( 2112 )

“Good to know that John McCain would read an intelligence report about al-Qaeda in Pakistan planning to murder more Americans and say LOL HAI LOOK IRAN KTHXBAI. Good to know that John McCain thinks Pervez Musharraf is a valuable ally. Good to know John McCain believes that the Pakistani security apparatus is best used when it neglects al-Qaeda, when it neglects to protect opposition candidates, and when it serves as the personal guard of Pervez Musharraf. Good to know that John McCain doesn’t believe in results, he believes in satisfying a conventional wisdom that would run America into the abyss and lose the war against al-Qaeda. Good to know that the media won’t treat what John McCain said for what it is: a statement of purest surrender against the people that killed 3,000 Americans and will kill many, many more if John McCain is president.”

MORE

“… in fact, Obama was merely saying that he supported current U.S. policy. A month ago, for example, a bomb launched from a CIA predator drone killed the Al Qaeda leader Abu Laith al-Libi in Pakistan. Was McCain opposed to that? The point is, McCain’s loose, inaccurate talk continues a sad pattern he has shown on national security matters, particularly with regard to Iraq, where he is a loose cannon, firing off hot-button words like “victory” and “surrender”–words that his hero General David Petraeus has never and would never use. As it now stands, McCain believes that Iraq, where 150,000 U.S. troops are chasing after 3,500 Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia terrorists, is the “central front” in the war against terrorism–and he is on the record opposed to taking military action against the real Al Qaeda, which is actively working to destabilize Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and may be planning the next 9/11 in the mountains of Waziristan. Indeed, the election results in Pakistan this week may lead to further instability, perhaps a military coup, which could make U.S. action–action, not invasion–to root out Al Qaeda all the more necessary.”

MORE

“Obama won’t be afraid to talk to anyone because America shouldn’t be afraid to be compared–side by side in terms of what it stands for–with any leader. Obama meets Castro: who’s gonna look weak in that photo-op? Obama goes to Venezuela, what kind popular reception do you think he’d get? Who wouldn’t want to deliver the “tear down that whatever” line in Tehran to all those pissed-off college students?”   – Thomas P.M. Barnett

****

Ok so on a conference call today, Susan Rice, basically laid a beautiful WWE sized smack down own the neoconservative foreign policy establishment’s dead enders and John McCain in particular. Talking up the national security fight between Obama and McCain. One target was the strange notion wafting out of the McCain campaign that discussing focused counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan in the Tribal areas of Pakistan was irresponsible, whereas wandering about New England randomly threatening to start a new war [and there must be some sort of world record at stake for three] was evidence of superior judgement and wisdom. Rice put it this way “it’s a strange contrast — he says that somehow it’s naive for a presidential candidate to outline how he would deal with that crucial national security challenge, but it’s appropriate for him to joke about starting another war.” Then apparently, this guy from the notoriously conservative Washington Times challenged her – claiming that whole “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” thing was just a joke. Rice’s response: “If he wants to say that he was joking and that’s the kind of joke he thinks is funny, that’s his prerogative.” Unwilling to allow her opponent to slink away with a shred of dignity intact Rice went on to ad: “McCain, like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney may have years of Washington experience, but they’ve all made flawed judgments and as a consequence we’re less safe. A McCain administration would be very much a continuation and intensification of the failed Bush policy, remaining in Iraq indefinitely not investing adequately in Afghanistan. We need to “show that we have learned from our mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere and are prepared to cooperate and collaborate on the challenges we face,” by which I think its pretty safe to assume she meant al-Qaeda/the Taliban, nuclear proliferation, and the prospect of the resource conflicts climate change could vomit up and out.

More importantly, absorbing Rice’s rhetorical tactics I’m reminded of something. The typical democratic foreign policy slash national security approach has involved
(as DLC chairman Harold Ford put it on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks back) “convincing voters” that they can be “credible” on the aforementioned issues. To that end the Clinton folks have either shy away from the light or appear only when they have the stage to themselves.

It’s only just occurred to me but I’ve been listening to and watching Obama’s advisors debate right out in the open for years. They aren’t preparing to be “credible,” they’re preparing to eat William Kristol and his brethren for lunch. Yep, that’s right, Samantha Power made quite a show of debating Christopher Hitchens during the run up to the war, [no easy target in a debate – even on his drunker days] Rice has challenged the limp-dicked and wing-nuts in our midst alike on Darfur, Zbigniew Brzezinski has basically been taking on all comers – even debating Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft at once (additional WWF references spring to mind) – you get the picture. The one that’s sprung into my mind is that story Norman Mailer used to tell about watching Ali train for the rumble in the jungle, specifically the one about how Ali took more punishment than Mailer thought he had to during sparing matches, “as if he were training his body” to absorb the mind-numbingly powerful blows he knew Foreman was capable of delivering. 

I assume both of you remember how that fight turned out.