Along those lines, Esser Agaroth has pointed out this article from yesterday's Philadelphia Bulletin, by David Bedein:
Israeli Reporter Challenges McCain To Polygraph TestRead the whole thing.
This week, Senator John McCain took heat because of an interview that he granted two years ago to Amir Oren, a credible journalist from the Israeli newspaper HaAretz, on May 1, 2006, in which Mr. McCain declared that his administration "would send "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East .... "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker."
Mr. McCain added "I would expect concessions and sacrifices by both sides."
When Mr. Oren asked Mr. McCain if that meant a "movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications? McCain nodded in the affirmative."
To deflect criticism that he has encountered on the 2008 campaign trail, the McCain campaign has been quoting an article by John B. Judis., senior editor at The New Republic who wrote in an article in that publication on October 25, 2006 that Mr. McCain was "miffed at his portrayal in HaAretz," saying that "after reading the HaAretz article and subsequent report in The Jewish Press [in New York]," he felt the need to "clear up several serious misimpressions." Mr. McCain said that "in contrast to the impression left by the HaAretz article, I've never held the position that Israel should return to 1967 lines, and that is not my position today."
The senator repeated this week what he said to the New Republic which was that "in the course of that brief, off-the-cuff conversation, I never discussed settlement blocs, a total withdrawal, or anything of the sort."
Oren stands by his quote of McCain while McCain stands by his denial.
In any case, there is no indication that McCain denies that he suggested Scowcroft or Baker to the Middle East--Baker is an obviously poor choice.
And Scowcroft? Back in October 2005, James Taranto pointed out just how ignorant Brent Scowcroft is of the Middle East:
War Is PeaceOr an ignoramus.
The Washington Post reports on a New Yorker interview with Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser in the Ford and Bush père White Houses:Scowcroft, in his interview, discussed an argument over Iraq he had two years ago with Condoleezza Rice, then-national security adviser and current secretary of state. "She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. The article stated that with a "barely perceptible note of satisfaction," Scowcroft added: "But we've had fifty years of peace." [emphasis added]Now let's see. Between 1953 and 2003, here are the Mideast wars we can think of off the top of our head: the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, the two Palestinian intifadas against Israel, the Algerian Civil War, the Yemen Civil War and two Sudanese civil wars. That doesn't even count acts of terror against non-Mideastern countries, from the Iranian invasion of the U.S. Embassy to the attacks of 9/11.
What do you call someone who describes this as "50 years of peace"? A "realist."
Now the question is whether Senator John McCain knows any better.
UPDATE: See also Did You Know McCain Is Visiting Israel This Week?
Technorati Tag: Israel and Senator John McCain.
6 comments:
B"H I'm glad you posted this. Perhaps this will yield some chatter about where McCain really stand on Israel, and what his "plans" are.
Scowcroft is definitely listed among McCain's advisers. Baker is not. And Bolton has just thrown his support to McCain.
Clearly McCain raises some questions about what his relationship to Israel will be. (He's also allied with Hagel a lot.)
Still I can't believe that either Democratic candidate won't be firmly in the Peace Now camp.
Uh, soccer dad, remember that when Bolton was asked last November who his diplomatic role model was, his answer was James Baker!
Also, remember that one of McCain's friends is Gen. James Jones, born and raised in Europe, the Condi-appointed Middle East envoy in charge of "monitoring" the peace process compliance, specifically bringing in foreign troops and borders--he's also an ex-NATO commander and a present energy executive (US Chamber of Commerce 21st Century Institute for Energy) among other things. McCain's said James Jones will have a key role.
Soccer Dad, odd that vis-a-vis Israel supporting McCain seems to almost boil down to a process of elimination--compared to Obama and Clinton you'd think McCain would be an easy choice.
Cindy--Bolton respects Baker for his diplomatic savy, not necessarily for the opinions he holds. All Bolton said was, "He knew how politics operated both domestically and internationally." Even Baker's critics acknowledge his abilities.
As far as Jones goes, in the article I saw (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22008568/) all it said about Jones is that "State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said earlier that the job involves monitoring the development of Palestinian security services." Where did you read that he has anything to do with foreign troops or borders?--and even if he did, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about his appointment.
Hi again, Daled Amos, somehow I stumbled on this blog post again and saw a post from a "Cindy" and knowing that's my name I looked twice and it was me! I didn't remember commenting here before and see you've replied to my comment, so though it's been a month or so, I'll reply to yours, including your question.
Where I read about Jones and troops and borders is hard to say, since I've read so much about him, but I will list some links about this after the comment.
As for the point I'm making about Jones, is that his appointment, being that it's by Condi should be a red flag right there as being anti-Israel, but as if that's not enough, his energy position clearly is a red flag (he's responsible for pleasing both producers and consumers of oil--i.e., Arab/Muslim countries and the U.S.--guess who gets screwed to do that?), then there's his European ties (raised there, btw) as ex-NATO commander very involved in its globalization/transformation plan which has deeply influenced State policy. Oh, and it's been widely reported that Jones report on Israel due out this year will set the Middle East policy for the U.S. Now all this is relevant, because as I noted, McCain has said his close friend Jones will likely have a close role in his administration. Recently Bill Kristol floated the idea of an "unorthodox" Vice President choice for McCain, specifically suggesting "a general" (though he suggested others, not Jones). McCain is old and a temple melanoma survivor who hasn't been speaking all that coherently lately, thus not so farfetched that the VP nominee could end up Pres.
This article mentions the 3 generals and their different roles, Jones' w/troops and borders.
This links to U.S. Chamber of Commerce Energy Info
JPost's Article on Jones' appointment
another post about Jones monitoring development of Pali security forces
If you are unfamiliar about the "linkage" of oil diplomacy to the so-called Israeli-Palestinian crisis (better Israeli-Arab/Islam crisis), basically Jones was largely responsible for making oil a national security issue (no problem there), but the idea is that since it's in U.S. needs oil and the Arab/nonArab Muslim nations we need to yield to them on their concerns--Israe--to get their cooperation on ours (oil), and since Israel will not submit to the Saudi or other plans, that it must be imposed upon Israel. This is stupid, obviously.
Post a Comment