’t have my own opinion as far as American political elite is concerned. But Russian Academy of Sciences has Institute of the United States and Canada. I listened to the institute’s director and he spoke of very interesting things.

It seems that Americans are trying hard to say that Bush is a very bad president and that he is the only one who is responsible for all the bad things that happened to America in the last years.

But it cannot be true: one person cannot have that much influence. Obviously, lots of other influential people supported him. Also, there’s the fact that Americans voted for him for the second time.

And lastly, from where we stand, America seems always the same: Clinton started a war in Balkans; Bush started a war in Iraq… No difference at all.

Re: 100 years.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It's actually not Bush who's the problem. Mostly, it's Dick Cheney (that's why I'm careful say Bush administration and not "Bush") and the neo-con lockstep of the Republican party that retaliates against and removes anyone who opposes their policies.

I'm noticing your knowledge seems very vague. Have you read anything about the "vampire" congress? I can link you to information on how congress has run during Bush's tenure.

Most Russians I know would be offended by vague statements comparing Putin and Stalin that state "Russia is Russia and it has never changed." Please note that you seem to be making similarly vague and inaccurate statements.

America seems always the same: Clinton started a war in Balkans; Bush started a war in Iraq… No difference at all.

You're joking. There's good reason why the UN went along with the Balkans and yet the entire world opposed Bush's attack on Iraq. There a big difference between baby boomer do-gooder interventionism, and the blatant abuse of the military to enrich an oil baron president and vice president.

Note that while Clinton had nothing financial to gain in the Balkans, Dick Cheney, the former head of Halliburton, gave no-bid Iraq contracts to Halliburton. Halliburton has been exposed for cheating the US gov't out of billions of Iraq funds, and yet the whistleblowers have been (yet again) retaliated against -- and Halliburton is still receiving money from the US.

Re: 100 years.

[faithfulreader.livejournal.com]

I'm noticing your knowledge seems very vague

Well, it might seem vague, but then, I am not interested in specifics of Americans politics. I am interested only in the results.

Factual knowledge isn’t good, too, I should add. Too many facts hinder understanding of the general pattern.

There's good reason why the UN went along with the Balkans and yet the entire world opposed Bush's attack on Iraq

We very much opposed the war in Balkans.

American war in Balkans was that moment in history when Russian euphoria about the collapse of the Soviet Union evaporated. In 1998 Russian society’s view on the West has completely changed and two years after that Russians elected an ex-KGB agent to be the President, thus indicating that we wanted to make a step back.

And, as far as the war in Iraq is concerned, I am glad that it happened. Yes, more than a million people died but understanding of the war in Iraq was an overall positive influence on American society, I think.

I am sure McCain will become the next president. And I think it will be an overall good thing too: one more disastrous war and America might become peacefully neutral.

Re: 100 years.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Factual knowledge isn’t good, too, I should add. Too many facts hinder understanding of the general pattern.

That's an astonishing statement.

To my mind, that's a vote for superficiality and ignorance. Without facts one has no basis for understanding anything at all, either the general pattern or knowledge at any depth.

Re: 100 years.

[faithfulreader.livejournal.com]

…that’s why I said ‘too many facts’…

The ability to set priorities is, in fact, the most important ability for a researcher.

Re: 100 years.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

Clinton did not "start" a war in the Balkans; the people there were doing quite a good job of that themselves.

Re: 100 years.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

That, too. Good point.

[magic-8ball.livejournal.com]

The Republican party hates this clip and this ad so much, they're threatening legal action against TV stations that play it.

That cracks me up. He said it. He's on film saying it. The film isn't doctored. I see no reason to preclude anyone from using it as political fodder. And sure, it's taken completely out of context and the Democrats are taking advantage of the fact that people don't care enough to research the five seconds that precede and follow the utilized sound bite, but after the way Rove and his cronies earned the unofficial (and probably cherished) title of Republican Attack Machine, I think any decision to seem outraged by Dems' use of that McCain clip as being beyond hypocritical.

(Oh, and there's also the fact that such legal action would be patently offensive on its face, as the Republican party would basically be saying that they don't trust the public to get the facts straight and actually realize how deceptive an ad that is.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

He says in the rest of it that "so long as Americans are being harmed or killed" and -- Jesus, has he not looked at the casualty list? Is he out of touch with reality? There's no comparison between South Korea and Iraq, because in Iraq we're at war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

[magic-8ball.livejournal.com]

Well that was his point, right? He wanted to re-frame the issue as "What circumstances should we be looking to achieve?" as opposed to "How much longer do we want to stay?" So sure, it's perfectly fine to have troops there for the next 100 years, just as long as people aren't shooting at us (a scenario that would be comparable to Kuwait); it's just that people aren't ready to discuss the possibility of staying for 100 years because there seems no way to get to necessary precursor of people not shooting us.

I was actually watching that appearance when he made the 100 years comment, and I realized right away that he'd just provided a sound bite that I'd hear again 100 times. But I also had no problem for the statement as it was framed. Except, you know, for the fact that the scenario as described seems completely unrealistic and unattainable.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

He tried. But there's a vast difference between a war and a bunch of military bases in a foreign country. It's called "the Iraq war" for good reason. Nevermind the fact that the military bases we've built in Iraq already are nowhere near population centers. They're all by the oil fields. Is anyone, looking at the locations of our military bases, still fooling themselves into thinking that we're not there for the oil?

(Frankly, he also ignores the fact that South Korea wants us to vamoose.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

McCain has consistently opposed any plan withdraw from Iraq, whether people are are being shot at or not. So his caveat "just as long as people aren't shooting at us," well, based on his voting record, he doesn't have a problem keeping us there while we're being shot at either.

[cat-77.livejournal.com]

I know this doesn't concern as many people, but he's pissed off a few people here in MN with his comments on how the bridge collapsed due to wasting money on other things. Um, they were in the process of repairing it when it fell.

That was yesterday. Today he changed his mind. Go fig.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

McCain says what he really thinks first. Then his handlers tell him something different moments later, and he changes his mind. Who will we see in office? The jerk we hear from first? Or the handlers?

[cat-77.livejournal.com]

Is it too much to hope for the option of "None of the Above"?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Heh.

[an-kayoh.livejournal.com]

Drive-by comment - you probably won't be able to find an article about McCain wanting to remove Russia from the EU...it isn't in the EU. Doesn't preclude McCain screwing up, but...

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Obviously you didn't read the post.

I did find the article. Not the EU but the G8.

[an-kayoh.livejournal.com]

Obviously you didn't read the post.

Um. I did. It was unclear to me whether or not you were still looking for a EU article. I didn't mean to insult you in any way. My apologies.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I can see why it would be confusing, since I had:

I'm looking for the article, but wildernessguru tells me that yesterday McCain suggested Russia should be removed from the EU.

Ah. Found the article on Reuters: McCain would exclude Russia from G8 nations

I put a strikethrough and corrected "EU" for all the skimmers out there. :)

[kagyakusha.livejournal.com]

I've got to say, as a Canadian I am relying on all you rational Americans to make this election go right.
Then hopefully we can get rid of our own asshole-in-charge. *waves little Canadian and American flags*