Correcting John McCain

John McCain's latest big foreign policy speech was, bizarrely, reported as him positioning himself as more moderate than George W. Bush. Talking to rightwing radio, though, McCain is singing a different tune, emphasizing that "no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." He goes on to explain that "there are many national security issues that I have strongly supported the president and steadfastly so."

In some respects, though, McCain has been a less-than-steadfast supporter of Bush. He, for example, spent most of 1999 and 2000 criticizing Bush for being unwilling to adopt a doctrine of rogue state rollback. Back in 2002 while Bush was unwilling to publicly argue for invading Iraq, McCain was doing it. And while Bush was full of talk about disarmament, McCain was clear from the start that he would settle only for regime change. McCain spent a lot of time criticizing Bush for not sending enough Americans over to Iraq to be killed, and has also been known to criticize Bush for insufficient saber-rattling directed at such countries as Iran, Syria, and Russia. So, really, it's not fair to say that McCain is just like Bush -- he's been a much more consistent proponent of the worst policies associated with the Bush administration.

Comments

I believe that Arizona cabin barbecue for journalists negates coverage of all that, Matt.

Posted by Garuda | April 5, 2008 5:25 PM

Well, as Kirchick said:

"If only Yglesias were as tough on America’s mortal enemies as he is with his own intellectual adversaries."

And political adversaries. I imagine the book's not much better, but at least we have a decent neocon preview.

Posted by Americaneocon | April 5, 2008 5:42 PM

What worries me is that unlike Bush, who has a bunch of cronies and "handlers" like Cheney to direct his bullshit, McCain is simply an out of control loony tune almost on a par with Giuliani.

Although McCain takes a ton of money from lobbyists, it's not clear that his crazed foreign policy would even be controllable by the usual suspects - the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, and the financial community.

This guy could really destroy the US military and economy when he goes off the rails.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 5, 2008 5:55 PM

Sheesh, Matthew, you're making me go from tepid support of J-Mac to full-out fandom.

After foolishly following the whims of James Baker's international coalition at the end of Desert Storm and not eliminating Saddam when we had the best possible opportunity, we wound up wasting years of patch-work international agreements to box him and his "rogue state" cohorts in to little effect.

Right at the end of the Cold War, we had the greatest opportunity to break with our Cold War pattern of supporting any tyrant as long as he was "our sonuvabitch." Instead, we spent the Clinton years without any clearly defined foreign policy, save for a Blair-driven Yugoslav intervention here, a cud or two over Iraq or Sudan or Afghanistan there. The military and intelligence services were depleted and run into the ground.

J-Mac should have been elected in 2000.

Posted by MarkG | April 5, 2008 5:57 PM

...and before anyone snarks it to me: Yes, I meant "cud missiles". You know, the ones that chew up their victims, swallow them, barf them up into their mouths, and them chew them up some more.

Posted by MarkG | April 5, 2008 6:05 PM

Certainly looks like that book review has created a troll surge.

Posted by DJ | April 5, 2008 6:07 PM

Yup, the trolls are ah surging.

Keep saying it Matt; people will catch on eventually.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 5, 2008 6:28 PM

And even more McCain=Bush stances:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/30/94541/7973/53/487092

That's it, when in doubt of your own position on an issue tell everyone that your position is exactly like the president's. After all, why should he have positions on anything other than war?

McCain's stupidity is outrageous, and the fact that his Bush-like positions aren't being examined and questioned by the press and the public is even more outrageous and frankly dangerous.

Posted by Stephanie | April 5, 2008 7:05 PM

I've been of the opinion that the current clowns went into Iraq because there was money to be made, but McCain would go in anywhere because he feels it's the American thing to do.

Oh, and the troll's comment was ridiculous.

Posted by Tony Hussein | April 5, 2008 7:10 PM

What MY didn't point out, and what would have made his point even stronger, is that Bill "William the Bloody" Kristol originally endorsed McCain in 2000. And Kristol was itching for regime change in Iraq since during the Clinton presidency. You'll never hear the TradMed talk about that I know.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 5, 2008 8:57 PM

Lesser mind's than McCain's might see inconsitency in the bracketing of his speech with his comments on talk radio.

But for McCain it's easy:

--McFlip gave the speech
--McFlop made the comments on right-wing radio

The bad news is that they are BOTH the bad McCain....

Posted by Tim Connor | April 5, 2008 9:24 PM

McCain doesn't want to be called a "warmonger" so maybe there is hope. When the debates are on, McCain will be quizzing Obama about what to do with Iran if it won't follow orders regarding its nuclear program. "Will you allow Iran to get a nuke?" Obama's answer will likely revolve around cooperating with the international community to see what can be done. That won't be good enough for McCain and the Israel lobby. In the event of his election, McCain will have to follow through on his "tougher than thou" rhetoric. The good news - McCain is unlikely to get elected, sparing U.S. servicemen going through another meatgrinder on par with, or greater than, Iraq.

Posted by A. Halsey | April 5, 2008 10:31 PM

McCain shouldn't mong so many wars if he doesn't want to be called a warmonger.

Tbat's what I'd tell him if he asked.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 5, 2008 10:56 PM

Why should the media report on McCain's double-speak when they can either focus on Rev. Wright if Obama gets the nod or focus on Clinton's fabulist tendencies if she gets the nod.

The media are already trying to bail him out of the "100 years" thing, when it seems pretty obvious to me that he said that he wouldn't mind an American military presence in Iraq for 100 years and that is exactly the same claim that Clinton and Obama make.

But what does the media say? Oh, why do they keep saying that? They know it is not true because McCain doesn't believe it.

Posted by Bubba | April 5, 2008 10:59 PM

Bubba dude, we've been over this. The press loves them some barbecue.

Posted by 55 | April 5, 2008 11:04 PM

Has anyone put together a mashup of clips of McCain agitating for war with Iraq over the last decade or so? It seems that such a presentation could really effectively counter his claim of having some great experience or whatever. Add choice soundbites from Bill Kristol and other neocons from 2000 too. Let some 527 run it nationwide on tv. It'd be great.

Posted by Steve V | April 6, 2008 1:08 AM

True story Matt -

- When John McCain saw Tony Blair on TV he started jumping up and down and running back and forth - then he started yelling at the screen and kicking the TV.

It seems McCain was jealous that Tony Blair was being called "George Bush's poodle" and that he, John McCain, has a longer record of more canine loyalty to Bush , than did Blair.

Even though Bush treated McCain as a poodle of despair - McCain stayed loyal.

Then Blair tried to steal his master.

Posted by Comment | April 6, 2008 1:52 PM

"McCain spent a lot of time criticizing Bush for not sending enough Americans over to Iraq to be killed"

Huh? If McCain had been in charge, there'd be double the troops in Iraq that we have now from the start. That probably would've stemmed a lot of the chaos that is happening now.

This is the argument a lot of partisans want to lay at Hillary Clinton's feet as well. Support of an Iraq War was a full-fledged support of this war, carried out in this fashion.

John McCain's dissent on the war shows that he knows what he is doing. For you, its just another opportunity to paint him as a hinged right-winger stereotype.

Posted by Kuros | April 6, 2008 2:33 PM

John McCain's dissent on the war shows that he knows what he is doing. For you, its just another opportunity to paint him as a hinged right-winger stereotype.

A hinged right-winger? Like Pinocchio?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 6, 2008 5:12 PM

McCain was jealous of Blair - You know it - we all know it!

Posted by Comment | April 6, 2008 10:47 PM