The Rain in Spain falls Mainly on McCain
John McCain seems to have gotten confused in an interview about Spanish prime minister Zapatero and someone in Latin America. When pressed he kept talking about Latin America and "this hemisphere."
Did he get mixed up with the Mexican peasant protest movement, the Zapatistas? Did he just assume the question was about one of those Latin American leftists with a Z in his name?
Josh Marshall points out that McCain in an earlier interview when his mind was less foggy had left open the possibility of a White House visit by Zapatero.
As part of NATO, Spain has 1,000 troops in Afghanistan.
McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann, an arch-Neoconservative, insisted that McCain really did mean to diss Zapatero.
Joe Klein interprets this announcement as mere spin to keep McCain from looking confused. If so, Klein suggests that maybe it isn't worth destroying our relationship with a NATO ally just to avoid having to admit that the 72-year-old's mind wandered for a second. I mean, it isn't a new thing in American politics. Ronald Reagan once went woolly-headed and imagined himself in having fought as a grunt in World War II. He just made movies about it. And Reagan was a 2 term president who got an airport named after him.
Not McCain himself but some neocons around him may really be annoyed with Spain because Spanish intelligence is in Herat province and blew the whistle on the mistake the Pentagon made in bombing the civilian village of Azizabad and killing 90 people in late August.
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/18/2008 03:00:00 PM
|
Facebook
5 Comments:
Not McCain himself but some neocons around him may really be annoyed with Spain because Spanish intelligence is in Herat province and blew the whistle on the mistake the Pentagon made in bombing the civilian village of Azizabad and killing 90 people in late August.
A "mistake" made again and again and again is not a mistake. It is policy.
The United States policy in its terrorist wars in Central Asia, all over the brown and Islamic world is : kill them all. Both JMcC and BHO embrace this policy. A vote for either one makes the voter an accomplice to war crimes. Don't do it.
Joint Baldwin/Barr/McKinney/Nader/Paul Statement to the National Press Club
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Friends don't let friends vote for war criminals. Baldwin/Barr/McKinney/Nader.
How many average American sports fans know that the current Prime Minister of Spain is José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero?
How many average American sports fans are familiar with Emiliano Zapata Salazar, the turn-of-the-twentieth-century Mexican revolutionary?
How many Americans care that McCain confused the two?
Probably five percent or less, and that includes the so-called reporters and their editors.
Anti-intellectualism and disdain for knowledge are as American as narcissism and dishonesty. I'm surprised the McCain campaign didn't just make a joke about the whole thing and laff it off rather than bother with a cover story. It would have blown over in fifteen seconds if he had done that. Now, by trying to cover his marginally educated behind people will be talking about that embarrassing mistake for an extra five minutes.
I agree with Mr. Wade Griffin that, in and of itself, McCain's confusion in this interview is not so revealing. And of course, this matter will probably have little to no resonance with the US public as a whole. Most of us know little of geography and foreign affairs, and many distrust those who do.
In my mind, however, this is somewhat revealing of McCain's brand of inflexible ignorance. This inflexible, ignorant attitude is essentially the same as that of the Bush administration. Recall, for instance, Bush's shockingly cavalier responses to reporters who asked why Osama Bin Laden had not been captured. Or his assertions that he had not made any mistakes. As if any failure or mistake could be wished away by simply stating that it was not a mistake, or had never happened, or did not mean what it obviously meant.
So, this situation is, perhaps, a hint to those who do care about foreign policy, about the direction McCain is likely to take if elected. But it is basically a wash for the public at large, or for partisans who are looking for something that will help their candidate, or damage their opponent.
America does not have a significant presence in RC West (Afghanistan near Herat.) The 207th Corps (ANA) in RC West has only 1 decent brigade, and 1 green forming brigade.
What appears to have happened is that the ANA took fire from a location, and demanded tactical air support to take down the location that was attacking them. The target was precisely taken down at their request. Several Taliban (included high value Taliban) were killed.
Why were there civilians there? Could it be that it was a set up? That the Taliban purposely launched attacks on the ANA on a location with captive civilians? Part of the confusion is that the ANA involved insist that they visited the bombed location, and didn't find evidence of significant civilian casualties.
I don't get why the Spanish would make a big deal out of this incident. The Spanish are almost certainly insisting on air support if their ground forces are ever engaged.
The problem in Afghanistan appears to be when the ANA and ANP request tactical air support. To a lesser degree when non US NATO troops request air support. There appear to be coordination and targeting issues. American troops appear to be much better in calling air strikes when they are attacked.
This just goes to show that neither McCain or Palin is suitable for being a president. Even if McCain mixed up Spain and Prime Minister Zapatero his answers on meeting with another nation are preposterous. "I will meet with any nation who agrees with us." ?? The reason you meet with nations that disagree with you is so you can get them to agree with you and listen to why you think they're doing a wrong thing. This shouldn't even be argued! The more the Republicans keep saying that they won't meet Kim Jong Il or Ahmedinejad the more the US moves away from a peaceful way to solving problems that we have with these countries. I mean didn't Clinton meet with people that we didn't totally agree with at Camp David.
What's even worse is that after the interview the Neo-Cons came out saying, "Oh no McCain knew exactly what he was talking about. And we don't want to meet with Spain's leader because he pulled his troops out of Iraq." Which is even worse because it means that every country who didn't aid in Iraq War is now no longer an ally of the US. Its crazy man. Geez
Post a Comment
<< Home