Republican convention: McCain rallies the faithful

I didn't bother to watch the film tribute to Old Man Bush that was one of the highlights of the opening evening of the Republican shindig in New York.  It's interesting that they aren't having Bush the Elder speak at the convention.

And little brother Jeb isn't even coming.  They say he has stuff to do in Florida, like cleaning up after the hurricane, or purging black voters off the rolls, or something.

I did catch a choral presentation early in the evening that I didn't listen to that closely.  It sounded something like:

Hail to Bush the Mighty
Who leads us to the fight
We will civilize the heathen
We will smite them with our might

But, like I said, I didn't listen that closely. :) :)

Okay, enough snark.  This is the blogosphere, so we're supposed to do that occasionally, right?  So, on to McCain's speech.

The Republican convention Web site doesn't seem to be in any rush to get a transcript of John McCain's speech up.  But the Washington Post is good about getting the transcripts up quickly:  Remarks by Senator McCain 08/30/04.

McCain and the Iraq War

McCain has a reputation as a straight-talker and a "maverick."  To a large extent, it's deserved.  He has taken the lead on some issues like campaign reform in directions most in his party would have preferred not to go.  And I do think he's a much more decent guy than Bush and most of his administration's high officials.

But that's faint praise indeed, after what we've seen with the Iraq War, torture in the gulag, the Valerie Plame outing, the intelligence leaks to Iran, and Halliburton's craven war profiteering.  And, in fact, McCain's "maverick" image is considerably overrated.

Because McCain supported the Iraq War.  He defends it even now, after the disgraceful deceptions over "weapons of mass destruction."  And he defends Bush's use of preventive war in invading Iraq.

This is why I never took the earlier talk about John Kerry recruiting McCain as his vice-presidential candidate very seriously.  McCain is a Republican, a supporter of the Iraq War and a supporter of preventive war.  His positions on current foreign policy issues are drastically different than Kerry's.

In Monday's speech, McCain said:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

In fact, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was restrained, as McCain and the rest of the world know.  It's nuclear-weapons program had ceased.  It's chemical and biological weapons programs had ended, and its supplies of those weapons had been destroyed.  "Straight-talking" McCain simply glossed over those realities to justify Bush's invasion of Iraq.

And whether it becomes a "liberation" becomes more doubtful by the day.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

Whatever that means.  In fact, in March of 2003, Iraq had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, nor programs to make them.  It was not threatening any of its neighbors with invasion.  It was not attacking the United States.  It was not working with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group making attacks against Americans.  But despite all that, McCain thinks it was fine to invade Iraq and occupy it, with all the negative repercussions for American security and all the deaths of American soldiers it has entailed and will entail.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal. (my emphasis)

Of course, one of the companies that was interested in doing business with Iraq was Halliburton under CEO Dick Cheney.  But "straight-talking" McCain is mainly blowing smoke here to justify war.  The "near daily attacks on our pilots" is not as phony a claim as those on WMDs.  But again, faint praise.  That refers to antiaircraft fire against American planes enforcing "no-fly" zones in Iraq, attacks which McCain knows quite well were singularly ineffective.

But let's see how "straight-talking" McCain characterized Iraq's compliance with weapons inspections.  Saddam refused to allow them until his last day in power, the "maverick" Republican tells us.  Now, I'm sure some of our conservative friends, who love to dance on commas, would be glad to parse that to explain how it is technically true.  But, to those of us not initiated in the arcane mystical art of comma-dancing, what was happening before the war was that Saddam was complying with the UN demand for inspection.  Demands that Bush and John McCain claimed to support.  The inspectors were asking for more time.  But Bush ordered them to clear out of Iraq because he had a war to start.

Let's be fair to McCain.  Bush has said that Saddam refused to allow the inspectors back into Iraq.  McCain's version is at least not as bald-faced a falsehood as Bush's rewriting of not-so-distant history.

But let's also be fair to ourselves and to all those yet to fight and die in the Iraq War.  Those weapons of mass destruction that Bush and McCain used to justify the war did not exist.  They weren't there.  No amount of dancing on commas will change that.  Next time you hear some journalist recite the conventional wisdom about McCain the "straight-talking maverick," try to recall this speech.

Perhaps the most revealing part of McCain's speech was the following:

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

My friends, the central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times. By destroying his regime, we gave hope to people long oppressed, that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom. (my emphasis)

"Straight-talking" McCain says invading and occupying Iraq was justified whether or not the "weapons of mass destruction" existed.  Again a bit of not-quite-straight talk.  Because the weapons didn't exist at the time of the invasion.  Those weapons were part of the condition that McCain approved in the Congressional war resolution on Iraq in 2002 which he supported.  But now "straight-talking" John McCain, the man who is said to be the Democrats' favorite Republican, the "maverick", tells the Republican convention and the world it's perfectly fine for him that Bush lied in our faces, and in the faces of Congress.  McCain was for war anyway!

Let's all remember that when "straight-talking" McCain tells us that he's convinced that Iran is a mortal danger to the United States because of their weapons and weapons programs and we have to go to war with them.  Let's remember that when McCain tells us he's convinced that Syria is supporting terrorists and cooperating with Al Qaeda and we have to go to war with them.

And let's remember that when McCain told us about the dangers of Iraq, when he voted for a war resolution that put specific conditions on going to war with Iraq that the president disregarded, when it turned out the horribly menacing weapons of mass destruction didn't even exist, McCain the "maverick" stood up at the Republican convention and said, what the heck, you suckers didn't think us Republicans needed to give you an actual reason to go to war did you?  Look, you rubes, we tell you when to go to war and who to make war against.  And you people are expected to cheer for the Noble Cause.

Let's really remember that.  On the Iraq war, McCain may have been deceived by Bush's false claims about WMDs.  But when he found out they were false, he laughed in our faces just like Bush and Rummy did.

Not a word from McCain Monday night about the torture scandal.  Nor about the pathetically botched postwar planning.  Nothing about the shameful deceptions of the Congress, the American public and the United Nations.  Certainly nothing about Bush's violation of the 2002 Congressional resolution on war with Iraq.  Or about the multiple violations of international law in the various economic laws imposed on Iraq by Bush's occupation government.

I think it's likely that if McCain were president, he would not have botched the Iraq situation so badly as Bush and his crew have.  But there's no reason to let what-if speculations obscure what McCain is saying: he supported the Iraq War and supports it still.  There is no reason to think that in a second George W. Bush administration that McCain would dissent from Bush's disastrous Iraq policies in any significant way.  Nor is there any reason to think that he will seriously attempt to hold Bush or Rumsfeld or anyone else accountable for their misdeeds either in the runup to war or in their conduct of it.

McCain backs the Iraq War.  He supports Bush's policies in pursuit of it.  Bush's Iraq War is John McCain's idea of a desirable foreign policy for the United States.

Nice words for the "straight-talking maverick"

Commentator Mark Shields suggested today on the PBS Newshour that McCain was George W. Bush's de facto running mate.  If that's Bush's campaign strategy, it's a good one.  McCain is a much more attractive figure that Dick Cheney.  Cheney's the kind of character you expect to see take a chuck out of someone's arm when he's on TV.  McCain, on the other hand, is a much more effective advocate for Bush's own policies than Bush or any of the people on his team, Colin Powell included.

For example, it looked on TV like Dick Cheney would have liked to have taken a chunk out of McCain's arm Monday night after McCain gave a more fair characterization of Kerry's general criticism of Bush's "war on terrorism" than we're likely to hear from anyone else at the Republican convention this week:

My friends in the Democratic Party -- and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends -- assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation. I don't doubt their sincerity.

They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy.

They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all,that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies.

McCain then proceeded to reassure the audience that Republicans are for that stuff, too.  Their actions show something different, of course.  But it was a reassuring message.  And probably true, as far as McCain's view is concerned. 

In general, McCain gives a much more appealing presentation of the whole Republican version of the GWOT (global war on terrorism) than Bush and most of his team.  But more on that in a minute.

McCain probably caused considerable gnashing of teeth among Republicans across the country when he elevated Michael Moore's status by referring to him, not by name but unmistakably:

And certainly -- and certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe...

AUDIENCE: Booo!

Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!

MCCAIN: Please, please, my friends.

That line was so good, I'll use it again. Certainly not a disingenuous film maker...

(APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: ... who would have us believe, my friends, who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace, when in fact -- when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children inside their walls.

It seemed to me watching PBS's live coverage that the audience reaction in the convention hall was far more enthusiastic and sustained than for anything else McCain said.

But he also boosted Moore's status as an important voice in the debate over the Iraq War by bringing him into the speech.  Moore himself is there at the convention, and the PBS coverage showed Moore flashing a V-sign during the massive booing that followed McCain's mention of him.  Given the helpful publicity it gives him, it's a toss-up whether that was a V for "peace" or a V for "victory."

The fact that McCain description of Moore's film Fahrenheit 9-11 was scurrilous won't diminish Moore's stature. (Yes, comma-dancers, I know McCain didn't actually name the film in his speech.)

McCain on the GWOT (global war on terrorism)

Eloquent though he may be, every voter would do well to think carefully about what McCain actually said about the GWOT, keeping in mind that he's one of the more rational, sensible and least fanatical of the whole Republican crowd.

It's a big thing, this war [the GWOT].

It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil. ...

We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy. (my emphasis)

It's worth being clear on this, and taking McCain's words seriously.  Many Americans think we're in a fight, most would approve the use of the term "war," against terrorists who are targeting American citizens and American interests.  Specifically, the network of fanatical jihadists known as Al Qaeda.  The ones who have been attacking Americans and American interests for years, most spectacularly on 9/11/01.

But McCain here is endorsing the view of those neoconservatives and regular old warmongers who just plain miss the Cold War, with its open-ended promise of more and more military spending with an endless supply of threat and fear and individual occurrences to justify it.

Think about what he's literally saying here.  A war for Human Dignity against Those Who Dispute God's Love.  A war between Right and Wrong.  A war between Good and Evil.  A war against an vaguely-defined "unpardonable enemy."  Negotiating or making compromises or concluding peace treaties with Wrong, with Evil, with an Unpardonable Enemy is not just a mistake.  It's a sin against God.  And Those Who Dispute God's Love had better be prepared to be bombed into the next world.

Earth to John McCain: the United States is not going to defeat Evil.  As long as the United States exists, as long as human beings exist, Evil will exist.  A war between Right and Wrong, a war between Good and Evil, in pedestrian reality translates intoa military budget far beyond any rational need for self-defense, an endless state of fear and "readiness" against a vague Enemy - "Enemy" with a capital "E" - that will periodically break out into actual episodes of avoidable violence like the Iraq War.  Will Tom Ridge set up a color-coded Evil Alert for us next?

Again, I'm sure the comma-dancers can come up with various examples of hyperbole from presidents and respected national leaders in other circumstances.

But what's important to recognize is that it is an astonishing example of hubris to imagine that it is the role or the mission of the United States to wage a war of Good against Evil, of Right against Wrong.  It's psychological arrogance, it's nationalistic arrogance, it's religious arrogance.  And in practical reality, it can only translate into international isolation and various kinds of disasters for America.

And McCain's speech is a good example of why.  He used the GWOT, the grand war of Good against Evil as he characterized it, to justify the Iraq War, which actually makes the problem of Islamic extremism and terrorism directed against the United States worse.  His speech is a strong reminder of to what a great extent the GWOT has been sidelined by the Iraq War.

I think we seriously have to question what kind of "moderation" it is that supposedly characterizes John McCain when he stands up in front of the country and tells us it is America's job to wage a war of Good against Evil.  This isn't statesmanship or even politics.  It's theology, and bad theology at that.

Guiliani

And speaking of bad theology...

Former New York City mayor Rudy Guiliani was there to invoke heroic images of 9/11 and to aid in the Potemkin effort to make the Republicans look like something other than the war-obsessed, Christian-Right-dominated party that they are.  Giuliani, who practices more moderate politics and a less moderate lifestyle than anything officially approved by the grandees or the Christian Right would approve, recalled 9/11/01 for the delegates:

At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then Police CommissionerBernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president."

(APPLAUSE)

GIULIANI: I say it again tonight. I say it again tonight: Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God...

(APPLAUSE)

And thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background is our vice president.

A friend of mine whose young daughter was attending temple school once asked her what Rosh Hashanah was about.  The little girl said, "Rosh Hashanah.  That's when everybody forgives God."

Now, I'm willing to consider the idea that maybe God needs to be forgiven for some things.  (I mean, that Flood in Genesis was pretty drastic, after all!)

But I think it's over the top to try to blame God for the misdeeds of the Scalia Five and their various Florida cohorts in 2000.  I mean, fair is fair, no matter what Bush thinks he's hearing in those private conversations he claims to be having with the Almighty.