The smears to come

I've been on the road lately and had some conversations with various people about the likely shape of the fall campaign. Many think there's a good chance it will "feature" a litany of smears. The politics of the past continues to haunt the present.

He is a dangerous upper class elitist.

Did you know he wasn't born in the USA?

He spent all those years abroad...is he some kind of Manchurian candidate?

What makes a man of his limited background qualified to run for President? Is his success just a fairy tale?

Can American elect someone who seems so unpatriotic?

Why is he trying to hide important information about his identity?

What about those awful things he did in his past?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Grave

I received a forwarded email today that included these two quotes, back-to-back. Their intent is fairly obvious, since "grave" and "serious" are synonyms:

"They don't pose a serious threat to us."
-- Barack Obama on Iran, speaking in Portland, Oregon on May 18

"I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
-- Barack Obama speaking in Billings, Montana on May 19

After a quick search, I discovered that these are already widely circulated on right-leaning blogs.In context, it is easy to see that both quotes are taken from part of the same argument about Iran. Obama said -- as he has often on the campaign trail -- that Iran is not a serious threat in the same way that the Soviet Union was.

Does anyone deny that?

Here's the first quote, as reported in the IHT on May 20, with surrounding phrases:

Obama said in a speech Sunday that "strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries."

"That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev," he said, adding, "I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet."'

Obama said Iran was a threat partly because it had been emboldened by a war in Iraq backed by Bush and McCain. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of the war in Iraq," he said.

And here's the second one, as reported on a Chicago Tribune blog on May 19:

"Anything but their failed cowboy diplomacy that has produced no results is called appeasement," Obama countered. "Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear Holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do. That's what strong presidents do."

Obama said he fully realizes the danger posed by Iran, but that it is nothing compared to those presented by the former Soviet Union.

"The Soviet Union had the ability to destroy the world several times over, had satellites spanning the globe, had huge masses of conventional military power, all directed at destroying us," he said. "So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave. But what I've said is that we should not just talk to our friends. We should be willing to engage our enemies as well. That's what diplomacy is all about."

Obama repeatedly stressed the risk posed by Iran, as he suggested that danger has grown because of policies supported by McCain.

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said. "The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely."

Obama also called Iran the "single biggest beneficiary" of Iraq war and pledged to secure all lose nuclear materials during first term, if he is elected president.

More here.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Clinton: 50 years may be enough

While many Democrats have piled on Senator John McCain for saying that it would be OK for the US to spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq, few have taken note of Senator Hillary Clinton's similar comment. Mark Kleiman has this from a "Face the Nation" transcript in February 2005:

Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it's not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties.

We don't want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We've been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We've been in Europe for 50-plus. We're still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II.

You know, we have been in places for very long periods of time. And in recent history, we've made a commitment to Bosnia and Kosovo, and I think what is different is the feeling that we're on a track that is getting better and that we can see how the Iraqi government will begin to assume greater and greater responsibility. The elections were key to that. The training, equipment, equipping and motivating of the Iraqi security forces is key to that. But so is our understanding that if we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that.

I suspect, as does Kleiman, that a Clinton candidacy would dramatically reduce Democratic options concerning Iraq against McCain in the fall campaign.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Free campaign advice

The political calendar, packed with weekly events since the start of the new year, is now about to take a spring break. The next scheduled primary is in Pennsylvania, April 22. By then, my classes will be over for this term!

Can the main Democratic rivals continue for nearly six weeks without destroying each other? Events of the last week suggest that this might be a big problem. Surrogates from both campaigns have made unfortunate word choices to describe the opponent camp's candidate.

One significant reason the battle between Obama and Clinton has become so personally destructive is that the candidates agree on a heck of a lot of issues. Highlighting their images, personal narratives and approaches to politics is about the only way for the candidates to distinguish themselves from each other.

Sure, they disagree about some policy details.

And yes, to policy wonks, many of those details are important.

However, to the average voter the campaigns probably sound very much alike. They both want to create health insurance plans that would offer universal coverage, to move forward on global warming, to renegotiate NAFTA (to take into account labor and environmental interests), and to withdraw from Iraq.

It's a popular Democratic agenda and the loser's supporters should naturally navigate to the other candidate in the fall.

To avoid the potential self-destruction of identity politics, the Obama campaign should turn its focus toward presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the next month or so. Because he has more delegates, constituting a virtually insurmountable lead after 40 state elections, Obama can afford to campaign differently.

By focusing on McCain, Obama can illustrate that one of Clinton's central attacks is wrong. She says he's not ready to be President, especially on matters of national security. Obama could spend the next month disproving that very point -- by debating McCain through speeches and ads.

Based on the exchange they had about al Qaeda of Iraq a couple of weeks ago, McCain seems more than willing to engage this debate.

By demonstrating his security acumen and debating an opponent with major differences on these issues, Obama can highlight more clearly that he is the change that his supporters want him to be.

Such a campaign strategy would indicate that Obama is "ready on day one" to take on the heavy hitters he is going to face from the Republicans in Congress and embedded in think tanks. On substance, Obama will make a lot of points that Democrats want to hear -- about the war's failings, about energy policy, etc.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Hot Duck

I've just posted a lengthy piece on "The role of al Qaeda of Iraq" on Duck of Minerva.


Visit this blog's homepage.

McCain Sings

I believe this is a first for the blog -- an embedded video. However, leap year day is a rare event too, so perhaps this is the correct day to do this:



Visit this blog's homepage.

Ron Paul

Several times in the past, I've blogged about a couple of prominent political figures that I've briefly tagged as "my favorite Republican."

A few years ago, like many members of the news media, I had a brief infatuation with Senator John McCain. By 2005, with his persistent support of the Iraq war, McCain lost the title.

Then, more recently, Senator Chuck Hagel was the top choice. Hagel has been a critic of the Iraq war -- plus I shook his hand and appreciated his frankness back in '05.

If I had to limit my choice to the 2008 Republican candidates for President, it looks like Ron Paul wins the title. I base this both on his May appearance on Bill Maher's show and on this test.

And like Rob, who pointed me to the test, I was surprised at how much I apparently like Bill Richardson.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Pakistan and the Presidential candidates

Barack Obama threatened to attack Pakistan on August 1, 2007:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

To an AP reporter, Obama initially implied that nuclear weapons would not be used against Pakistan -- but he quickly clarified that he was not "going that far afield."

Allegedly, Hillary Clinton told the National Association of Pakistani Americans (NAPA) that she would not attack Pakistan unilaterally with U.S. troops. This is from Dawn (which calls itself "Pakistan's most widely circulated English language newspaper") on July 27:

US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has said if America sends its troops to the tribal region, they should go with Pakistani troops and not on their own.

At a fund-raising dinner arranged for her by the National Association of Pakistani-Americans, she rejected the suggestion by some US officials and lawmakers that the United States should conduct unilateral military operations in the tribal region to destroy alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens.

Such a move, she said, would not produce the desired results and would create new problems. Only a combined effort by the Pakistani and US troops could destroy militant hideouts in the area, she added.

NAPA does not seem to have a web presence and I cannot find the original source for this quote.

In fact, some sources are reporting that Clinton seems to agree with Obama. This is from the August 2 Des Moines Register.

"I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan, I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America," she said Wednesday in an interview with American Urban Radio News Networks.

Generally, the Democrat candidates appear to be united in this election cycle -- the real war on terror should be targeted at al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They want the US to withdraw from Iraq and change the focus of the fight.

What about the Republicans? What are they saying about Pakistan?

Mitt Romney, in the Boston Globe, August 5, specifically criticized Obama's widely quoted speech:

"We want as a civilized world to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them," Romney said. "That doesn't mean that our troops are going to go all over the world."

Romney said the remarks were not helpful to the American effort.

"I think his comments were ill-timed and ill-considered," Romney said.

"He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr Strangelove in one week," added Romney.

According to that last linked Reuters stiry, Rudy Giuliani seems to agree with Obama, while John McCain is critical.


Visit this blog's homepage.

POWs: McCain vs. Cheney

Monday's Washington Post website has an interesting AP story about some Defense Department legislation proposed by Republican Senators.

John McCain (previously identified as my favorite Republican member of Congress), John Warner and up to 10 other GOP Senators are supporting various amendments to a policy bill that would try to reign in the dubious treatment of various prisoners in the "war on terror."

McCain's proposed amendments regulate DoD most tightly:

"What we're trying to do here is make sure there are clear and exact standards set for interrogation of prisoners," McCain said on the Senate floor...

One of McCain's amendments would make interrogation techniques outlined in the Army field manual _ and any future versions of it _ the standard for treatment of all detainees in the Defense Department's custody. The United States also would have to register all detainees in Defense Department facilities with the Red Cross to ensure all are accounted for...

Another McCain amendment would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody no matter where they are held.

In short, the Arizona Senators amendments would try to preclude future Abu Ghraib, ghost prisoner and Gitmo horror stories.

To me, this is the most troubling part of the news report:

The administration said in a statement last week that President Bush's advisers would recommend a veto of the overall bill if amendments were added that restricted the president's ability to conduct the war on terrorism and protect Americans.

"They don't think congressional involvement is necessary," McCain said in an interview.

Unsurprisingly, Dick Cheney has met twice with GOP Senators trying to convince them to stop what they are doing.

Let's hope McCain and his colleagues hold on. There are plenty of like-minded Democrats to assure that this passes the Senate.

Fixated on McCain

Me.

I'm the one fixated on McCain. I keep searching Google News for recent stories.

Today, I found an interesting interview the Senator gave to the Detroit Free Press. As usual, the "straight shooter" had some candid moments.

First, he put to rest the McCain for Kerry Veep talk:

I will not leave the Republican Party and I don't want to be vice president of the United States.

...I have disagreements with the Republican Party on environmental issues and a number of other issues. But I'm of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. I respect the Democratic Party, but I just don't share their philosophy and views on many fundamental issues. It's just a reality....

Q: Can you give us a frank assessment of how you think they [Bush and Kerry] stack up against each other?

A: That's hard for me to do. One of my major reasons for supporting President Bush's re-election is that I believe he led this nation after Sept. 11 with strength and did a really fine job in leading the country in a time of real crisis. I have had differences of viewpoints with the president -- tax cuts, and a number of other issues. But I have agreed with him more that I have disagreed with him.

If you probably put my voting record up against John Kerry's, I've probably disagreed with him more than I have agreed with him. But we are of different parties....

But if I had to say who do I agree with more on issue, I'm sure it's President Bush.

That seems pretty clear.

McCain, by the way, provided a reasonable explanation of why the Iraqi intelligence commission hasn't yet met:

Q: You are a member of the commission on Iraqi intelligence. Have you met yet?

A: Yes. We met last week for the first time. One of the reasons why commissions take a while to set up is because of security clearances. I was the only member of the commission that had a security clearance. It takes many weeks to complete a security clearance for access to that level of classified materials. It is unfortunate. It's hardly likely that the president of Yale University is a spy. It just takes a great deal of time.

I expect us to get moving within the next two to three weeks. And I won't bother you with the details, but there is one aspect that is a little bit interesting.

You could staff up immediately with guess what? Detailees from these different agencies -- the CIA, the NSA, all of these different agencies. But those detailees are going to go back to their agencies. So you have to make sure that you have at least some people who are there who don't come from the organization you are investigating.

We could staff up tomorrow. Say have the CIA send us 10 people. But you have to have at least a certain number of people in there who are independent and who have credentials but yet are not tied to these very same agencies we're looking at.

He did say that some congressional staffers would be part of the team.

Oh, and here's another one of his "Band of Brothers" quotes about a fellow Democratic Senator:

I'm a great admirer of Carl Levin's. He's one of the most thoughtful and intellectually capable members of the Senate on national security issues.

It is a long interview and McCain talks about his views on global warming, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, homeland security, etc.

McCain certainly comes off as fairly thoughtful and frank. He may be my favorite Republican member of Congress.

Not that there's a lot of competition.

McCain-Kerry thoughts

The blogger once known as "Calpundit," Kevin Drum, joined the fray yesterday and speculated about John McCain as John Kerry's running mate.

Rather than again speculating about the political possibilities, I decided to think about the implications of such a choice. There would be many, I think, and some would be bad -- despite the view expressed by columnist Joe Klein that this would be a bold and "ideal step" by Kerry, though Klein concedes the move is a "fantasy."

Obviously, picking McCain would be a huge story for the news media. McCain would provide Kerry with a very powerful national voice to counter Bush and Cheney. The Arizona Senator is viewed as a "straight talker" who was quite popular with the media in his own 2000 primary campaign.

McCain's party switch would also send a strong signal to potentially dissatisfied Republicans -- or at least Republican-leaning moderates -- out there: "It's safe to vote for Kerry."

Furthermore, such a move would probably seal Arizona for Kerry (a state he might win anyway). If Kerry could carry all the other Gore states, he would thus win the 2004 Electoral College vote 270-268. See for yourself with this helpful map.

Still, McCain is a longtime Republican and his conservative voting record would likely not sit well with most Democrats. Kos had the details on McCain's voting record Saturday. Drum says this isn't that big of a deal since McCain is "practically a Democrat already" on certain kinds of issues (the budget deficit, Kyoto) and Kerry is likely to govern as a centrist on Iraq and would have little control over Republican base issues like abortion policy. Timothy Noah had a piece in 2002 in Slate arguing that McCain is really a Democrat, so this is not an entirely new idea.

I'm nonetheless guessing that at minimum, the Nader-leaning, Green, lefty Democrats would very strongly dislike such a move. Even a common goal -- beating Bush -- might not be enough justification for it. After all, the Veep gets to vote in tied Senate outcomes and would succeed the President in case of death or incapacitation.

Plus, McCain's strength is precisely the Democrats' fear. What if McCain speaks out against some core Democratic issues, just because he is McCain and does this sort of thing? Any close election requires very strong party discipline and the Dems cannot afford either to tick off their base or push away Democratic-leaning independents.

Conceivably, McCain on the ticket might depress Democratic voting in a state or two they will need in 2004 -- like Oregon. Arizona has 3 more electoral votes than Oregon, but Democrats need to keep Oregon and add states if they want to win. This swap isn't enough.

Bottom line: Kerry should not pick McCain unless he gets a firm commitment from the Senator to toe the Democratic party line through November. He needs to be an outspoken critic of Bush and Cheney and keep quiet about his disagreements with Democrats.

He probably also has to switch parties formally in order to run as a Democrat on many state ballots.

Question to ponder: could Kerry achieve the benefits of roping in McCain by announcing in a couple of months that the Senator would be his Secretary of Defense?

Kerry-McCain ticket watch

A couple of bloggers have noticed a remark by Republican Senator John McCain Friday:

``I believe my party has gone astray,'' McCain said, criticizing GOP stands on environmental and minority issues.

``I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy,'' he said.

Of course, he then said, "But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before.''

In short, McCain continues to fire away at the Bush Administration -- but he also continues to deny that he's willing to be John Kerry's Vice President:

The maverick senator made the remarks at a legislative seminar hosted by U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) as he again ruled out running on a ticket with Democrat John F. Kerry.

The Arizona Republican took on President Bush for failing to prepare Americans for a long involvement in Iraq, saying, ``You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't do that.''

McCain said the U.S. should seek more U.N. involvement in Iraq. ``Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in or not,'' he said.

Still...

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was quoted Friday saying that McCain might be a good choice for Kerry's Veep:

"It's very important to have another person on the field who is part of the presidential ticket," Pelosi told a round-table meeting of reporters Friday. "I don't want to see John Kerry debating with Dick Cheney in the press, I don't want to see him debating down. I want him to be debating the president of the United States."

"I think that it would be important to have a nominee by May 1," Pelosi said. Kerry's campaign has been vague about a timetable for the decision.

Pelosi also said that the selection of Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain would be "a gesture to bring the country together," but she said she had no reason to think that would happen.

It's quite unlikely to happen, but it would be damn interesting.

As I've blogged before, McCain has been fairly nice to Kerry at times and sometimes quite nasty towards Bush.

Band of Brothers II: The US Senate

I know everyone is talking about "star witness" Richard Clarke, who testified before the 9/11 Commission Wednesday. Since I wasn't able to watch and haven't yet read the transcript, I'll reserve comment for now.

Apparently, however, Clarke continued to attack the Bush administration for minimizing the terror threat in 2001 before 9/11 and for undermining the war on terror by attacking Iraq.

Interestingly, while Bush is being attacked for being soft on terror, some Republicans are defending John Kerry for his record on security policy.

Last week, fellow Vietnam veteran Republican Senator John McCain (Arizona) defended John Kerry's voting record on defense:

Discussing the Bush campaign charges, McCain told the "Today" show on Thursday, "I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense."

McCain, the straight talker, apparently wanted to set the record straight.

Sunday, in a chat show appearance that I missed, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) seconded McCain's analysis:

Hagel joined fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in criticizing ads sponsored by the Bush campaign that call Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts who also is a Vietnam veteran, "weak on defense."

"The facts just don't measure [up to]the rhetoric," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

"You can take a guy like John Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 19 years, and go through that voting record," Hagel said. "You can take it with … any of us, and pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."

For example, Kerry voted for one version of the $87 billion for Iraq when it was funded by increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He voted against it when the funding amendment failed.

Were Republicans against a Homeland Security Department...if unionized? Yes. It's the same deal.

Thanks to Mark A.R. Kleiman for the links to the LA Times story.

Kerry, McCain and the Chickenhawks

Ronald Brownstein's February 16 column in the Los Angeles Times offered some interesting analysis of John Kerry's political acumen.

Brownstein begins with a compelling anecdote:

The year was 1996, and Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry was seeking his third term against charismatic Republican Gov. William Weld. In a debate, Weld was hammering Kerry over his opposition to the death penalty, even for cop killers. Kerry silenced the room with his response.

"I know something about killing," Kerry said simply. "I don't like killing. I don't think the state honors life by turning around and killing."

That exchange vividly demonstrated how much Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, relies on his experience as a Navy combat veteran in Vietnam to define his political identity.

It sounds like Kerry actually learned something from the Michael Dukakis flameout.

Nonetheless, some Vietnam veterans are apparently still angered by Kerry's post-service anti-war stance and congressional testimony. Brownstein, however, quotes Republican Senator John McCain's take on this point: "John Kerry, by virtue of his service in Vietnam, earned the right to oppose the war if he chose to."

My guess is that most of the American electorate (and virtually anyone who might even consider voting for Kerry in November), will agree with McCain.

The oddest element of all this is the attempt to link Kerry to "Hanoi" Jane Fonda by fabricating a photo showing the activists together on a podium at an anti-war rally. Brownstein notes that the two did meet two years before Fonda went to Hanoi, but Kerry quit the anti-war Veterans movement because he thought it was too radical.

Fonda's public relations have been almost completely rehabilitated since her "Hanoi Jane" days. Of course, she has apologized profusely for her trip to Hanoi. During the 1980s, she emerged as a fitness queen. In 1983, 1984 and 1985, Fonda had the top-selling video in the United States (hers was 10th best in 1982). In 1986 and 1987, she had the two top-selling videos in the land. In 1988 and 1989, she had to settle for third. Look at the lists, she was surrounded by big budget Hollywood movies.

Then, in 1991, Fonda married CNN mogul Ted Turner and started showing up annually for Atlanta Braves (self proclaimed as "America's team") post-season baseball games. The left started criticizing her (and former President Jimmy Carter) for doing the "tomahawk chop" during those games.

Fonda and Turner lived in Montana, which is a Red state. She stopped making movies for more than a decade and reportedly became a born-again Christian.

Is this the best they've got?

No wonder Kerry keeps saying, "Bring it on."

Warning: Wild speculation

Tinfoil hat time. This happened today:

CIA Director George Tenet gave a much-covered speech, at least partially taking the fall for the faulty WMD intelligence. When was the last time a CIA Director gave such a public address? Can anyone remember?

Hours later, a public break in the Valerie Plame investigation: the names John Hannah and Lewis "Scooter" Libby leak to the press (UPI).

Not enough? Just hours later, "straight shooter" Senator John McCain is said to be one of the panelists to be named Friday to the independent commission investigating WMD intelligence.

Are they even now? Karl Rove has certainly been a busy man lately.

There he goes again

Yesterday, Senator John McCain gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "U.S. Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan." Some media outlets carried stories with excerpts today (actually, the CFR used to have a "not for attribution policy"), but I'm linking to the full text.

While most media focused on McCain's claim that the US needs to deploy more troops in Iraq, the transcript certainly includes many zingers about the overall US policy. I think this is my favorite quote from the text:

There can be little political or economic progress in Iraq until the United States creates a stable and secure environment there. Prematurely placing the burden of security on Iraqis is not the answer. Hastily trained Iraqi security forces cannot be expected to accomplish what U.S. forces have not yet succeeded in doing: defeating the Ba'athists and international terrorists inside Iraq. It is irresponsible to suggest that it is up to Iraqis to win this war. In doing so, we shirk the responsibility that we willingly incurred when we assumed the burden of liberating and transforming their country, for their sake and our own. If the U.S. military, the world's best fighting force, can't defeat the Iraqi insurgents, how do we expect Iraqi militiamen with only weeks of training to do any better?

You might recognize the bolded part since I've heard Defense Secretary Rumsfeld say that it is up to the Iraqis to win the war. And indeed, McCain actually began his speech by criticizing Rumsfield more directly.

When our secretary of Defense says that it's up to the Iraqi people to defeat the Ba'athists and terrorists, we send a message that America's exit from Iraq is ultimately more important than the achievement of American goals in Iraq. We send a signal to every Iraqi -- ally, neutral and adversary -- that the United States is more interested in leaving than we are in winning.

...[snip some paragraphs]

When the United States announces a schedule for training and deploying Iraqi security officers, then announces the acceleration of that schedule, then accelerates it again, it sends a signal of desperation, not certitude. When in the course of days we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books. When we do this as our forces are coming under increasing attack, we suggest to friends and allies alike that our ultimate goal in Iraq is leaving as soon as possible, not meeting our strategic objective of building a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world.

The Senator apparently agrees with me that the lack of WMD makes the Iraq mission unclear:

We must explain to the American people what our soldiers are dying for in Iraq, why their sacrifice matters, why we must win, and how we will win -- not how quickly we can get out and leave the Iraqis to their fate.

Much of the text is devoted to explaining why Iraq is no Vietnam. The insurgents are not popular, they have no sanction in neighboring states, and are not being assisted by the populace. Nonetheless, there are appropriate Vietnam comparisons. For example,

We can win the war in Iraq, but not if we lose popular support in the United States of America.

McCain is also concerned about the political legitimacy questions I've raised here. Bluntly, he's for Iraqification of the political structure, but against Iraqification of the security forces. This is almost directly opposite of what the Bush administration is doing:

While Iraqification will not solve our immediate security problems, I believe we must move more quickly to transfer meaningful political authority to Iraqi leaders. The Coalition Provisional Authority continues to make a fundamental mistake in the way it interacts with the Iraqi people. The CPA seems to think that all wisdom is made in America, and that the Iraqi people were defeated, not liberated. For all the comparisons of post-war Iraq to Germany and Japan in 1945, the examples of Italy and France, liberated countries whose people were largely on our side, may be more instructive. The United States is treated as an occupying force in Iraq partly because we are not treating Iraqis as a liberated people.

Sometimes, Ambassador Bremer's office appears as inclined to criticize the Iraqi Governing Council as to work in partnership with it. It is astonishing to many friends of Iraq that the United States created the Governing Council but has not worked sufficiently to help it succeed. Too often, the Governing Council finds itself on the receiving end of orders from the CPA, rather than working in partnership with the CPA to improve daily life in Iraq. The United States will not succeed in Iraq if the Governing Council fails.

In the Q&A, McCain highlighted the fact that recent UN votes and donor conferences notwithstanding, nobody else in the world has really stepped forward to aid the US in Iraq:

I just know of no ally right now, or friend, that is willing to make a significant contribution to our effort there in Iraq.

Bloggers who have criticized the President's recent rhetoric suggesting that the enemy attacks signal US progress will like this one:

No, I didn't agree when the deputy secretary of Defense is in the Al-Rashid Hotel and it's hit by rockets and administration officials say that's a sign of progress. (Laughter.) God spare us more progress!

McCain is so frank, it's easy to see why the media was enamored in 2000. Who doesn't agree with this?

And what I worry about, unless we get to the bottom of this whole thing -- what intelligence reports, what led to certain statements made by certain officials -- is that maybe the next time, Iran, North Korea -- I'm not, you know -- but the next time there may be some kind of crisis -- and we all know that the weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them is one of the greatest challenges we face in the 21st century -- that the American people may be less accepting of an argument that an administration may make. That's what bothers me about that, not what we did on Iraq.

McCain started his address by saying that all Senators are running for President. I don't think he is, but this was a pretty thorough critique of Bush administration policy.