Someone Remind McCain about the "First Rule of Holes"

When you are in one - stop digging.

After everyone under the sun jumped on CBS's Isvestia turn, where they edited out his embarrassingly wrong answer to a question in which he credited the Surge™ - which got underway in February/March 2007 with bringing about the "Anbar Awakening" - which was announced by then-Colonel, now Brigadier General Sean MacFarland in late September 2006 - in an interview with Katie Couric. Bloggers and Keith Olberman pounced, and rightly so.

He didn't back off his deranged assertion, but he did cancel a press availability and the timing of canceling the only presser this week sure smacks of a fear of the questions that would be asked.

Especially when you tug the threads a bit.


When The Swamp contacted McCain's campaign to get further comment on his astoundingly ignorant assertion, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds bravely soldiered on, asserting that "Senator McCain is correct. As General Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar Awakening was so successful in tearing up al Qaeda."

Let's strangle that baby in it's crib right now. The Surge™ had fuck-all to do with the tamping down of the violence in Anbar. Only one brigade surged into Anbar, for fucks sake - and besides that, Petraeus' own testimony before Congress (you would think that McCain, with the unhealthy awe he shows Petraeus would sleep with a copy of the report under his pillow) shows that the violence in Anbar started declining months before the extra 3000 or so troops got to the vast, sprawling Anbar province.

See? I even have charts from the report Petraeus delivered to Congress to prove McCain is just making shit up.







No, the violence abated there because we rented some temporary loyalty from some really bad people, like a thug named Abu Risha, with guns and ammo, and with money. It was a Hail Mary thrown as the buzzer was about to sound and it worked in as much as it tied the game and took it into a sudden death overtime.

But the Surge™ didn't have much, if anything to do with the so-called "Anbar Awakening" - and by the way - McCain last night was crowing about the Surge™ providing the security for Abu Risha to lead the movement among tribal leaders to ally themselves with the Americans against the foreign interlopers calling themselves al Qaeda. Just one problem, and if you clicked Abu Risha's name above you know what it is. He was assassinated in a bomb blast last year, along with four of his bodyguards as he left his compound in Ramadi.

Stephen Schwartz Gets It Completely Wrong

Scwartz is an obscure wingnut, but he's a wingnut writing for the Weekly Standard, and that means someone thought he was worth hiring. He had this to say when he compared Poland to Iraq:

There is, however, a more relevant and positive historical example evoked by the new Iraq, and it is that of Poland. Lest the metaphor be misunderstood, we must certainly guard against Iraq being divided between Saudi Wahhabis and Iranian radicals as the Polish Republic in 1939 was invaded and split by Hitler and Stalin.

But I have in mind the modern Poland of the last three decades. The new Iraq can play a role in the Muslim world similar to that seen when, at the end of the 1970s, the Polish nation, inspired by Pope John Paul II and the Solidarity labor movement, rose to challenge a Soviet power then viewed as invulnerable. Poland inaugurated an affirmation of popular sovereignty and intellectual freedom that spread first to countries like Hungary with which it shared a Catholic heritage, then to the rest of the Communist zone, and finally to the former Soviet Union itself, which then finally crumbled.

[SNIP]

This is not to say that a Polish parallel in Iraq would bring instant gratification for a West, and a world, hungry for resolution of the Mideast crisis. In the 30 years that have passed since the beginning of the Polish national revival, that country has yet to fulfill its noble promise as a herald of democracy. It has contended with its own religious and national extremists, undergone disillusion with its hero Lech Walesa, and has even slid back, at times, into governance by its enduring "post-Communist" nomenklatura. But its role in the dissolution of Communist tyranny in Europe is inarguable.

Many wars fought by Americans were considered lost during the struggle. Washington at Valley Forge, the U.S. after the burning of the capital in the War of 1812 (which we did lose), Lincoln in the early period of the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt before the Battle of Midway in 1942, all faced the specter of defeat. The Korean War ended without a clear victory, although the people of South Korea today enjoy freedom and prosperity thanks to the sacrifice of American forces. Many Americans have lost touch with our military history, and these examples may mean little to them as they ponder the conflict in Iraq.

But in living memory, it is impossible to think that President Ronald Reagan would have told the Soviet rulers, between 1981 and 1989, to dispose of a reborn, independent Poland as they saw fit. Reagan would not have called out, in an unamusing paraphrase, "Mr. Gorbachev, reinforce this wall!" The Poles, like the Iraqis, faced setbacks and disappointments, but they prevailed, and their example changed the history of the world. A firm commitment to the new Iraq from the next American president may do the same for the Muslim nations.

Here's how I refute this:

1. Poland is almost entirely a Catholic nation (90% Roman Catholic) while Iraq is divided between Shia (60%), Sunni (37%) and Christian (3%) (Rough estimates).
2. Reagan abandoned Lebanon.
3. Poland was split between the Germans and Russians from October 1939 to June 1941.
4. We did not "lose" the War of 1812--Andrew Jackson slaughtered the British at New Orleans. Had the Treaty of Ghent been negotiated after that fact, the US would have won the war by forcing better terms. The victory at New Orleans ensured that the British had to abide by the treaty they signed.
5. The Iraqis don't want us there and our Status of Forces Agreement with them effectively cedes their sovereignty to us. During the Cold War, Polish sovereignty was effectively ceded to the Soviet Union. So, in effect, the US becomes "the Soviet Union" in its relationship with Iraq.
6. One can walk safely through a Polish city without fear of sectarian violence.
7. The Pope did more than just "inspire" the resistance to the Soviet Union.

Add your own refutations to the larger column--there are many more ridiculous assertions. It's a doozy.

-WS

St. John Steps in It and Tells a Whopper

Out on the campaign trail, St. John McCain of the Straight Talk Express to Campaign Oblivion decides to revise history with the fervent hope that no one is paying attention:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John McCain, rising in the polls as a Republican presidential candidate, defended his integrity Thursday, declaring he had "never done any favors for anybody—lobbyist or special interest group."
McCain made the remark to reporters in Detroit when questioned about a report that The New York Times was investigating allegations of legislative favoritism by the Arizona Republican.

McCain acknowledged that his presidential campaign aides have had discussions with the newspaper regarding its inquiries.

"I have not been in talks with The New York Times. They've been communicating with our staff and with us," McCain said. "I've never done any favors for anybody—lobbyist or special interest group—that's a clear, 24-year record."

McCain and four other senators were accused two decades ago of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier later convicted of securities fraud. The Senate Ethics Committee said McCain had used "poor judgment" but also said his actions "were not improper" and warranted no penalty.

WAIT - STOP. Can't let this one go without going to an excellent series on McCain done by the Arizona Republic.

The Keating Five
Dan Nowicki, Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 1, 2007 10:41 AM

CHAPTER VII: THE KEATING FIVE

[snip]

It all started in March 1987. Charles H Keating Jr., the flamboyant developer and anti-porn crusader, needed help. The government was poised to seize Lincoln Savings and Loan, a freewheeling subsidiary of Keating's American Continental Corp.

As federal auditors examined Lincoln, Keating was not content to wait and hope for the best. He had spread a lot of money around Washington, and it was time to call in his chits.

[snip]

Now Keating had a job for DeConcini. He wanted him to organize a meeting with regulators to deliver a message: Get off Lincoln's back. Eventually, DeConcini would set up a meeting with five senators and the regulators. One of them was McCain.

McCain already knew Keating well. His ties to the home builder dated to 1981, when the two men met at a Navy League dinner where McCain spoke.

After the speech, Keating walked up to McCain and told him that he, too, was a Navy flier and that he greatly respected McCain's war record. He met McCain's wife and family. The two men became friends.

Charlie Keating always took care of his friends, especially those in politics. McCain was no exception.

In 1982, during McCain's first run for the House, Keating held a fund-raiser for him, collecting more than $11,000 from 40 employees of American Continental Corp. McCain would spend more than $550,000 to win the primary and the general election.

In 1983, as McCain contemplated his House re-election, Keating hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner for him, even though McCain had no serious competition. When McCain pushed for the Senate in 1986, Keating was there with more than $50,000.

By 1987, McCain had received about $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his associates.

McCain also had carried a little water for Keating in Washington. While in the House, McCain, along with a majority of representatives, co-sponsored a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments by thrifts such as Lincoln.

[snip]

Despite the reprieve, Keating's businesses continued to spiral downward, taking the five senators with him. Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, and their critics added a new term to the American lexicon: "The Keating Five."

The Keating Five became synonymous for the kind of political influence that money can buy. As the S&L failure deepened, the sheer magnitude of the losses hit the press. Billions of dollars had been squandered. The five senators were linked as the gang who shilled for an S&L bandit.

S&L "trading cards" came out. The Keating Five card showed Charles Keating holding up his hand, with a senator's head adorning each finger. McCain was on Keating's pinkie.

As the investigation dragged through 1988, McCain dodged the hardest blows. Most landed on DeConcini, who had arranged the meetings and had other close ties to Keating, including $50 million in loans from Keating to DeConcini's aides.

But McCain made a critical error.

He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent.

Keating was no ordinary constituent to McCain.

On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.

The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.

McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Total cost: $13,433.

* * *

Here we read a nice piece about McCain's lack of temperment and what he is like when cornered and asked about his various misdeeds:

* * *

When the story broke, McCain did nothing to help himself.

"You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.

"That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot," McCain said later in the same conversation. "You do understand English, don't you?"

He also belittled reporters when they asked about his wife's ties to Keating.

"It's up to you to find that out, kids."

[snip]

In his memoir Senator Dennis DeConcini: From the Center of the Aisle, he praises the decision to keep McCain on the hook.

"It became clear to me, and it was later confirmed by Ethics Committee members, that Bennett was attempting to dismiss the charges against McCain, and in order to appear nonpartisan, he included Glenn in this effort," DeConcini wrote with co-author Jack August. "Thanks to the three Democrats on the committee and perhaps with the help of Senator (Jesse) Helms (R-N.C.), however, the charges remained in place for all the senators under investigation. So all of us had to attend the 23-day public hearing, which was indeed a trial, before the six-member Senate Ethics Committee."

In the book, DeConcini reiterates his allegation that McCain leaked to the media "sensitive information" about certain closed proceedings in order to hurt DeConcini, Riegle and Cranston. It's a fairly serious charge. The Boston Globe revisited the Keating Five leaks in 2000. The story paraphrased a congressional investigator, Clark B. Hall, as personally concluding that "McCain was one of the principal leakers." The newspaper also reported that McCain, under oath, had denied involvement with the leaks.

McCain owns up to his mistake this way:

"I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment."

* * *

So if you can read all of that, and conclude that McCain is telling the truth when he says that he's "never done any favors for anybody—lobbyist or special interest group" then I think we can put this off as another McCain gaffe that will largely be blown over and ignored by the media. After all, how many of the media outlets are going to actually go into the details of the Keating Five scandal? I mean, that's so 1990, you know.

Six hours later, and I'm still in shock

He just stood in front of the VFW and did a backflip with a 180 and stuck the landing - and nobody noticed! I actually think he freakin' believes his own bullshit!

After rejecting parallels with Vietnam, he is suddenly stripping to his skivvies and ready to climb into the sack with those very comparisons, albeit with a kinky twist. Now it seems he thinks that we should have stayed in Vietnam - you remember Vietnam - that was the war that he, draft-dodging, war-mongering, chickenhawk that he is - refused to fight, the draft he dodged - you remember Vietnam. I certainly do, and so do my aunt and uncle who lost their oldest son....And Veterans of that conflict embarrassed me today by clapping for that sonofabitch who so spectacularly failed the test back then.

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Mr. Bush said. "Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields."'

And the idiots who voted for this clown called Kerry a flip-flopper. None of you should EVER call a Democrat a flip-flopper in my presence again. Not with this fucking political gymnast representin' y'all.

Well - I am not the only one who was stunned speechless by the "say anything, what do I have to lose?" resident's speech. Noted UCLA historian Robert Dallek, who has written extensively about the conflict in Iraq as compared to Vietnam, accused Bush of playing fast and loose with history.

"It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president," he said in a telephone interview.

"We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn't work our will," he said.

"What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion," he continued. "We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out."

So - will the mainstream media give him a[nother] pass, or will they finally call him on his delusional bullshit? What will you bet he gets a pass? But I think I have maybe figured out why...it is that he is just so fucking wrong, wronger than anyone has ever been, so wrong that in the history of incompetence and failure he gets a special category...That there is just an air of "Holy shit. Where do I even start???"

Well - enough already with the feeling overwhelmed. Pick a point and start making sense, and don't stop.