John McCain dictates his co-opted foreign "policies"

Senator John McCain with the Dalai Lama on Friday at a private residence in Aspen, Colo. The Dalai Lama was in Aspen for a symposium on Tibetan culture

Editor's Comment- I guess he tried to channel his inner-Ghandi by meeing with the Dalai Lama because, unlike most western people, he knew that the honored man of peace wouldn't slap the living daylights out of him. This guy is scary. Trying to wage war while taking photo ops with a well known pacifist. Does he really think he's fooling anybody?

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: July 26, 2008
WASHINGTON — President Bush and Senator John McCain have long been in agreement on major elements of American foreign policy, particularly in their approach to the “axis of evil” countries of Iran and North Korea, and their commitment to staying the course in Iraq.

But now the administration’s agreement to consider a “time horizon” for troop withdrawals from Iraq has moved it, at least in the public perception, in the direction of the policies of Senator Barack Obama. That has thrown Mr. McCain on the political defensive in his opposition to a timed withdrawal, Republicans in the party’s foreign party establishment say.

On Friday Mr. McCain went so far as to say that the idea of a 16-month withdrawal, which Mr. Obama supports, was “a pretty good timetable,” although he included the caveat that it had to be based on conditions on the ground.

Republicans also say the administration’s decision to authorize high-level talks with Iran and North Korea has undercut Mr. McCain’s skepticism about engagement with those countries, leaving the perception that he is more conservative than Mr. Bush on the issue.

Essentially, as the administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the decision of Mr. McCain to adhere to his more hawkish positions illustrates the continuing influence of neoconservatives on his thinking even as they are losing clout within the administration.

Whether the perception of Mr. McCain as being at odds with the administration is politically advantageous for him is a matter of debate among his supporters, but many of his more conservative advisers do not think it is a bad thing.

“There’s no doubt, particularly as Bush has adopted policies in the direction of Obama, that that gives Obama bragging rights,” said John R. Bolton, the Bush administration’s former ambassador to the United Nations, who has sharply criticized the administration’s talks with Iran and North Korea. “But if you believe as I do that this administration is in the midst of an intellectual collapse, it doesn’t hurt McCain. Occasionally in politics it helps to be right.”

But other Republicans — the so-called foreign policy pragmatists, many of whom have come to view the Iraq war as a mistake — say the administration’s policy shifts highlight the more confrontational nature of Mr. McCain’s foreign policy, particularly in his approach toward Russia and his embrace on Friday of the Dalai Lama, whom the Chinese regard as the fomenter of a rebellion in Tibet. They say the meeting will only antagonize China before the Summer Olympics, and at a moment when the United States is seeking its cooperation on economic issues and negotiations with North Korea.

The divisions within the Republican foreign policy establishment continue at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to establish his own international credentials. Republicans worry that he is seizing the chance, helped with the boost from Mr. Bush, to command the American foreign policy stage.

“Bush and Obama seem to be setting the foreign policy agenda, and McCain seems to be reacting,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan.

The McCain campaign disputes the idea that Mr. McCain has been left out on his own by the president.

“Does he feel he had the rug pulled out from under him by Bush?” said Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy aide. “Absolutely not. John McCain has always said that he wanted the troops to come home. But he is opposed to an artificial date-driven timetable that ignores conditions on the ground and the advice of military commanders.”

In fact, Mr. Bush’s decision to accept a “general time horizon” for withdrawal from Iraq is still a long way from Mr. Obama’s proposal for a phased pullout, as the administration has not set any timeline.

Mr. McCain has on several recent occasions envisioned a date by when most American troops in Iraq would leave, although he has refused to call it a timetable. In a speech in Ohio in May, he declared that most American troops would be home by 2013. On Monday, in remarks at the side of the first President George Bush in Kennebunkport, Me., Mr. McCain embraced, if only in passing, the possibility of withdrawing most American troops by the end of 2010.

On Friday on CNN, under questioning by Wolf Blitzer, he called Mr. Obama’s 16-month proposal “a pretty good timetable.” But the McCain campaign declined to elaborate Friday night on whether this represented a change in his views.

Mr. McCain’s advisers also say that he is not opposed to talks with Iran and North Korea, and that he supported the administration’s decision to send the under secretary of state, William J. Burns, to Geneva last week for talks with Iran and European officials about Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. McCain is against any president-to-president negotiations without preconditions, which Mr. Obama supports. (Mr. Obama’s advisers now say such talks would occur only if Mr. Obama deemed them potentially fruitful.)

Mr. McCain’s campaign continues to be a microcosm of the ongoing Republican foreign policy battles between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives like Mr. Bolton, and it is still not clear where the balance of power lies within Mr. McCain’s inner circle. So far, however, the divide between the two within the campaign does not appear as deep as it did within the Bush White House, and advisers say Mr. McCain has been able to chose when there is a policy difference.

Mr. McCain’s advisers were divided, for example, over a speech he gave on nuclear security policy in Denver in May. Two Republican pragmatists who advise Mr. McCain, the former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, supported a call in the speech for a nuclear-free world, an idea they endorse as part of a “Gang of Four” of national security statesmen. But other McCain advisers, including John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary, and Fred C. Ikle, a defense official in the Reagan administration, were opposed to the idea because, in their view, nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against an attack on the United States and its allies. In the end, Mr. Lehman said, Mr. McCain made the call in favor of a nuclear-free world.

“He wanted to do it,” Mr. Lehman said. “That position is McCain’s position. It’s not a cabal of Kissingerites or a cabal of neo-cons.”

But some of Mr. McCain’s pragmatist advisers remain uneasy that conservatives close to Mr. McCain — among them Mr. Scheunemann and Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — will help him mold a more bellicose message than they would like on Iran and its threat to Israel, particularly at a time when there is widespread speculation in the Israeli news media that Israeli may bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Others who were once uneasy about the influence of conservatives on Mr. McCain say that their worries have not been realized, even as Mr. McCain has taken conservative positions.

“What I’ve seen in the campaign so far to me demonstrates that McCain is his own man, and he’s not being managed,” said Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a secretary of state under the first President Bush.

CBS Messes Up....We have no proof that they covered this up but BOY did they step in it!

I am a longtime active member of Moveon.org but I don't really think that proof exists that CBS nefariously attempted to coverup the fact that they gave the wrong
answer to a stupid McCain answer. Human error is always as possiblity. If,on the
other hand they DID try to cobverup, this is proof that it would have been an exercise in futility that makes them either look incompetent or just plain guilty
of lying to the people. I'll let you be the judge of that.The video shown on
Countdown was posted previously....See what YOU think and speak your mind!

CBS used the wrong McCain footage to an important question regarding his recent faux pas.

John McCain's Youtube Problem Just Became a Nightmare!

How Much Does John McCain Really Know About Foreign Policy?

By Fred Kaplan
July 23, 2008,
Slate Magazine

After Barack Obama's opening day in Iraq this week, the New York Times headline read, "For Obama, a First Step Is Not a Misstep." The story, by Richard Oppel Jr. and Jeff Zeleny,noted, "Mr. Obama seemed to have navigated one of the riskiest parts of a weeklong international trip without a noticeable hitch."

That was the big nail-biter: Would Obama, the first-term senator and foreign-policy newbie, utter an irrevocably damaging gaffe? The nightmare scenarios were endless. Maybe he would refer to "the Iraq-Pakistan border," or call the Czech Republic
"Czechoslovakia" (three times), or confuse Sunni with Shiite, or say that the U.S. troop surge preceded (and therefore caused) the Sunni Awakening in Anbar province.

But, of course, it was Obama's opponent, John McCain—the war hero and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee—who uttered these eyebrow-raisers.
"Czechoslovakia" was clearly a gaffe, and understandable for anyone who was sentient during the Cold War years. What about the others, though? Were they gaffes—slips of the tongue, blips of momentary fatigue? Or did they reflect lazy thinking, conceptual confusion, a mind frame clouded by clichéd abstractions?

If Obama had blurted even one of those inanities (especially the one about the Iraq-Pakistan border), the media and the McCain campaign would have been all over him like red ants on a wounded puppy.McCain caught almost no hell for his statements—they were barely noted in the mainstream press—most likely because they didn't fit the campaign's "narrative." McCain is "experienced" in national-security matters; therefore, if he says something that's dumb or factually wrong, it's a gaffe or he's tired. Obama is "inexperienced," so if he were to go off the rails, it would be a sign of his clear unsuitability for the job of commander in chief.

It may be time to reassess this narrative's premise—or to abandon it altogether and simply examine the evidence before us. Quite apart from the gaffes, in formal prepared speeches, McCain has proposed certain actions and policies that raise serious questions about his suitability for the highest office. As president, he has said, he would boot Russia out of the G-8 on the grounds that its leaders don't share the West's values. He would form an international "League of Democracy" as a united front against the forces of autocracy and terror. And though it's not exactly a stated policy, he continues to employ as his foreign-policy adviser an outspoken, second-tier neoconservative named Randy Scheunemann, who coined the term "rogue-state rollback" and still prescribes it as sound policy.

Evicting Russia from the group of eight leading industrial nations may have some visceral appeal, but it has at least two drawbacks. First, all the G-8's other members are opposed to the notion. Second, the main issues that concern the G-8—for instance, climate change, energy policy, nuclear nonproliferation, and counterterrorism—cannot be fully addressed without Russia's participation.

The idea of a League of Democracy has a nice ring, especially given the United Nations' frequent obstructionism in the face of human misery and common danger. The obstructionism stems in part from vetoes by Russia or China, which, of course, would not be members of this league. But there are a few problems here as well. First, democratic nations often differ on high-profile issues (e.g., the invasion of Iraq, the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, the Kyoto Treaty, etc.). Second, very few of the world's pressing problems break down along the lines of democracies vs. nondemocracies, either by topic or constituency. Third, creating such an overtly ideological bloc as a central tool of foreign policy would only alienate the excluded nations—and possibly incite them to form an opposing bloc. The challenge is to find common solutions to global problems, not to encumber them in a new Cold War.

As for rolling back rogue states, one would hope that McCain has learned some lessons from George W. Bush's failures as even Bush himself has done, albeit belatedly—for instance, in deciding to negotiate with the North Koreans (though not until after they tested an atomic bomb). Someone should ask McCain: Would he cut off those talks? Does he value Scheunemann's advice? If so, which rogues does he hope to topple next, and with whose army does he plan to do it? (Ours is overbooked at the moment.)

In other words, how much does John McCain really know about foreign policy after all? It's a question to be asked and answered, not brushed away as impertinent.

If McCain thinks he can drill his way out of high prices he needs to listen to a REAL Oil Expert

John McCain's Connection to Big Oil & The Enron Loophole

Let the Vulture soar- Way to go Ashcroft....another John run amuck.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding has served a "valuable" purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee Thursday.

Testifying on the Bush administration's interrogation rules before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the technique while answering a question from Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina.

"Waterboarding, as we all know, is a controversial issue. Do you think it served a beneficial purpose?" the congressman asked.

"The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable," Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the "value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques -- I don't know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment -- the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources."

Waterboarding is a technique designed to simulate drowning. The agency has acknowledged using it on terror suspects. Some critics regard it as torture; others say it is a harsh interrogation technique, and proponents say it is a useful tool in the war on terror.

Ashcroft, who stated his opposition to torture, said the Justice Department has determined that waterboarding -- as defined and described by the CIA -- doesn't constitute torture.

"I believe a report of waterboarding would be serious, but I do not believe it would define torture," Ashcroft said, responding to questions from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

He added, "The Department of Justice has on a consistent basis over the last half dozen years or so, over and over again in its evaluations, come to the conclusion that under the law in existence during my time as attorney general, waterboarding did not constitute torture."

Waters asked Ashcroft if such techniques would be regarded as "totally unacceptable and even criminal" if they were used on American soldiers.

"Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces," Ashcroft said.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, asked Ashcroft how many times waterboarding had been performed. Ashcroft said that it's his "understanding it has been done three times" as part of an "interrogation process." He said he believes the subjects of the interrogations "would be labeled as high-valued detainees."

The House of Representatives earlier this year failed to muster the two-thirds majority it needed to override President Bush's veto of a bill that would have banned certain CIA interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

The White House applauded the vote, saying an override "would have diminished the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation."

The bill was an effort to curtail the CIA's ability to use harsh interrogation techniques that the military and other law enforcement agencies ban. It would have restricted U.S. interrogators to techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual.

The White House said the restriction "would have eliminated the legal alternative procedures in place in the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists."

Hey John.....How can a former POW who was tortured tolerate the fact that Bush is letting it happen? Why did you say "Yes" to Waterboarding?

Hey Johnny Boy, "Watch the Google"......Watch this!

A Native Texan recalls Phil Gramm- Evil Manipulator and Exploiter of Americans

Editor's Comment- As a native Texan who stood on a figurative chair looking down on this rattler as it slithered in from Georgia, I was never surprised when he turned into a multi-headed hydra that bit the very hands that fed him. I wrote him when he was our Senator and told him about need my Republican Mom had who was a long time supporter of his.

She was at the time an invalid. He never replied. He took her money, her time and when it came time to return the favor he was (as he was when he was of age for Vietnam) AWOL. He has taken from this country and he has skipped out on making his payments.

He accepted Democratic money when he ran for Congress and then he turned around and shared information he had from insider observations to help Ronald Regan.This is how he become a popular Republican and he later took the place of John Tower as our Senator. (Note-I met Tower as a small child. Unlike Gramm, Tower was actually a nice man who later had a drinking and womanizing problem. I cried with loss when he died in a plane crash with the grown up daughter he told me he would have loved to have introduced me to.-editor)

Gramm even had a huge pile of hot checks when the US Congress had an in house banking scandal a few years back. Interesting banking behavior for a man who taught Economics at my father's beloved A&M (WHOOP!) and who has been the "backbone" of McCain's Economic plans. Be afraid Will Robinson.....be very afraid if this is his idea of a "figurative" economic period of turmoil. He is a virtual idiot and a real jerk too.

Don't listen to me......consider his own words that have come back to bite him more than once.....
"Has anyone ever noticed that we live in the only country in the world where all the poor people are fat?" — During his first Senate Campaign against Democrat Lloyd Doggett.

"We're going to keep on building the party (the Texas Republican Party) until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." As quoted in Mother Jones, August 1995


"If you are willing to tackle the tough issues, you don’t need to worry about stepping on anyone’s toes; they will stand aside and shove you to the front.” — As quoted by former Gramm staffer Wayne A. Abernathy September 12, 2002, before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness."

PSSST......John McCain, pay heed here. Gramm is like the old joke....He's like prunes. With friends like him who needs enemas.


On July 9, 2008, Gramm participated in an interview with The Washington Times, explaining John McCain's plans in reforming the U.S. economy. During the interview, he downplayed the idea that the nation was in a recession, stating, "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline." (PSST Phil.....the saying is a Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.Depression is when you lose YOUR job)

The following day, McCain strongly denounced Gramm's comments and subsequently stated that Gramm was not in consideration for any high level positions, joking "I think Senator Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus, although I'm not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that."

Gramm later attempted to clarify his comment, explaining that he had used the word "whiners" to describe the nation's politicians rather than the public, stating "the whiners are the leaders." But in another interview, Gramm stated, "I'm not going to retract any of it. Every word I said was true." (BULLSHIT-Editor's Comment)

Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned but it is only lukewarm compared to a Texan who has a memory better than any elephant and the ability to wait to strike when the iron is hot.

John McCain VS ANOTHER VIetnam Vet (wearing FUNNY hat?) Bad joke. Bad townhall tactic! Bring back the Librarian!

embed>

Show me the MONEY John.

John McCain has a secret. According to Open Secrets a watch dog money web page, it's a public information matter. He has little in the way of PAC funds but he has an amazing last minute 11% of his money that is not accounted for.

It's not mentioned as "self-financing" ala wife Cindy's Budweiser Franchise money. It's just not itemized. HUH? The dude who says he is "Senator Maverick......Senator Straight Talk......Senator Charles Keeting FIVE? Mr. McCain-Feingold with UNDISCLOSED MONEY? Who could this UNDISCLOSED source be?

Better yet.....why does he have a $110,000 plus contribution from UBS on his disclosed list? Are you saying that former Senator Phil Gramm who just HAPPENS to be co-chair of the 08 McCain Campaign, passed the hat? Now THAT'S a Kodak moment.

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767

Holy undisclosed lobbist influence! Riddle me this.... Why are so many banks listed? Can you say privitization of Social Security Insurance funds now safely held in US Secured Bonds? Sure, I knew you could boys and girls! Texas just HAPPENS to use one of these banks that has privatized unemployment payments. No more checks. You now get a loaded credit card. Nice work if you can get it.

HUMMMMM! Holy Iran-Contra, Batman! Time to head for the Batcave. It's Bush's third term all over again!

Read the numbers below. The numbers tell the tale and it is not one that flatters Mr. "Straight Talk" McCain. From one Irish about another Irish.....something is rotten in the State of Denmark. The numbers don't add up even for a George W Bush (the sequel) reigeme.

Make note......Cindy McCain says that her money is private family money and not subject to public disclosure. He suddenly took "Public Money" at the end. He only obeyed McCain-Feingold because he took out a loan to finance his campaign when he the "Straight Talk Express" was running on financial gas fumes! I know he says that he doesn't know anything about the economy but does this PROVE that he has never pumped his own gas?

I would wager after today, that Russ Feingold regrets putting his name on the McCain-Feingold Bi-Partisian Campaign Reform legislation. He watched Phone Companies get a get out of jail free card today. Maybe Russ Feingold signed in the spirit of Bipartisan Campaign reform. Now he may regret this decision.

Read 'em and weep Senator Straight Talker..... Here is your web page reference.....In the age of the Gore inspired "internets, "We the People" have our eyes upon you........all the live long day! Ask Clayton Williams......memories run long in the Lone Star State that you pal, Bush claims to be a part of. We KNEW Ann Richards........He's NO Ann Richards!

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00006424&cycle=2008


Source of Funds:

Individual contributions $104,783,672 88%
PAC contributions $1,143,214 1%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds: $0 0%
Other $13,667,709 11%

Here are the money facts....

Full Disclosure $87,131,669 (87.8%)
Incomplete $0
No Disclosure $12,161,799 (12.2%)

Maggie

John McCain setting up cheap drugs for Wal-Mart?

Fri Jul 4, 1:44 PM ET US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain speaks during a press conference at the Federal Police building in Mexico City on July 3, 2008. White House hopefuls Barack Obama and McCain marked the US Independence Day holiday Friday with parades, picnics and odes to patriotism.

NOT SO FAST SMART GUY!! What the heck is McCain doing in Mexico City with his wife
the day before he and his wife went back to the US to eat at a 4th of July Picnic?
Try understanding this......he was in Columbia the day before when the "Hostages" were released?

How the heck can he be there AHEAD of the release of hostages if he was so busy running for the US President? Interesting. Surely it doesn't have anything.....surely.....you don't think that he is setting the whole thing up to be there in case he could have had negotiations for NAFTA of his own kind! NAW....that's too conspiratorial. There HAS to be another answer.

I get it. They released them and he had time to go to Mexico for a pinata for his wife's NASCAR meeting on the FOURTH. THAT is CAPITALISM! That WORKS!

Barack Obama speaks of McCain on the G.I. Bill (Senate Floor)

McCain tries to get out of answering the GI Bill Question.....

John McCain Pander Bear?

This week in the very same week when George W Bush signed the Bi-Partisan GI Bill, he
stated that John McCain was a part of this coming into effect. GIVE ME A BREAK. John McCain voted against it. Check out this April note and you will find that even as he "supported the troops" he was once against them receiving benefits that they have more than earned!

McCain, Military Oppose Expanding GI Bill
Presidential Hopeful Believes Legislation Would Hurt Military
By Z. Byron Wolf
April 14, 2008

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.

Both Democratic presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., — have signed on as co-sponsors, and the bill has gained bipartisan support from 54 senators on Capitol Hill in addition to Webb. A vote on the proposal is expected before the summer.

But the bill, which would dramatically increase educational compensation for American troops, has run into some unexpected resistance, both at the Pentagon and now from McCain, who has remained silent on the issue, saying he had not studied the bill close enough.