Favorite

Too much bull 

Too much time, too much news, too little public memory, too much bull. Those are the big assets of Sen. John McCain.

McCain enjoys the fine image of a free-thinking, free-talking maverick who took on President Bush on the war, Hurricane Katrina, the profiteers who infested the administration and the economic malefactoring of the Bush years. Most of it either is pure malarkey, McCain joined the critics long after the rest of the country or else, as in the case of all Bush's tax cuts for the rich, he reversed course 180 degrees and promises more of the Bush economic medicine.

The real McCain, as much as anyone can divine about him and how he might try to run the country or might have run it if he had won in 2000, is lost in the fog of news and revisionist pronouncements of the past eight years. But thanks to David Kirkpatrick we have it all refreshed in the pages of the New York Times, which has published a series of detailed background pieces about the candidates. Kirkpatrick went back and tracked McCain's pronouncements about Iraq and war before and after the attacks of Sept. 11, and they were many.

The nub of it all is that the Iraqi war can be fairly said to be John McCain's war at least as much as it is George Bush's or Dick Cheney's. He was demanding and promising the invasion of Iraq long before Bush publicly raised the prospect. Indeed, well before 9/11 McCain had embraced the ideas of the neocolonialists who thought America should consolidate its place as the lone superpower by invading countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea and overthrowing autocratic governments that were considered hostile to the United States.

If he wanted, Bush could now claim in his own defense for starting a war that Americans despise that John McCain made him do it. He could make a far more convincing case of that than for anything else he ever said about the war. The record actually supports that but no other explanation Bush ever gave for invading Iraq.

It was McCain, not George W. Bush, who wanted to pursue that revolutionary foreign policy in 2000. Bush promised not to involve the U. S. military in “nation building” as Bill Clinton had done in Serbia and Kosovo. Dick Cheney subscribed to the neocolonialist craziness; he was a signatory of the Project for the American Century, which advocated the overthrow of Middle Eastern regimes by military force to demonstrate American hegemony and drive the Arab world into U.S.-style democracies and alliance.

In 2002 McCain praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's entire national security team — the strongest ever assembled in the nation's history, he said — and revealed that he would have made Cheney vice president if he had been nominated and elected in 2000. As was pointed out here long ago, McCain was praising Rumsfeld and the way the war was conducted until the late summer of 2004 when the chaos and loss of U.S. blood persuaded a vast majority of Americans that the war had been a terrible mistake. That is when McCain became a critic.

It is all part of the record.

Within hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center, McCain made the rounds of TV and radio shows saying Bush should retaliate against terrorists far beyond Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden's hideout, and he mentioned Iran, Syria and Iraq. Afghanistan and bin Laden were almost beside the point. Within a month, he was declaring on CNN that Iraq should be the major target.

On Jan. 2, 2002, McCain shouted to sailors and airmen on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, “Next up, Baghdad!” Not even Bush was uttering such things, though he had instructed his terrorist czar the morning after 9/11 to connect the attacks to Iraq.

Neither the terrorism chief nor the intelligence agencies were ever able to do it. That didn't stop Bush and Cheney from saying — Bush implying, Cheney saying — that Iraq had a role in the attacks. But every lie concocted by the administration to justify the war — the secret meeting of a 9/11 attacker with an Iraqi agent, al Qaeda activities in Iraq, all the rest —McCain uttered, usually first and without the slippery qualifications that Bush, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice employed.

An old friend and former supporter of McCain, retired Gen. John H. Johns, lamented that McCain tended to react like a schoolboy: “Show me somebody to hit.”

Kirkpatrick said that six months before Bush began to make the case publicly that Iraq would have to be forced to give up his weapons of mass destruction McCain was beating the drums for war. When Bush was saying that he had not decided to attack, McCain was saying it was a done deal and obliquely criticized Bush for dallying. He lauded the corrupt Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi and pushed the Bush administration to put him in charge once Saddam Hussein fell. The whole Bush administration eventually concluded that Chalabi was a fraud, but not McCain.

Finally, nearly everything McCain predicted about the war turned out to be wrong, starting with his assessment in the early stages of the invasion that “a better world is already emerging from the rubble.” It would be a quick, easy, inexpensive and nearly bloodless triumph, financed by Iraqi oil money.

He is arguably the father of the most profligate and unpopular war in U. S. history, and he says the issue in the presidential campaign is Sen. Barack Obama's unreliable judgment. Just amazing.

Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Attacked

    Courtney Goodson won her race to stay on the state Supreme Court last week with something to spare, in spite of the unprecedented sludge of dark-money ads that tried to persuade people that she was an execrable wench who was capable of almost anything.
    • Nov 15, 2018
  • The legacy of the 1992 'Save the River Parks' campaign

    If not for an unlikely assortment of activists, lawyers and a poultry magnate, a highway in Riverdale would have prevented the Big Dam Bridge from being built.
    • Oct 18, 2018
  • Such good news

    Health care has moved to the top of people's concerns this election year even as the "good" news keeps coming. The question is, how much more good news can people stand?
    • Oct 18, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Attacked

    Courtney Goodson won her race to stay on the state Supreme Court last week with something to spare, in spite of the unprecedented sludge of dark-money ads that tried to persuade people that she was an execrable wench who was capable of almost anything.
    • Nov 15, 2018
  • Such good news

    Health care has moved to the top of people's concerns this election year even as the "good" news keeps coming. The question is, how much more good news can people stand?
    • Oct 18, 2018
  • No courage

    Political courage — doing what needs to be done even if it is not wildly popular — is a vanishing commodity.
    • Oct 11, 2018
  • More »

Most Viewed

  • On to 2020

    I'll add my two cents to the chorus of advice for Democrats in 2020: Do not limit your imagination by falling back on candidates who have previously appeared on the ballot.
  • Embarrassed

    Perhaps you recall the last time a French politician angered a certain kind of hairy-chested American nationalist. In February 2003, Dominique de Villepin, France's conservative Minister of Foreign Affairs, cautioned the United Nations General Assembly about the sheer folly of invading Iraq.
  • How red are we?

    Election results in Arkansas were discouraging for Democrats and progressive voters.
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation