The New Republic

I am not reading the article by Brown the same way you are. Brown notes:

"Anthony Cordesman, a military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who regularly visits Iraq, put it this way: “You have to grade all the candidates between a D-minus and an F-plus."

which includes McCain.

And then of MCain, he himself says simply:

"Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who argued that the United States lacked sufficient troops well before Mr. Bush sent the 30,000 reinforcements, has declared the military “surge” a success while acknowledging that the Iraqi political progress that it was intended to stimulate has been slow."

which sounds fairly dismissive to me, although he does say further:

"Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have discussed Iraq in less detail than Senator McCain."

which sounds like damning with faint praise, as in the old shtetl punch line "His brothr was worse."

I'm simply missing, however, any talk in the article that says in any complimentary way that,  as you say, "John McCain has given the most detailed and comprehensive analysis of where we stand in Iraq."

But I join you in thinking that unfortunately the vying Democrats' Iraq talk is for the consumptiion of their hoped for constituencies rather than for constructive geopolitical analysis. I guess though compared to the Republicans, on this issue, Iraq, the Democrats seem, like the guy's brother, worse.

- basman

January 20, 2008 at 11:25pm

The Democrats can run from the war and get away with it while the Republican nomination is being decided.  But, if that gets done before the convention, the nominee apparent will start judiciously lobbing in rockets on the remaining Democratic field (Clinton/Obama), one of whom is a hypocrite on the war, the other of whom is wrong.

It will emerge as an issue soon enough.  Fear not.

- ChanRobt

January 21, 2008 at 5:09am

"And now one believes what Romney says anyway."

I think this sentence, like the White House, has one "W" too many.

Unless you meant to say that one does now believe what Romney says.  Anyway.

- bcbaird

January 21, 2008 at 10:06am

I read that article Sunday, and I thought it kinda sucked. I'm more with Glenn Greenwald:

www.salon.com/.../index.html

- mmathog

January 21, 2008 at 1:19pm

Channy, that is right. And I will vote for the candidate whom I believe is wrong because it is at least principled. This is only because I think the health of America is more important than that of Iraq, and do not conflate the two.

That said, McCain is the only Republican who has any credibility and he is probably the only person who could get us out of Iraq if things went really south, any other Republican would feel they had to stick it out in such a case, and all of the Democrats will leave based simply on the expectation that things will go south before they even do. Ideally, I would love McCain to be the Sec. of Defense in an Obama administration, what a way to reach out to a defeated opponent. It would give Obama cover to get out of Iraq if need be, or stay in if things are improving.

- blackton

January 21, 2008 at 1:45pm

I don't think McCain, although a very decent, smart, and likeable person, is fit to be president.

This is why:

In my view, the top role of our next President will be what I term 'managing America's role in the global economy.'

This is an extremely tough and complex task, and McCain is on record as saying 'I don't really understand economics.'

Although I disagree with McCain on foreign policy and military matters, I'm confident he comprehends them just fine.

The fact that all of this 'global economic' stuff will confuse him makes his presidency a non-starter for me. I know he'll have advisors, I know he'd try to do the 'right' thing. But I want the person at the top to comprehend what the hell is going on.

Right now, that sounds like Clinton, Obama, or Romney.

- mmathog

January 21, 2008 at 2:57pm

On November 16, 2003 Obama, then a state senator, said it was wrong to fund the war. In a 2003 press release he argued that Congress should delay eighty seven billion dollars in war funding until Bush provided a specific plan and a timetable for ending the war and until Bush “justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors and provides investment in our own schools…that is at least comparable to what is going to Iraq.” He indicated he opposed voting for the supplemental to oppose the overall strategy in Iraq.  He told the Chicago Sun Times in November 2003 he opposed funding “because it enables the Bush Administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people.

But once in the Senate he voted for funding exactly the same way Hillary did.

We don’t know what his Iraq vote would have been had he been in the Senate.

Since becoming a Senator he has voted four times for  war appropriations bills, which all add up to 300 billion dollars.

You could look it up.

- basman

January 21, 2008 at 5:14pm

mmathog, understanding it doesn't mean fixing it. We just can't borrow our way out of the next recession. And anyway, Bernanke has more power over the economy than the President does. Right now the US has a very bad cold and there really is no cure except letting it run its course. I am afraid trying to fix it like Hillary will will just turn it into a pnuemonia.

- blackton

January 21, 2008 at 5:24pm

Well, one would think blackton that 'understanding it' would be a necessary condition to 'fixing it,' even if you think the best fix is 'doing nothing' (perhaps you do, I don't.)

Is monetary policy more powerful than fiscal policy? I'd say they were about even.

As for Bernanke, he is independent (although he's been more 'democratic' in his decisions since he took the helm), but one could appoint a different Fed Chair with a different philosophy once his term expires (what? 3-4 years?)

As for HRC, I think she'd raise taxes on the wealthy and spend money on less stupid stuff. In particular, she'd drop a ton of cash into retrofitting office buildings. You might laugh, but that's a nice two-fer, more jobs and more efficiency.

That's not an endorsement, but at least she's conscious and comprehensive about these things.

McCain? He still can't decide on tax policy.

- mmathog

January 21, 2008 at 5:31pm

basman, so? he is a politician for crissake. If he voted against funding it his career would have been over, regardless what he said when trying to get elected. You never heard me bitching about Hillary's inconsistency about Iraq because I don't think it means all that much, because I also know all the leftist crap she is saying now will change if she wins the nomination. It is called politics. What I don't like about her is her. I am far from alone. Playing endless games of gotcha is just ridiculous. Basically, Obama and Hillary have the same policies (although I still don't know hers regarding social security, do you know?) and I agree with HIllary on some and with Obama on others. It comes down to personality and leadership skills, and most importantly, electibility

- blackton

January 21, 2008 at 5:34pm

mmathog, I don't disagree with your assessment in more normal situations, but I am just too pessimistic that there will be any short term fix. The money you are talking about is peanuts really and anything more will just send the dollar tumbling to nothing. the chinese ain't going to finance us forever. I think Hillary more understands but is less able to do what is necessary because politically she can't. The recession will eat away all her promises. McCain ain't promising anything so he won't feel the need to blow a hole in the budget to deliver. Don't get me wrong, I am sure he will be a one termer because of the recession.

As to her raising taxes, that will happen regardless of who is President since the Dems will never make Bush's tax cuts permanent. McCain will get a defacto tax raise without raising taxes and he will more than likely just bank it, Hillary will spend that amount 5 times over.

I just think it is a terrible time to want to be President.

- blackton

January 21, 2008 at 5:48pm

Blackton you think fiscal spending will further drive down the dollar? I don't think so, especially if it's perceived as responsible fiscal spending (job creating and efficiency enhancing), but maybe so.

I agree that a lot of this is cycle and can't be avoided, but a whole lot of it is structural (China, bad city setup, gobs of energy dependence). Moving in the proper direction on these things will help.

We're playing a game of chicken with China, Bernanke prints money and China 'defends the dollar' (somewhat) by buying them up.

I think Bernanke should stop, but I don't think China is going to dramatically change policy anytime soon. A dollar crash will dramatically devalue the very foreign assets they hold.

- mmathog

January 21, 2008 at 6:52pm

Blackie, I think the Chinese are stuck with us in this dance.  It's the old saw that if you owe the bank $100,000 you're a debtor.  If you owe them $100 million, you're their partner.

- ChanRobt

January 22, 2008 at 2:08am