Letters to the Editor
-
not happy in Acton,MA
I submitted that question to Mr Kurtz, and I am not happy with his answer, which just begs another question (a la Red Snapper): if he's either being ignorant or deliberately misleading, why is no one in the media reporting that (including Mr Kurtz)?
I have submitted a follow-up question (at about 12:25 EDT).
I see now that someone asked my follow-up, and Howie's anwer is:
I have read numerous articles about McCain's mistake (The Post dealt with it again yesterday in a review of his trip abroad) and seen it debated on television as well. One reason it's not getting "saturation" coverage is that so much media attention is focused on the Clinton-Obama race that McCain, with the nomination in his pocket, has receded. This helps him a bit when he screws up, as he did in this case, but probably hurts him more in that he's not much in the news while the Democrats dominate the coverage.
Which dodges the issue, since it's still just a "screw-up", not a serious hole in McCain's foreign policy "expertise", and apparently no one is going to take any interest in it while there are scary black preachers to focus on.
-
DemoChristian
Odierno has also ramped up his Iran-blather lately. There seems to be a little spike in Iran-bashing generally, by the usual suspects.
As far as I can see, not a single shred of evidence offered along with the claims, and not a single iota of fact-checking by the media reporters. In BBC piece, Petraeus seems to know that the rockets were Iranian, that the Iraqis firing them were trained by Quds. How could he possibly know this, and how could the media possibly swallow same without asking how he knows it?
I'm trying to figure out what the script is here. It may be that, since Mhadi Army has been stood down, the military's logic that any Shia still firing can only be a splinter group supported by Iran. (?)
-
Bottom-dweller
Another reason for McCain's "mistake" may be lazy thinking or a lack of insight. Both of those scare me as much as his having malice in what he stated. I'm not one to put too much emphasis on where one went to school or class rank, but when one is a bottom-dweller of any institution (McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of the US Naval Academy) it does show laziness of the mind and a lack of effort. McCain’s most likely intelligent enough (don't really know why I think that - perhaps I'm being charitable?), but I believe he has few intellectual interests. Even most of his "writings" are with a co-writer, and we all know pretty much what that means.
McCain's just not that bright, nor does he really care. He gets by on his "personality", and of course his married and family connections.
-
Just an accusation in the form of a question with no evidence
Is McCain one of those institutional anonymous sources that lets journalists churn out a fifty hour story in an hour and a half?
Is McCain given a public pass by some journalists because he gives them a private pass?
Does burning a source really have anything to do with anonymity?
Is "who butters your bread" just a lubricant joke?
-
McCain has been singing a variation of the same song for a long time
One of my strongest memories of McCain from the 90s/Clinton era is of him speaking on a TV panel show with a couple other Very Knowledgeable Personages about the then pressing question of going into the Balkans.
He was against it -- and was using the (legitimate) argument that 'they' had been fighting these tribal wars for centuries, and that we weren't going to be able to stop them without getting mired in the Balkans foreveh.....
His argument was almost the perfect opposite of the arguments he has used, and uses today in defense of active military meddling in the Mideast. He's unlikely to make the argument in public that we must be there to defend our national interest and access to petroleum -- but even if he did 'fess up and admit to realpolitik aims he couldn't support them with data.
Our military has been entrenched in the heart of the Middle East for +5 years, and the cost of running our economy just keeps going up. Iraq has been a strategic disaster -- an utterly perfectly example of what he then insisted the Serbian campaign would become.
I wish I remembered the show and could point to a link or archive. It was a great illustration of McCain promoting the Republican political viewpoint for strictly domestic political gain against Democrats.
He still does that. It's all a Great Game for an Important Person like him. And he will drive the American empire into default without the slightest hesitation.
-
casual_observer
I don't understand the anti-Iranian push, either.
Most military observers admit that our army is over-extended with 2 wars and uncounted obligations.
Aerial assaults would create untold civilian casualties and the creation of even more terrorists.
So why start a war that would further destabilize the region and bankrupt our forces and treasury?
The only answer I see is historical in nature.
America hates to change leaders in the middle of a war. Only Johnson's refusal to run for re-election put Nixon in the White House during Viet Nam. And he continued and expanded that war.
The Occupation of Iraq is a losing issue for Republicans. But a war with the hated Iranians may give them the wedge issue they can exploit.
-
@DemoC
"But a war with the hated Iranians may give them the wedge issue they can exploit."
By all means, they should wedge-away. They'll find all they can split off is about 30%, or thereabouts. After they put that wedge down, they can go to the black wrought-iron fence around the White House and peer in, along with the other tourists.
-
McCain was not wrong!
Iran is the enemy. Iran must be destroyed.
If they don't really support Al Qaida or provide the insurgents with super high-tech, Made in Iran EFP's, what matter?
For whatever reason, Iran has been targeted by the neocons, Israel, whomever. It's pretty clear to me that elements in America wish to attack Iran. It's obvious to me that McCain wishes to do so. That image of Lieberman whispering in his ear was really chilling.
"Remember the deal John, if you want us to help you gain the Presidency, you have to stick to the script!"
The only question is whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That will scare the 'bloody wogs'.