McCain’s Weak Grasp Of History (His Own)
“You’ll find this surprising,” Arizona Senator John McCain told Jake Tapper and Ron Fournier at a CNN/National Journal event July 17, “but I think I would have been more reluctant to commit American troops” to Iraq, claiming he would have been much more circumspect about the presumptive intelligence supporting the invasion: “I would have challenged the evidence with greater scrutiny. With my background with the military and knowledge of national security…I would have been able to see through the evidence that was presented at the time,” he said.
Credit: CNN
McCain is right. That is surprising. Because in the late 1990s, and after the September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda attacks, he certainly didn’t sound reluctant or circumspect. McCain’s assertion reflects his real skill as a Senator — his remarkable ability to forget what he’s actually done and said.
Let’s face it: the idea that McCain would have been any less manic for war with Iraq than he’s been for war with Iran, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Russia, Syria, or Sudan since that time is preposterous.
For one thing, in 1998 McCain was one of the leading members of the so-called “Oust Saddam” movement in Congress that shoved the ill-conceived Iraq Liberation Act down America’s throat — an act that redefined American foreign policy towards Iraq as overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
More importantly, after 9/11 McCain was every bit as hawkish on Iraq as were the Bush administration neocons.
On October 29, 2001, for example, McCain was the guest on CNN’s Larry King Live, where he was discussing military operations in Afghanistan and the wider “War on Terror.” McCain told King that because “we have Mr. Bin Laden taken care of … of course the next step is Iraq.”
Of course the next step is Iraq. That’s some reluctance right there.
When King pressed McCain on the notion that “the next step is Iraq,” McCain demonstrated his “circumspection” about the intelligence claims regarding WMD: “Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can.”
As quickly as he can. Notice how McCain hedges; notice the nuance, subtlety, and awareness of the incompleteness and indeterminate nature of the intelligence. That’s some circumspection right there.
As for his insistence that “President” McCain would have “challenged the evidence with greater scrutiny,” McCain advised King that “the Czech government has revealed meetings, contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mohamed Atta. The evidence is very clear.”
The evidence is very clear. That’s some scrutiny right there.
Of course, the alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague was one of former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s pet theories, one Cheney claimed on NBC’s Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, was “pretty well confirmed” — a theory the Central Intelligence Agency had already told Cheney was false, as declassified documents released by George Washington University’s National Security Archive clearly show.
A month later on November 28, McCain was back on CNN with Larry King. King asked if one of America’s options for dealing with Saddam Hussein was “ground troops going in?”
McCain replied, “That option cannot be ruled out.”
Cannot be ruled out. Yep, there’s that reluctant ol’ Maverick again.
In the same interview, McCain assured King that, had he, John McCain, been President, Dick Cheney would still be Vice-President and Donald Rumsfeld would still be Secretary of Defense. Inasmuch as Rumsfeld was gunning for Saddam’s head just five hours after the 9/11 attack, and given that Cheney was demonstrably content to repeatedly lie to the American people to promote the invasion of Iraq, McCain’s assertions now, long after the fact, that as America’s “national security expert” he would have been reluctant, circumspect, and would’ve handled the intelligence with scrutiny is laughable on its face.
The sad thing is that McCain’s mainstream media acolytes lapped it up with a spoon, TIME online declaring “Iraq war might not have happened.” Despite all evidence to the contrary, Beltway reporters cannot divorce themselves from the misbegotten notion that McCain is an “expert” on foreign and military affairs, despite the fact that the presumptive source of his “expertise” is a short naval career defined mostly by crashing airplanes and getting shot down — neither of which is usually considered part of the naval aviator job description — and a training squadron command sinecure given him by the Navy after the war to justify his retroactive promotions during the time he spent in a North Vietnamese POW camp.
It’s well-past time we recognize the fact that, where McCain is concerned, the Emperor has no clothes. Yes, he was a heroic POW. Four decades ago. But a rocky junior officer stint in the Navy is not the sine qua non of “military expertise.” And since his Senate career has largely been defined by invoking subject-verb-drop some bombs during every foreign policy crisis, there’s no doubt but that the country will breathe a collective sigh of relief when television news producers finally show some guts and invite someone who actually knows actual things about the actual world to opine on the teevee about the high politics of world affairs.
Bonus points if it’s someone who can remember the things he’s said from one day to the next.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Russ Burgos
Interested in foreign affairs, global conflict, and political narratives and discourses
53 responses to McCain’s Weak Grasp Of History (His Own)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Roctuna July 18th, 2014 at 19:06
Holy crap! If the “Blame Obama for Ukrainian fanatics with missiles” statement didn’t confirm his senility, this certainly does. Is there a Senate doctor that can relieve him from duty like the surgeon on a naval vessel?
Roctuna July 18th, 2014 at 19:06
Holy crap! If the “Blame Obama for Ukrainian fanatics with missiles” statement didn’t confirm his senility, this certainly does. Is there a Senate doctor that can relieve him from duty like the surgeon on a naval vessel?
DetroitSam July 18th, 2014 at 19:29
Why won’t Cindy and his children get McCain some help? This man is an embarrassment.
BanditBasheert July 19th, 2014 at 12:49
Help him? She doesn’t even want him to come home. She has her own things going on here – she made it very clear that she was NOT moving to DC.
DetroitSam July 18th, 2014 at 19:29
Why won’t Cindy and his children get McCain some help? This man is an embarrassment.
BanditBasheert July 19th, 2014 at 12:49
Help him? She doesn’t even want him to come home. She has her own things going on here – she made it very clear that she was NOT moving to DC.
Jake July 18th, 2014 at 19:37
I’m sorry if this is an unpopular view – but I feel he was given much better treatment than his fellow prisoners because of his prominent father – even if it was because his captors saw him as a bargaining chip, When I look at the classic footage of him lying on a bed smoking, I can’t help feel that his fellow captives were not enjoying a cigarettes – but we’ll never hear their side of the story will we, because McCain made sure all attempts to look for MIAs were squashed.
Suzanne McFly July 18th, 2014 at 20:17
I heard similar theories being thrown around, I just would never feel comfortable to question the experience of a POW. When the bastards on the right questioned Bergdahl, I was sick. Can’t believe how someone who never put their own lives on the line could EVER have the nerve to question what another person does who had their life on the line. I completely understand that some questions should be raised in certain circumstances, but it would still be hard for me to turn against a POW.
fahvel July 19th, 2014 at 03:38
why? – unjustified war with drafted 19 yr olds dropping by the tens of thousands and because his daddy was important he was kept afloat – sheeeit, privilege works even in jail
Deborah July 19th, 2014 at 07:00
Some of his fellow prisoners of war were the ones telling about how he was treated differently than them. He’s the one who told his captor’s how important his father was, to make sure he was treated gently. After his capture the Vietnamese knew all our bombing routes, so of course more of our planes were shot down, and those survivors were not treated with kid gloves. He was given the option to come home early, but that would have made his father look bad, and he wasn’t being tortured anyway, and that’s why he decided to stay. After the war he would not help other families find their loved ones left behind. He helped Viet Nam get favored nation by making them promise to shut down all information on any other prisoners of war, and NOT giving out any information on his time as a prisoner. I spent more than a week looking up information , and I can tell you I honestly have no regard for this person. He was no hero. He was a traitor, but because his father was so important, look what a charmed life he has had.
Suzanne McFly July 18th, 2014 at 20:11
This just makes him more sick, he committed 100,000’s troops for something he didn’t fully research. He wanted these troops to risk their lives for something he didn’t have TOTAL knowledge of? Sick bastard gets zero sympathy for regrets now, I actually considered for voting for him long ago, bush won so that choice wasn’t there.
Suzanne McFly July 18th, 2014 at 20:11
This just makes him more sick, he committed 100,000’s troops for something he didn’t fully research. He wanted these troops to risk their lives for something he didn’t have TOTAL knowledge of? Sick bastard gets zero sympathy for regrets now, I actually considered for voting for him long ago, bush won so that choice wasn’t there.
Suzanne McFly July 18th, 2014 at 20:17
I heard similar theories being thrown around, I just would never feel comfortable to question the experience of a POW. When the bastards on the right questioned Bergdahl, I was sick. Can’t believe how someone who never put their own lives on the line could EVER have the nerve to question what another person does who had their life on the line. I completely understand that some questions should be raised in certain circumstances, but it would still be hard for me to turn against a POW.
fahvel July 19th, 2014 at 03:38
why? – unjustified war with drafted 19 yr olds dropping by the tens of thousands and because his daddy was important he was kept afloat – sheeeit, privilege works even in jail
Deborah July 19th, 2014 at 07:00
Some of his fellow prisoners of war were the ones telling about how he was treated differently than them. He’s the one who told his captor’s how important his father was, to make sure he was treated gently. After his capture the Vietnamese knew all our bombing routes, so of course more of our planes were shot down, and those survivors were not treated with kid gloves. He was given the option to come home early, but that would have made his father look bad, and he wasn’t being tortured anyway, and that’s why he decided to stay. After the war he would not help other families find their loved ones left behind. He helped Viet Nam get favored nation by making them promise to shut down all information on any other prisoners of war, and NOT giving out any information on his time as a prisoner. I spent more than a week looking up information , and I can tell you I honestly have no regard for this person. He was no hero. He was a traitor, but because his father was so important, look what a charmed life he has had.
Obewon July 18th, 2014 at 20:53
Crash Mc’Cain and his GOP learned nothing from Halliburton Cheney’s $6 T faux oil war and deadly decade of death. ‘Had McCain, been SCOTUS anointed as Crash’43 then Cheney would still have been VP with Rumsfeld selected as SOD.’ ‘Of course, the alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague was one of Cheney’s pet theories he claimed on NBC’s Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, was “pretty well confirmed” — a theory the Central Intelligence Agency had already told Cheney was false!’
And GWB/Crash’43 knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction via Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by CIA Dir George Tenet, months before invading Iraq via SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/ Cons never seem to learn from their unanimous failures over the past few decades…
Obewon July 18th, 2014 at 20:53
Crash Mc’Cain and his GOP learned nothing from Halliburton Cheney’s $6 T faux oil war and deadly decade of death with 4,484 U.S. KIA in Iraq. ‘Had McCain been POTUS’43 then Cheney still would’ve been VP with Rumsfeld selected as SOD.’ ‘Of course, the alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague, one of Cheney’s pet theories claimed on NBC’s MTP 12/09/01, was “pretty well confirmed” — a theory the CIA had already told Cheney was false!’ Both GWB or Mc’Cain43 knew Saddam had no WMD via Two former CIA officers citing POTUS’43 squelching top-secret intelligence at a briefing by CIA Dir George Tenet, months before invading Iraq for Halliburton’s Bailout. http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/ Except for Joint Chiefs Chair/4 star General Colin Powell, cons never seem to learn from their unanimous failures of the past few decades.
majii July 18th, 2014 at 21:10
This is more of McCain’s special brand of bullsh*t. How in the hell can you say that even if you had more information in 2003, you would have still voted to invade Iraq and at the same time say the Iraq War may not have happened if you had it? It’s no wonder so many on the right are confused when politicians like McCain are given air time to present totally illogical positions on the same issue, neither of them making a lick of sense.
BanditBasheert July 19th, 2014 at 12:47
The good thing is that by now everyone thinks the McCain/Miss Lindsey tag-team is a couple of blithering idiots. McCain has no idea what he stands for, what he believes, what he supports or probably even who he is. His train went off the tracks years ago.
majii July 18th, 2014 at 21:10
This is more of McCain’s special brand of bullsh*t. How in the hell can you say that even if you had more information in 2003, you would have still voted to invade Iraq and at the same time say the Iraq War may not have happened if you had it? It’s no wonder so many on the right are confused when politicians like McCain are given air time to present totally illogical positions on the same issue, neither of them making a lick of sense.
BanditBasheert July 19th, 2014 at 12:47
The good thing is that by now everyone thinks the McCain/Miss Lindsey tag-team is a couple of blithering idiots. McCain has no idea what he stands for, what he believes, what he supports or probably even who he is. His train went off the tracks years ago.
Bob Waas July 18th, 2014 at 22:46
In 1998 he was in lock step with the Democratic leadership who were calling for the ouster of Saddam over WMD.
Dwendt44 July 18th, 2014 at 23:38
Where those the same WMD’s that Reagan gave Saddam?
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 07:04
I don’t know, do you have a site where I can read about it?
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 12:06
Technically, Reagan didn’t give WMD to Saddam. Reagan simply lifted export restrictions on precursors to certain chemical weapons.
Obewon July 19th, 2014 at 14:18
Reagan’s Envoy Rumsfeld famously met with Saddam in 1983 giving Iraq weaponized Anthrax and yellow rain binaries used to kill 5,000 Iraqi Kurds and thousands more Iraqi’s & Iranians:
The U.S. diplomatic courtship with Iraq in the 1980s continued despite Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. Click on the links to read once-classified documents from the Reagan administration. 1. “March 3, 1988-Two weeks later, Iraqi forces attack Kurdish civilians in Halabja with poisonous gas. Read the declassified secret document”–(Linked below.)
2. Candidate Reagan in 1980 & 1981-88 also illegally supplied Iran weapons for delaying hostages release (Iran/Contra Felons convictions upheld until GHWB Pardoned dozens.) “December 5, 1986 Subject: U.S.-Iraqi Relations: Picking Up the Pieces
Summary: After disclosures that the United States was secretly providing weapons to Iraq’s enemy, Iran, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy recommends strengthening commercial ties with Saddam Hussein because “U.S.-Iraqi relations are in crisis.” Read the declassified secret document”-(Linked below.)
3. Reagan finances U.S. arms Iraq used Attack Kuwait “Date: December 29, 1988 Subject: Export-Import Financing for Iraq
Summary: In the closing days of the Reagan administration, the State Department’s top human rights official argues that continued financial aid to Iraq “can simply not be squared with our worldwide human rights policy.” However, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy counters that U.S. financial ties with Iraq have “far greater use with Baghdad as a carrot than as a stick.” A year and a half later, Iraq invades Kuwait. Read the declassified secret document.”-Linked here. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/20/sbm.documents/index.html
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 20:44
Don’t need declassified documents for this, it was all covered more than a decade ago in a book called “With Friends Like These” by Bruce Jentleson. Yes, Reagan absolutely ignored Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds. As well he should have done. The Reagan administration’s policy during the Iran-Iraq War was simply a continuation of the Carter Doctrine — namely that the U.S. would not let any nation-state other than the U.S. dominate the Persian Gulf. Inasmuch as Iran went over to the offensive in 1982 and began making serious in-roads against Iraq, at least until Iranian lines of communication ran out, it was perfectly rational to provide Iraq with such assistance to keep Iran from winning the war and to preserve the Gulf status quo. Want a real fun one? The U.S. got Israel to make a deal via Italy with Vietnam to sell Iran spare parts for its American-made military equipment (which Vietnam had in abundance after defeating South Vietnam and which Iran had from the Shah years) in order to keep Iran in the fight and prevent Iraq from defeating Iran, even though we were simultaneously providing intelligence on Iranian troop dispositions to Saddam so that Iraq could prevent Iran from using those spare parts in an effective manner. And ALL of that was, of course, to keep the Soviets from gaining a foothold in the region. Again, this has all been sitting on library shelves for 25 years. How I miss the clarity of the Cold War.
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 12:05
The Democratic leadership was not calling for the ouster of Saddam. The Iraq Liberation Act was a piece of symbolic legislation expressing the “Sense of Congress” that Saddam had to go. After signing it, which he did in the midst of the Lewinski madness, Clinton refused to commit any resources to it. That was one of George W. Bush’s main critiques on the 2000 campaign trail — he would breathe new life into it. Overthrowing Saddam was always a Republican/neocon idea, right from the moment Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle concocted it during the early years of the Reagan administration.
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 17:49
It sure sounded like they wanted Saddam ousted? What constitutes aggressive action if not this rhetoric..
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 20:48
Dude, in 2002 EVERYONE wanted Saddam gone. Even the FRENCH wanted Saddam gone in 2002. The decisive period is 1996-1998.
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 22:36
Read the Snopes link. It covered that timeframe, and so does the video.
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 22:55
Try this on for size: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636410802098693?journalCode=fsst20#preview
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 23:50
Thanks, it confirmed what I said. The war drums to ouster Saddam were beating before GWB took office.
Bob Waas July 18th, 2014 at 22:46
In 1998 he was in lock step with the Democratic leadership who were calling for the ouster of Saddam over WMD.
Dwendt44 July 18th, 2014 at 23:38
Where those the same WMD’s that Reagan gave Saddam?
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 07:04
I don’t know, do you have a site where I can read about it?
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 12:06
Technically, Reagan didn’t give WMD to Saddam. Reagan simply lifted export restrictions on precursors to certain chemical weapons.
Obewon July 19th, 2014 at 14:18
Reagan’s Envoy Rumsfeld famously met with Saddam in 1983 selling Iraq weaponized Anthrax & yellow rain binaries used to kill 5,000 Iraqi Kurds and thousands more Iraqi’s & Iranians:
The U.S. diplomatic courtship with Iraq in the 1980s continued despite Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. 2008’s declassified documents linked below from Reagan’s admin. 1. “March 3, 1988-Two weeks later, Iraqi forces attack Kurdish civilians in Halabja with poisonous gas.”
2. Candidate Reagan in 1980 & 1981-88 also illegally agreed to supply Iran weapons for delaying hostages release (Iran/Contra Felons convictions upheld until GHWB pardoned dozens.) “December 5, 1986 Subject: U.S.-Iraqi Relations: Picking Up the Pieces. Summary: After disclosures that the United States was secretly providing weapons to Iraq’s enemy, Iran, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy recommends strengthening commercial ties with Saddam Hussein because “U.S.-Iraqi relations are in crisis.”-Declassified secret documents Linked below.
3. Reagan finances U.S. arms Iraq used to attack Kuwait “December 29, 1988 Subject: Export-Import Financing for Iraq
Summary: In the closing days of the Reagan administration, the State Department’s top human rights official argues that continued financial aid to Iraq “can simply not be squared with our worldwide human rights policy.” However, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy counters that U.S. financial ties with Iraq have “far greater use with Baghdad as a carrot than as a stick.” A year and a half later, Iraq invades Kuwait.” Declassified secret documents linked here. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/20/sbm.documents/index.html
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 20:44
Don’t need declassified documents for this, it was all covered more than a decade ago in a book called “With Friends Like These” by Bruce Jentleson. Yes, Reagan absolutely ignored Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds. As well he should have done. The Reagan administration’s policy during the Iran-Iraq War was simply a continuation of the Carter Doctrine — namely that the U.S. would not let any nation-state other than the U.S. dominate the Persian Gulf. Inasmuch as Iran went over to the offensive in 1982 and began making serious in-roads against Iraq, at least until Iranian lines of communication ran out, it was perfectly rational to provide Iraq with such assistance to keep Iran from winning the war and to preserve the Gulf status quo. Want a real fun one? The U.S. got Israel to make a deal via Italy with Vietnam to sell Iran spare parts for its American-made military equipment (which Vietnam had in abundance after defeating South Vietnam and which Iran had from the Shah years) in order to keep Iran in the fight and prevent Iraq from defeating Iran, even though we were simultaneously providing intelligence on Iranian troop dispositions to Saddam so that Iraq could prevent Iran from using those spare parts in an effective manner. And ALL of that was, of course, to keep the Soviets from gaining a foothold in the region. Again, this has all been sitting on library shelves for 25 years. How I miss the clarity of the Cold War.
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 12:05
The Democratic leadership was not calling for the ouster of Saddam. The Iraq Liberation Act was a piece of symbolic legislation expressing the “Sense of Congress” that Saddam had to go. After signing it, which he did in the midst of the Lewinski madness, Clinton refused to commit any resources to it. That was one of George W. Bush’s main critiques on the 2000 campaign trail — he would breathe new life into it. Overthrowing Saddam was always a Republican/neocon idea, right from the moment Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle concocted it during the early years of the Reagan administration.
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 17:49
It sure sounded like they wanted Saddam ousted? What constitutes aggressive action if not this rhetoric..
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 20:48
Dude, in 2002 EVERYONE wanted Saddam gone. Even the FRENCH wanted Saddam gone in 2002. The decisive period is 1996-1998.
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 22:36
Read the Snopes link. It covered that timeframe, and so does the video.
Prof B in LA July 19th, 2014 at 22:55
Try this on for size: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09636410802098693?journalCode=fsst20#preview
Bob Waas July 19th, 2014 at 23:50
Thanks, it confirmed what I said. The war drums to ouster Saddam were beating before GWB took office.
fahvel July 19th, 2014 at 03:36
other than suffering in a pow camp – what is this old mans depth of military and security affairs based on?
BanditBasheert July 19th, 2014 at 12:44
Well he had a ton of experience flying bomber jets – he crashed 5 times. He graduated 894th out of 899 in his class / but only because his family was all Admirals. He was a playboy and a cheat. He dumped his wife when he returned from the Hanoi Hilton (she had been badly disfigured in an auto accident while he was gone) – after carrying on a long term affair with his current Cindy Lou, heiress to Budweiser. She bought the Goldwater Senate seat for him to get him out of town.
After she showed up on the campaign train in 2008 with a broken wrist, McCain called her a “c*nt” in front of reporters. She always stated she would never return to or live in DC because Nancy Reagan was mean to her.
She’s going to DETEST having him around when he retires.
fahvel July 19th, 2014 at 03:36
other than suffering in a pow camp – what is this old mans depth of military and security affairs based on?
BanditBasheert July 19th, 2014 at 12:44
Well he had a ton of experience flying bomber jets – he crashed 5 times. He graduated 894th out of 899 in his class / but only because his family was all Admirals. He was a playboy and a cheat. He dumped his wife when he returned from the Hanoi Hilton (she had been badly disfigured in an auto accident while he was gone) – after carrying on a long term affair with his current Cindy Lou, heiress to Budweiser. She bought the Goldwater Senate seat for him to get him out of town.
After she showed up on the campaign train in 2008 with a broken wrist, McCain called her a “c*nt” in front of reporters. She always stated she would never return to or live in DC because Nancy Reagan was mean to her.
She’s going to DETEST having him around when he retires.
Budda July 19th, 2014 at 07:45
Why does this guy get so much air time?
Budda July 19th, 2014 at 07:45
Why does this guy get so much air time?
JulieAnn Holmes July 22nd, 2014 at 12:14
BEST – MOST ACCURATE description of McShame from the media in quite a while…..
“It’s well-past time we recognize the fact that, where McCain is concerned, the Emperor has no clothes. Yes, he was a heroic POW. Four decades ago. But a rocky junior officer stint in the Navy is not the sine qua non of “military expertise.” And since his Senate career has largely been defined by invoking subject-verb-drop some bombs during every foreign policy crisis, there’s no doubt but that the country will breathe a collective sigh of relief when television news producers finally show some guts and invite someone who actually knows actual things about the actual world to opine on the teevee about the high politics of world affairs.”
JulieAnn Holmes July 22nd, 2014 at 12:14
BEST – MOST ACCURATE description of McShame from the media in quite a while…..
“It’s well-past time we recognize the fact that, where McCain is concerned, the Emperor has no clothes. Yes, he was a heroic POW. Four decades ago. But a rocky junior officer stint in the Navy is not the sine qua non of “military expertise.” And since his Senate career has largely been defined by invoking subject-verb-drop some bombs during every foreign policy crisis, there’s no doubt but that the country will breathe a collective sigh of relief when television news producers finally show some guts and invite someone who actually knows actual things about the actual world to opine on the teevee about the high politics of world affairs.”