John McCain has long been a major player in a radical militaristic group driven by an ideology of global expansionism and dominance attained through perpetual, pre-emptive, unilateral, multiple wars. Over its two terms, the George W. Bush administration has planted the seeds for this geopolitical master plan, and now appears to be counting on the McCain administration, if one comes to power, to nurture it.
The Hill reports this morning that “at least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president,” adding that “more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.” Though some lawmakers “declined to detail” why they wouldn’t support McCain, others cited “major concerns” about McCain’s policies on energy and Iraq.
Republican members who have not endorsed or publicly backed McCain include Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Jones, Peterson, John Doolittle (Calif.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).
Additionally, a “handful” of other GOP lawmakers have made a distinction between [base ']Äúendorsing[base ']Äù and [base ']Äúsupporting,[base ']Äù saying that while they won’t endorse McCain, they will vote for him in November.
Asked yesterday by Fox News’s Neil Cavuto if he was “willing now to endorse John McCain,” Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) deflected the question, saying “it’s been nice talking to you.” “I’m probably going to vote for John McCain, that’s as far as I’m going to go,” allowed Tancredo. Watch it:
One of the most prominent conservatives withholding support from McCain is Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
In March, Hagel declined endorsing McCain, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he had “John and I have some pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy.” More recently, Hagel criticized McCain’s bellicose rhetoric on engaging in diplomacy with Iran:
“I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way….”
Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. “I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We’ll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential.”
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds dismissed The Hill’s tally, saying that “John McCain has strong support among Republicans and even some others in the Congress for taking principled stands.”
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the nation’s highest civil award, awarded to individuals who have contributed to: 1) the security or national interests of the United States, 2) world peace, or 3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
Yesterday, the White House released a list of the newest recipients, who will be honored at a White House ceremony next week. Included in that list is former Rumsfeld yes-man Gen. Peter Pace:
General Peter Pace, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), is one of our Nation’s most accomplished and respected military officers. His selfless service and visionary leadership have helped keep our Nation safe.
Pace also stepped in to write a letter during the Valerie Plame leak trial endorsing Scooter Libby[base ']Äôs character, specifically noting his [base ']Äúselfless[base ']Äù nature. In 2007, he defended the military’s ban on gays serving openly in the military, stating, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates effectively forced Pace into retirement last year because the administration wanted to avoid “contentious” Senate hearings over the Iraq war. He was the shortest-serving Joint Chiefs chairman since Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor in 1964, who stepped down during the early years of the Vietnam War.
When Iran' UN Ambassador told the Boston Globe that Iran would "consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation" - a proposal advocated by such impeccably credentialed members of the US foreign policy establishment as former US Ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering - America's Trotskyite press could have had a field day.
"The Revolution Betrayed," their headlines could have blared. "Iran Accepts Bush Administration Premise It Has Fewer Rights Than Brazil."
Some accuse the Bush Administration of having a double standard on Iran's nuclear program. But this is misleading. It's really a triple standard. Moreover, Iran has, in principle, accepted the operation of a triple standard.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is premised on a double standard. There's one set of commitments for the nuclear powers - like the United States - and another set of commitments for the non-nuclear powers, like Iran.
Then there's the "actually existing" Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT "as observed." In the NPT "as observed," the nuclear powers don't actually have to do anything, except mumble the word "disarmament" under their breath occasionally, with their fingers crossed behind their backs, while trying not to laugh. The non-nuclear powers, of course, have actual commitments that they are expected to comply with.
What the Bush Administration has been arguing for is a triple standard: one standard for the nuclear powers, one standard for the non-nuclear powers, and a third standard for a group of countries which may be defined as follows: "Iran, so long as it has a government that we don't like."
The Bush Administration argues that because Iran was not transparent about its nuclear program in the past, it has forfeited its right to enrich uranium for a peaceful nuclear program under the NPT, like Brazil.
And Iran, if it accepts the Pickering proposal, is accepting the premise that it should have fewer rights than Brazil. Iran is not, if it accepts the Pickering proposal, contesting the operation of a triple standard. It's simply contesting what the triple standard should be - advocating that the triple standard be international control of an enrichment program on Iranian soil, rather than no enrichment program on Iranian soil at all.
But the Bush Administration refuses to acknowledge that there is a serious Iranian proposal on the table - or that the proposal has supporters among America's foreign policy elite - because according to the Bush Administration the standoff is over whether there can be any enrichment in Iran at all, under any circumstances, ever, so long as Iran has a government that the US doesn't like. So any proposal that countenances enrichment on Iranian soil, is by the Bush Administration's definition, not serious.
This might seem to some like an insider policy debate. But Americans have a big stake in changing the current US policy. Because of the Bush Administration's current policy, the United States and Iran stand at the precipice of war. Because of the Bush Administration's current policy, the United States and Iran cannot cooperate to help bring peace to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If there were political settlements to the violent conflicts in these countries, which Iran could help facilitate and enforce, U.S. soldiers who are currently on track to die in these conflicts could instead come home and rejoin their families.
Of course, the Bush Administration places a higher value on enforcing its dogma about Iran's nuclear program than it does on the lives of U.S. soldiers.
Former White House flack-turned-tell-all author Scott McClellan made a guest appearance on CBS' Late Show With David Letterman, whose host, is, how shall we say...not the biggest fan of the current administration. In one remarkable sequence which covered internal White House decision drivers, Cheney's hunting accident (or was it!?), and the Valerie Plame leak, Letterman, with a combination of merriment and acrimony, led a thorough excoriation of the White House, culminating with the blunt assessment of Cheney and Bush, that "they don't care about Americans."
[WATCH.]
LETTERMAN: Is Cheney, is he--is he a goon? ( laughter ) I don't mean that to sound like a smart-ass. He seems like he might be a goon.
McCLELLAN: No. He is quite an interesting guy. He has a very dark view of the world and he certainly believes that some of the means justify the ends. and this president showed him way too much deference, I think, in terms of carrying out policy, whether it was detainee policies or energy policies or policies relating to the war itself.
LETTERMAN: In deferring to Cheney, was it because he's intellectually lazy? Is that why he would defer to Cheney?
McCLELLAN: Well, there certainly is a little bit of a lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of the president. He is a gut instinct player. He doesn't like to sit around and debate policy. He likes to govern from the gut and make decisions and then go from there. That's something I talk about in the book as well.
LETTERMAN: Now, was it on your watch that Cheney shot his hunting buddy?
McCLELLAN: It was, and it sprayed me, too.
LETTERMAN: What is that like? I don't think you have to go back to Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, the last time a vice president shot somebody.
McCLELLAN: It was something I never could have predicted when I became press secretary. You go down a list of things and that was not one on it.
LETTERMAN: Were they forthcoming with you?
McCLELLAN: No, he wasn't. The vice president prefers that, in terms of the press, well, just "No comment." He doesn't have much regard for the press corps. I was actually advocating, we have to get the information out now to the national press corps. Do a phone call. He was down in Corpus Christi, and he took my advice and called the Corpus Christi Times and gave it to them on their website and said the national press corps can find it there. And for three days I had to go out there and take my own bullets from that before he went on TV.
LETTERMAN: Did the people in the press that you talk to everyday, did they like you? Do they have respect for you?
McCLELLAN: Actually, when I went through the very difficult period when it turned out in the Valerie Plame leak episode that something I had said was false, unknowingly so - I'd been misled by two advisors to the President - some of the press corps were my strongest defenders during that time. The White House counsel said, "You can't comment, it's an ongoing investigation." And the press corps actually stood up on TV and said, he's a straight shooter. His credibility is unquestioned. and so I appreciated that. It shows the relationship that we had.
LETTERMAN: My feeling about Cheney and also Bush, but especially Cheney, is he just couldn't care less about Americans. And that the same is true of George Bush. And all they really want to do is somehow kiss up to the oil people so they can get some great annuity when they're out of office. "There you go, Dick, nice job. There's a couple of billion for your troubles." ( applause ) I mean, he pretty much put Halliburton in business, and the outsourcing of the military resources to private mercenary groups, and so forth. Is there any humanity in either of these guys?
McCLELLAN: Look, I still have personal affection for the president. I can't speak to the vice president's thinking that well because he's someone that keeps things himself and he believes in doing it his way, and he doesn't care what anybody else thinks. He is going to do what he feels is best and that's not always in the best interests of the country. As we've seen.
LETTERMAN: You told me backstage that you thought he was a goon!
The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the nation’s highest civil award, awarded to individuals who have contributed to: 1) the security or national interests of the United States, 2) world peace, or 3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.
