The press corps' favorite "maverick" Republican was on Meet the Press with Timmy Russert: Transcript for June 19. The "straight-talking maverick" doesn't have any more clue about how to get the US out of Iraq or how to achieve some kind of positive goal than the Bush administration, it seems:
I believe the president is going to tell them, I think he's focusing back on Iraq, I think it's long, it's hard, it's tough. It's very tough.
And the consequences of failure are profound. And the benefits of success are incredible. And some of those benefits, such as stirrings towards democracy in the Middle East, and, perhaps, even Libya, taking down their weapons of mass destruction, and other things, are a result of our operations in Iraq. But it's tough, and it's hard. It's a hard slog, Tim. And we've made serious mistakes. And we're paying a price for those mistakes. And I would hasten to add in every conflict we make mistakes. The key is to fix it.
He at least has sense enough to acknowledge that some of the prediction of "turning points" and Dick Cheney bizarre declaration a few days ago that the Iraqi insurgency is in its "last throes" were less than helpful. But hang in there seems to be pretty much the only idea the old straight-talking maverick has:
I don't think Americans believe that we should cut and run out of Iraq by any stretch of the imagination. But I think they also would like to be told, in reality, what's going on and, by the way, I think part of that is it's going to be, at least, a couple more years.
But then the straight-talking maverick suggests that it may be considerably longer than two years:
But I believe that there has been some improvement, and that improvement gives us, at least, some hope. Because, as you say, and everybody knows, the exit strategy from Iraq is not a time or a date. The exit strategy from Iraq is clearly the Iraqis being able to take over the responsibilities and the casualties, for policing and ensuring security in their own country.
Look, nobody cares--in fact, I'm kind of glad that American troops are in South Korea. Why? Because there's no Americans in combat. So it's not a matter of time and date of withdraw. It's a matter of Iraqis being able to assume the responsibilities for the security of their own nation.
Staying as long as in South Korea? Otherwise known as a permanent commitment? Somebody tell me again why McCain is such an independent, moderate straight-shooter.
It's pretty obvious that military recruitment is in serious trouble. But is the maverick straight-talker ready to discomfort the comfortable by talking about the need for a draft. Let's see:
MR. RUSSERT: Do you see a return of the draft?
SEN. McCAIN: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Never?
SEN. McCAIN: I don't. No. First of all, the draft didn't work in its previous form, but second of all, I think by far the best way to go is provide ways for AmeriCorp, Peace Corps, community service, neighborhood--and give all Ameri--the biggest mistake I think we made after September 11 was not calling on Americans to serve. We shouldn't have just told them to go shopping or take a trip. We should have said, "OK. We're setting up all these organizations. We're expanding existing organizations and we're going to give you all a chance to fight as foot soldiers in the war on terror." I think we can still do that.
How would things be different if we had a straight-talking, "moderate" Republican president like John McCain?
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line: What should President Bush say to the country about Iraq right now
SEN. McCAIN: "It's going to be a long, hard slog. And I'm asking for your patience. And the consequences of failure are catastrophic. The benefits of success, we're already seeing in some parts of the Middle East. And we have had some success. We're now in the process of a constitution in Iraq. We have had an election that Iraqis proved, contrary to some cynics' view, that Iraqis were willing to even risk their lives in order to vote. We're forming a constitution. We will stick to the guidelines of: August 15, the constitution; October 15, ratification of it; and December 15, an election of an Iraqi government. We willstay the course and we will do whatever is necessary in order to succeed."
In other words, McCain has no clue about how to resolve this mess in Iraq. Isn't there supposed to be a difference between "straight-talk" and double-talk?
Also, straight-talking McCain got good publicity from the fawning press corps for saying that he didn't think it was such a grand idea for the US to be torturing prisoners. What kind of maverick stand was he taking Sunday? Apparently, the maverick thing that day was to jump on the OxyContin bandwagon to bash Sen. Dick Durbin for condemning torture in the Bush Gulag straightforwardly (my emphasis):
MR. RUSSERT: Your Democratic colleague Dick Durbin of Illinois set off a firestorm when he compared the actions of Americans at Guantanamo to Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Senator Durbin should be censured by the Senate for those comments.
SEN. McCAIN: Well, I think that Senator Durbin owes not only the Senate an apology—I don't know if censure would be in order--but an apology because it does a great disservice to men and women who suffered in the gulag and in Pol Pot's killing fields. Dick Durbin should be required to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and I think that he would--may have a better understanding that there's no comparison whatsoever. And it does a great disservice to the majority of men and women who are serving in Guantanamo who are doing the job that they're told to do and they're doing it in a humane fashion. To tar the American servicemen and women with a brush that applies to the gulag or the killing fields is a great disservice to the men and women in the military who are serving honorably down there.
MR. RUSSERT: Should he formally apologize?
SEN. McCAIN: Well, I don't know what a formal--but he should certainly apologize.
Let's see if we got this right. The straight-talking maverick thinks that criticizing the serious violation of American and international law involved in the torture scandal is dishonoring soldiers doing their duty? Put another way, does the "moderate" Republican and former prisoner-of-war think soldiers violating American law by torturing prisoners are doing "honorable" service? Do I need to say that Timmy Russert didn't bother to ask?
For future reference, pro-war Republicans, including "moderate" McCain, are defending torture by claiming that anyone like Dick Durbin who criticizes it directly is dishonoring American soldiers. No one is saying that the guilt of those soldiers breaking the law by torturing prisoners falls on all servicepeople. But someday, people promoting a stab-in-the-back theory will claim that war critics "accused all soldiers of being torturers and war criminals." People like McCain are laying the groundwork now for just that accusation.
Remind me once more, how is it that Maverick McCain is a model of integrity on the Republican side?
(I've previously described my own view of the semantics of "gulag" in this context.)
[Addition: Ariana Huffington comments at some length on Russert's interview with McCain: This Week on "Russert Watch" Huffington Post 06/19/05.
No comments:
Post a Comment