Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Political wives in glass houses
For those not glued to the news today, Michelle Obama said something kind of dumb and the right wing jumped all over it. Par for the course. Then Cindy McCain takes a little shot at her as well. Guess I can't blame her for that. But it turns out, and this was all news to me, that maybe Cindy McCain shouldn't be putting herself too far into the limelight if the campaigns get nasty. I had no idea that she had supported a drug habit back in the 90s by stealing drugs from a non-profit relief agency she worked for and escaped jail time mainly by being the wife of a sitting US senator. (Read about it here.) I don't really think this is the sort of thing presidential campaigns should be about but I'm amazed that this isn't something that all that many people have heard about. Can you imagine if a Democratic candidate's spouse had that in their background? Fox wouldn't let a day go by without mentioning it. If the linked article can be believed the McCain camp actually managed to work the issue as a way to distract from the fact that Senator McCain was at the time knee deep in the Keating 5 savings and loan scandal. Now past corruption by a presidential candidate? There just might be a president for that being fair game in a campaign, tho.
Labels: John McCain, Obama, politics
0 comments
Friday, April 13, 2007
Timetables for Iraq
Robert Parry takes a look at timetables in Iraq:
It has become a standard part of George W. Bush’s litany for why he will veto a congressional plan for setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq: “Why would you say to the enemy, ‘Here’s a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?’”
Well, there’s a logical answer to Bush’s rhetorical question. If a timetable encourages Iraqi insurgents to silence their guns and to stop planting roadside bombs – even temporarily to wait the Americans out – Iraq might get the breathing space it needs to begin healing its sectarian divisions.
Indeed, one could argue that Bush’s “surge” plan and Bush’s fear about letting the enemy “wait us out” offer essentially the same opportunity: to achieve enough peace and quiet in the short term for reconciliation and reconstruction to begin.
That's my thinking exactly. The best argument for a timetable is, the reason Bush uses to argue against a timetable.
Clearly, there's more at work here. Take a look at McCain's latest speech on Iraq:
America has a vital interest in preventing the emergence of Iraq as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11. By leaving Iraq before there is a stable Iraqi governing authority we risk precisely this, and the potential consequence of allowing terrorists sanctuary in Iraq is another 9/11 or worse. In Iraq today, terrorists have resorted to levels of barbarism that shock the world, and we should not be so naive as to believe their intentions are limited solely to the borders of that country. We Americans are their primary enemy, and we Americans are their ultimate target.
A power vacuum in Iraq would invite further interference from Iran at a time when Tehran already feels emboldened enough to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel and America, and kidnap British sailors. If the government collapses in Iraq, which it surely will if we leave prematurely, Iraq's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt, will feel pressure to intervene on the side of their favored factions. This uncertain swirl of events could cause the region to explode and foreclose the opportunity for millions of Muslims and their children to achieve freedom. We could face a terrible choice: watch the region burn, the price of oil escalate dramatically and our economy decline, watch the terrorists establish new base camps or send American troops back to Iraq, with the odds against our success much worse than they are today.
I don't think McCain's got it right, either. Iraq is not Afghanistan. Afghanistan featured a strong, geographically limited government. The Taliban's rule did not stretch to the borders of the country, but it did provide resources and support to terrorists within its sphere of influence. The Afghani model, then, includes a functioning government supporting terrorists. The McCain forecast for Iraq is a collapsed state. This is a striking difference.
McCain argues that Americans are the ultimate target for Muslim extremists. I think he's incorrect. Sunni extremists such as those in al Qaeda view Shiites as the primary enemy. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but I do believe the senator misunderstands the stated objectives of al Qaeda.
The Sunnis clearly do not want us in Iraq (though they should). Thousands -- perhaps millions -- of Shia want us out of Iraq, as well. The increasingly irrelevant minority that wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq continues to lose credibility and support. If there comes a time when no Iraqis want American forces in Iraq, will we stay even then?
Labels: Iraq, John McCain
0 comments
Monday, April 02, 2007
John McCain: "Stroll" includes 100 guards
Yes, I suppose almost any neighborhood in the world would be safe with this level of protection. But come between my kid and me on the way to the Haunted Mansion and you're going to have to answer to Justice and the Deuce (insert graphic of my awesomely balled up fists here).
Labels: Disneyland, John McCain
0 comments
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
AP points out John McCain's detachment from reality
The AP on John McCain's worst fear in Iraq:
"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did," the Arizona senator said.
Last month, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 62 percent said the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq.
Senator McCain, the majority of the American turned against your war a long time ago. McCain goes on to discuss Iran:
"It is in my opinion that it is not whether they are developing nuclear weapons but when, and there is where opinion varies. Some say as short a time as two years, others as many as 10," McCain said.
Assuming McCain is right on this point, don't we have a duty to do something? And what is that something? As near as I can tell, we're going to spend tens of thousands of American lives and limbs in Iraq with no clear result yet. On the other hand, the Bush administration has negotiated a potential disarmament deal with North Korea. I'm not a foreign policy guru by any means, but I do watch Dr. Phil from time to time. Relevant past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, Phil likes to say. Relevant past behavior here indicates a rush to war with Iran. Since the mushy, soft, negotiations route seems to have produced better results than short-sighted bellicosity, perhaps the Senator from Arizona would like to endorse diplomacy with Iran now?
Labels: Iraq, John McCain
0 comments
