[Peace-discuss] Will John McCain be the October Surprise?

[Lisa Chason]

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=1833



Will John McCain be the October Surprise? 

Months ago, when the Republican senator who is often dubbed a maverick
finally started campaigning with George W. Bush--after news reports
noted that John Kerry had delicately discussed with McCain the idea of
McCain becoming Kerry's running mate--the question asked by political
commentators (and cable talk show consumers) was, what does McCain want?
Did he want to make peace with the GOP establishment so he could run for
the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 (when he would be 72
years old)? Was he looking to be secretary of defense? Was he hoping
that Bush would bounce Dick Cheney and put McCain on the ticket? 

The obvious answer was that McCain was just yielding to the overwhelming
Ds-and-Rs dynamic of Washington's binary culture. In his case, the issue
was whether McCain was a Republican or not. And if he did want to
continue being a GOPer in good standing, then he had to do right by the
Family. (Think The Sopranos.) That meant putting aside the resentment
and anger he must have felt toward the Bush clan, which--take your
pick--ran or countenanced an ugly and vicious campaign against McCain in
the South Carolina primary in 2000 that included questioning McCain's
commitment to veterans and spreading rumors that McCain had been
brainwashed in a Vietnamese prison camp, that his adopted daughter was a
love-child he had had with a prostitute, and that his wife was a junkie.
So this year McCain sucked it up and hit the trail for Bush, even as the
Bush brigade was mounting the same sort of trash-and-slash attack
against McCain's colleague, John Kerry. At least, McCain could point to
the war in Iraq as a point of agreement with Bush. Though McCain,
according to a McCain adviser, has not accepted the neoconservatives'
argument (adopted by Bush) that the Iraq war is necessary as an initial
step in remaking the region, he believed that because Saddam Hussein
posed a possible threat and was such a tyrant he needed "to be taken
out." 

But maybe there was another reason beyond loyalty to the party and to
the commander-in-chief why McCain saddled up with Bush. Perhaps he
wanted to get near enough to knife Bush--metaphorically speaking, of
course. As in, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. (Think
The Godfather.) 

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, McCain whacked Bush on Iraq. He accused
Bush of making "serious mistakes after the initial successes by not
having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by
not securing the borders. There was a number of things that we did. Most
of it can be traced back to not having sufficient numbers of troops
there." When he said "we," McCain actually meant Bush, Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice. He noted that the
Bush administration has allowed insurgents to establish
sanctuaries--such as in Falluja--where anti-American rebels or
terrorists can be trained and harbored. McCain, saying he still supports
the US mission in Iraq, was making a serious charge: that Bush and his
gang have screwed things up tremendously. 

Anchor Chris Wallace then asked what seemed to be a Bush-friendly
question: "Some have suggested that what we're seeing, to use a Vietnam
analogy, is kind of a rolling Tet offensive to try to break the will of
the American and Iraqi people and to play a role in defeating President
Bush. Do you think that's what's going on?" 

While other GOPers have tried to make such a point to shore up support
for Bush among potential voters, McCain would not. "I don't think
they're interested so much," he replied, "in defeating President Bush." 

********* 

When you're done reading this article,visit David Corn's WEBLOG
<http://www.davidcorn.com>  at www.davidcorn.com.
<http://www.davidcorn.com>  Read recent entries on a top military
commander claiming Iraq is lost, the Kerry campaign's lag on analogies,
Bush's most recent campaign-trail fibs, and the never-ending flap over
Bush's Air National Guard service and those CBS memos. 

******** 

McCain challenged Bush's assertion that progress is under way in Iraq,
noting "the situation has obviously been somewhat deteriorating, to say
the least." Bush, he remarked, "is not being "as straight as maybe we'd
like to see." McCain called for the declassification of the recent
National Intelligence Estimate that raised the possibility of civil war
in Iraq. "The key," said McCain, who urged more extensive US military
action in Iraq, is to "recognize those mistakes, correct those mistakes,
and prevail." He added, "I'd like to see more of an overall plan
articulated by the president." 

McCain's remarks were not what a consultant would call politically
useful to the fellow whom McCain is supposedly trying to help get
reelected. These comments came the day before John Kerry was to give a
major speech blistering Bush for mistakes and miscalculations in Iraq.
McCain--as well as Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar,
who on other talk shows each said the administration's handling of
postwar Iraq has been incompetent--softened up Bush for Kerry's blows.
But McCain's words, given his standing in the media, hit the hardest. 

Earlier this month, an editor at The Nation, dreaming of magic-bullet
scenarios, asked me whether Secretary of State Colin Powell might break
with Bush in October and swing the election to Kerry. Not a chance I
said, read
<http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1816> this.
Powell is completely in the tank for the Bush crew, enabling the
neocons. But McCain--now he might cause further difficult for his "good
friend" in the White House in the final weeks of the election. 

The Bush campaign eagerly embraced McCain early in the summer when Bush
was slipping in the polls due to the mess in Iraq. So when McCain
(rather than Kerry) says Bush hasn't articulated a plan for Iraq, can
the White House dismiss this serious statement? It sure cannot be
pooh-poohed by Bush's mouthpieces as partisan rhetoric. Might such a
remark cause Bushies to wonder whether McCain infiltrated the Bush
campaign in order to better zing the man whose lieutenants once bitterly
and scurrilously attacked McCain's family and questioned McCain's
loyalty to veterans? 

The McCain-Bush face-off has been one of the most-watched soap operas in
Washington. Now it appears that when McCain hit the campaign trail for
Bush this summer, the conflict was not ultimately resolved. A few more
twists and turns could come, and in this relationship, McCain at the
moment has more power. (Remember McCain's home state of Arizona could
end up being a  <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s=cooper>
key state on November 2.) With his recent comments, McCain has
essentially called out the administration and undermined Bush's spin. If
McCain continues to talk so candidly, he will be serving as a wingman
for Kerry. Is this calculation or coincidence? Revenge being served out
of a deep-freezer? McCain likes to promote his reputation as a
straight-talker, but next time I see him in a green room, I'm not going
to bother asking him to answer the question. Let him do what he's gotta
do--especially if it's personal. Anyway, who would want to know the end
of this melodrama before the final page? 

******** 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20040930/2c534ab6/attachment.htm