[Peace-discuss] Obama too shifty for McCain

[C. G. Estabrook]

Do you see any sign that McCain's repented of his youthful
murders, John?  And any torture he underwent was mild in
comparison to those Americans inflict -- in Vietnam and Iraq.

By cui bono, I meant that it was in McCain's interest to
release the letter.  He's got to get the Abramoff scandal off
his back to run for president.  

Alex Cockburn profiled him nicely this week:

====

Senator John McCain is on track for another rhetorical bombing
run. In Munich, he's been squaring up to Iran, gravely telling
the allies that the military option can't be ruled out if
diplomatic efforts fail to stop Iran developing a nuclear
bomb: "Immediate UN Security Council action is required to
impose multilateral sanctions, including a prohibition on
investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government
leaders and nuclear scientists."

"Every option must remain on the table," McCain said. "There's
only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear
armed Iran."

The senior senator for Arizona is, thus far, sparing the
Iranians his riper bouts of pugilism, as when he bellowed for
"lights out in Belgrade" and for NATO to "cream" the Serbs
back at the close of the Nineties.

Perhaps Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has reminded McCain
forcefully that McCain could be writing condolence letters to
a lot more war widows in his home state if the Iranians want
to remind Washington that it holds some high cards of its own.
As Andrew Cockburn wrote here last week, in his piece "Bush's
130,000 Hostages". Iran recently hosted Moqtada al Sadr for a
high profile visit, in the course of which he obligingly
pledged that his militia, the Mahdi army, would retaliate for
any American attack on Iran. His spokesman quoted him as
telling his hosts "If any Islamic state, especially the
Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked, the Mahdi Army would
fight inside and outside Iraq."

"This warning should be taken seriously, " Andrew wrote. "The
Jaish al Mahdi, al Sadr's militia, has emerged as a formidable
force since its formation in 2003. Fifteen months ago, in
November 2004, when it was less well trained and equipped than
today, this army held off a determined assault by US Marines
for three weeks in Najaf."

Not long ago a top Republican from Illinois was confiding to a
Democratic lobbyist in DC that that "the fix is in for McCain
to be the nominee", but, as close scrutiny of his demeanor on
tv confirms, there a questions about McCain's health. His face
and mouth-movements suggest a stroke at some point in the
recent past. In Washington, some speak of a cancer scare.

The pundits love McCain because of his grandstanding on soft
money's baneful role in politics, thus garnering for himself a
reputation for willingness to court the enmity of his colleagues.

In fact colleagues in the Senate regard McCain as a mere
grandstander, as during the State of the Union last Tuesday
when he clapped and wagged his head vigorously as Bush hailed
Congress for working on earmark reform, because the federal
budget has too many special interest projects."


---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:11:12 -0600
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama too shifty for McCain   
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>,
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>   At 10:49 PM 2/6/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>     Yeah, it's a verbal attack from a man who came of
>     age killing
>     Asian farmers from an airplane (and they refrained
>     from
>     killing him, when they had the chance).
>
>   I take that to mean that you have no respect for
>   McCain, and don't allow for the possibility of
>   change and growth?  And that torture is somehow more
>   morally acceptable than killing?
>
>     And maybe the Bush administration aren't the only
>     ones into
>     data-mining ... but whenever documents surface,
>     the first
>     question to ask is cui bono.  --CGE
>
>   All right, I'm game.  Cui bono in this case?  I'm
>   afraid it's a bit too complex for me, as a great
>   many things are.
>
>   John again
>
>     ---- Original message ----
>     >Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:35:14 -0600
>     >From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com> 
>     >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama too shifty for
>     McCain  
>     >To: "C. G. Estabrook" galliher at uiuc.edu,
>     peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     >
>     >At 08:02 PM 2/6/2006, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>     >
>     >>[This is cute. McCain is a fathead who likes to
>     be taken for a
>     >>liberal, but was last week in Munich raving for
>     an attack on
>     >>Iran.  (He said, "There's only one thing worse
>     than military
>     >>action; that is a nuclear-armed Iran" -- as
>     Obama said last
>     >>year.) But here Obama, who always likes to be on
>     both sides of
>     >>an issue (witness his antics about Alito), is
>     too shifty even
>     >>for McCain.  --CGE]
>     >
>     >This looks for all the world, Carl, like a
>     private missive from McCain to
>     >Obama.  I'm curious how you came by it.  Having
>     read the letter in its
>     >entirety, it appears to me that McCain got in the
>     last word in a very
>     >incisive manner.  Am I wrong?
>     >
>     >John Wason