Thursday, 05.29.08
The Not-So-Ugly American
JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images
Covering McCain’s Tuesday speech on nuclear security policy, Elisabeth Bumiller reported in the New York Times that the Republican presidential nominee “distanced himself from the Bush administration.” Lefty bloggers, meanwhile, whined that many of McCain’s proposals were “right out of George W. Bush’s play book.” But the proper point of reference for McCain’s speech—and the best guide to his likely behavior in office—is his own record on nonproliferation policy, not Bush’s.
While I may find parts of that record disturbing, it’s a little more complicated—and appealing—than it’s been portrayed. McCain reached across the aisle to work with Al Gore in co-sponsoring the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act in 1992, went against fellow Republicans in backing ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and supported ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Some analysts now fault McCain for expecting Russia to accept his proposal for new cuts in nuclear weapons even as he calls for them to be kicked out of the G-8. But give him points for consistency: In 1996, after parliamentary elections in Russia cast doubts on reform there, McCain still backed START II, arguing that “we have reached arms control agreements with Russia in days much darker than these.” (And he was right: Kennedy and Khrushchev weren’t exactly kissin’ cousins when they concluded the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.) And sure, McCain did commit the sin of voting against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. But read his October 12, 1999, statement explaining why—it’s more Houyhnhnm than Yahoo.
Is the guy a little trigger-happy about bombing the nuclear facilities of those suspected of violating their treaty obligations? Perhaps, and that’s a genuinely scary thought. But suggesting the possibility of an airstrike on North Korea’s Yongbyon reprocessing facility (as he once did) as an opposition senator is different than ordering one up as president—and unlike our last two presidents, McCain has some real-life, live-fire experience with what that entails.
Moreover, there are grounds for optimism about McCain’s willingness to live with the constraints on U.S. behavior that are inherent in international law, whether the acceptance of CWC challenge inspections or (one day) the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. While the phrase “pooling sovereignty” may never cross McCain’s lips, he made appropriate murmuring noises in his speech about returning to “broad-minded internationalism” and strengthening “existing international treaties and institutions.” And in addition to his defense of the Geneva conventions, he’s also reportedly supported things that drive the Birchers and the black helicopter crowd wild (like the U.N. Convention for Elimination of All Discrimination against Women and the—gulp—Convention on the Law of the Sea, though he’s waffling a bit now). I’m not saying I love the man, but at least in his professed support for international law, his record deserves more respect than it’s gotten—and fewer intellectually dishonest comparisons with our current unilateralist-in-chief.
His foreign policy pastDavid Brooks writes that John McCain's foreign policy views are more complicated than his opponents say. |
Context mattersHilzoy comments on John McCain's non-proliferation record. |
Talking backA crowd heckled John McCain during a recent non-proliferation speech. |
In his own wordsLast year John McCain spelled out his foreign policy vision in Foreign Affairs. |
(8)
. "Lefty bloggers whined"?
"McCain has some real-life, live-fire experience with what that entails"?
Son, I b'lieve there's a future for you in lobbying and PR for certain, shall we say, less than savory foreign corporations & governments. You've got the right attitude, and you're not afraid to say things that would make most people laugh out loud. When can you start?
You can finish up with the McCain campaign first. Couple more weeks, at most, right? .
"Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" A guy (John McCain)who thinks singing that is amusing and that a military response is the answer to most problems is not suitable to be President. It's amazing how you can just first acknowledge "Is the guy a little trigger-happy about bombing the nuclear facilities of those suspected of violating their treaty obligations? Perhaps, and that’s a genuinely scary thought." and then casually dismiss it with some pro-McCain spin.
There is a lot to like about the writing in The Atlantic, but this kind of crap is all to common lately.
Should countries that violate International Law and treaties be subjected to bombing? Even with Nu-Q-lar weapons? What about the USA? Are we not violators of many laws and treaties including the invasion of Iraq and the use of torture? Yes, yes-I'm a liberal whiner.
Oops, I thought I was going to "The Atlantic", and I wind up at McCain's campaign website. Oh, silly me, their one and the same. You go guys!
Elisabeth, Elisabeth..., Elisabeth.... I expected more from you. The same old "Rovian" smear attacks won't work this election.
There are too many broken soldiers for your piece to hold water. John McCain suffers from PTSD and you are fully aware of this. He's already angry, what would happen if we are militarily challenged by another country???
Try not to use op-eds as a shield of objective journalism when in fact you are merely being a 'mouthpiece' for McCain.
We cannot simply ignore the 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, just because McCain said so. The war WAS poorly handled, but you don't get 4 more years to 'fix it.'
McCain's record per the above post:
Supported CWC - So did GHW Bush and the chemical manufacturers.
Supported START and START II - Reagan/Bush treaties.
Opposed CTBT - This is a litmus test item. If you don't support CTBT, you want to continue testing and dveloping new nuclear weapons, and you certainly don't support nuclear abolition, as some of McCain's recent rhetoric has sought to weakly suggest in the wake of the Kissinger, Schultz et al. oped. McCain's 1999 statement stated "I believe very strongly" that compliance could not "be monitored." No one today denies the verifiability of CTBT and almost nobody wants to restart nuclear tests. Has McCain changed his position on this?
Recommend bombing nuclear facilities in North Korea and Iran - Straight out of the lunatic fringe.
"broad-minded internationalism� and strengthening �existing international treaties and institutions.� - Gee, is that why he wants to dump the UN in favor of a "League of Democracies"?
So, what do we have? A loyal Republican who can claim "I am not ideologically opposed to arms control" because he votes for treaties supported by industry and Republican presidents, but just as loyally opposes the only substantive arms control treaty signed during the Clinton years, and one that stood as a litmus test of where one stood on nuclear weapons a half-decade after the end of the Cold War. A staunch supporter of the Iraq war and someone at least willing to associate himself with some of the most dangerously belligerent ideas to emerge from the far Right in the last few years.
McCain a nuclear dove? Give me a break. This is a dangerous, potentially maniacal man.
Great. To replace the IQ-challenged, dangerous and dishonest president we have now, McCain offers us a hazy view of how he might be different on arms control. Depending on which of his audiences we are to believe he's deceiving, the "bomb-'em" wing nuts or centrist Republicans who think Nixon did a great thing opening up China.
Sorry, we can get a clear view and a much sounder policy from Obama.
"Is the guy a little trigger-happy about bombing the nuclear facilities of those suspected of violating their treaty obligations? Perhaps, and that?s a genuinely scary thought. But suggesting the possibility of an airstrike on North Korea?s Yongbyon reprocessing facility (as he once did) as an opposition senator is different than ordering one up as president?and unlike our last two presidents, McCain has some real-life, live-fire experience with what that entails."
What eyewash. Read Fred Kaplan, someone who apparently does more homework than THIS writer, on McCain's foreign policy:
http://www.slate.com/id/2192263/
Posted by Tim Connor | May 29, 2008 11:06 PM