Audacity of a dope: "McCain "Presumptuous" story line beginning?" [View All]

[ProSense]

UPDATE McCain "Presumptuous" story line beginning?

by zenbowl

Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:20:00 AM PDT

It's being written about - on page 14. But at least they're writing about the man who called himself President – before the election:

Standing behind a lectern in Michigan this week, with two trusted senators ready to do his bidding, John McCain seemed to forget for a moment that he was only running for president.

Asked about his tough rhetoric on the ongoing conflict in Georgia, McCain began: "If I may be so bold, there was another president . . ." He caught himself and started again: "At one time, there was a president named Ronald Reagan who spoke very strongly about America's advocacy for democracy and freedom."

Of course, the real story is the fact that McCain is interfering in US Foreign policy by sending his own "team" to Georgia. But at least the media's comparing this to the old "Obama is presumptuous" attacks.

The extent of McCain's involvement in the military conflict in Georgia appears remarkable among presidential candidates, who traditionally have kept some distance from unfolding crises out of deference to whoever is occupying the White House. The episode also follows months of sustained GOP criticism of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who was accused of acting too presidential for, among other things, briefly adopting a campaign seal and taking a trip abroad that included a huge rally in Berlin.

Yes, because a speech and a placard are the same thing as interfering with the US military and diplomatic efforts to resolve an ongoing military conflict.

<…>

Update II Kossacks, we're making noise! I put this up here at 7 AM. At 9 AM First Read posts "Audacity Watch" - very close to my "Arrogance Watch" suggestion:

Interesting issue on the "presumptive" front. McCain's dispatching Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham to go to the region. Imagine the "audacity" emails that would be dispatched by the RNC if Obama made it clear he was "dispatching" two of his closest senate friends...

more

McCain: Georgia conflict is the ‘first serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War.’

No Good Answers

Posted by Michael Cohen

A couple of people have asked me why I haven't written anything on Russia/Georgia war: the bottom line is that I'm a bit out of my element here. I am not an expert on Georgia or Russia and, as is often the case, I'm constantly amazed by the assuredness by which some bloggers have made pronouncements about how the United States should respond; as if this crisis lends itself to a simple black and white analysis. Even if you buy the notion that the Georgians are the white hats and the Russians the black hats (a persuasive argument indeed) that barely illuminates the situation or offers a road map going forward.

For example, even if you view this war as Russian aggression, it's also a simple case of the Russians flexing their muscles in their near abroad. Let's call it the Russian version of the Monroe Doctrine: and maybe John McCain who has been prone to declaring that "we are all Georgians" should reflect on the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and wonder how that ever became a US territory. This is what great powers do; it's what the US did in Latin America for more than 150 years; and the US stands on weak ground in making a federal case out of this. Russia interests are regional, not global and ratcheting up the rhetoric of a new Cold War, as some have done, is not only misplaced, but it's downright counter-productive.

Second, what exactly can the US do to reverse Russian aggression. Should we take Max Boot's advice and send the Georgians Stinger and Javelin missiles and start a proxy war with the Russians. . . . By the way, did I mention that Max Boot is a top campaign advisor to John McCain. The last thing we need now is more flagwaving from neo-conservatives who get light-headed at the very idea of bombing other countries (and yes, I'm well aware there was a more vivid way for me to make this analogy). Part of the reason we are in this mess is because our President foolishly let his rhetoric get ahead of geopolitical reality by proposing the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, which would, in effect, extend the US nuclear umbrella to Kiev and Tbilisi. One can only wonder why the Russians saw this as a direct provocation.

This brings me to my last point; where is the US national interest in Georgia? As important as we may think Georgian democracy is, shouldn't US national interests trump all else? We're fighting a war in Afghanistan, we're fighting a war in Iraq, we have global terrorists to worry about, not to mention a faltering economy and a worsening trade deficit. It seems to me that Georgia falls pretty low on the list of US priorities. My heart goes out to the Georgians, but anyone who wants to argue that their political leadership didn't bring this on themselves is ignoring reality. I don't mean to sound heartless here, but there are limits to the extent to which the US should stick its neck out for faraway countries that engage in reckless behavior with authoritarian neighbors. We are doing the right thing by sending Condi to the region to try and negotiate and cease-fire; we are right to express our displeasure with Russia's actions and threaten punitive consequences, but beyond we have few good choices. We're not going to war over Georgia and by no approximation of US national interests should that even be on the table.

Now having said all of this, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Russia's behavior is incredibly dangerous. It's never a good thing when any country, particularly a member of the P-5, so brazenly violates the UN Charter and invades a neighbor. It's just that we have very few arrows in our quiver. Several folks have gotten in back and forth over how far the US should go in condemning the Russian behavior. But I think this misses the larger point; we are not going to turn back the Russians - what we need to focus on is how we stop this from happening again and ensure that US national interests are protected over the long-term.

more

(emphasis added)