More on Mac's Missteps

The tempest in a teacup continues over McCain's true-in-the-real-world/fake-in-liberal-la-la-land statement that Iran is supporting al Qaeda. The Weekly Standard's got more evidence supporting the Senator here, here; HotAir adds their two cents as well.

Meanwhile, as noted by HotAir, the McCain campaign is standing by their candidate's statements;; for their part, Obama & Co. just keep digging. Elsewhere on the Left, Think Progress is so addled by their fantastic version of events that, as Michael Goldfarb points out, they actually agree with McCain. The Boston Globe does their part, and Threats Watch calls them out for this egregious statement:

Iran and the United States have a common interest in a stable Iraq. Tehran does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas. Before cooperating to stabilize Iraq, however, Iran wants assurances that the United States will not use it as a base for covert action and military attacks against the Islamic Republic and will gradually phase out its combat forces.

Really? Really? Start by playing the peaceful Iran card, move on to accusing the US of being aggressive bullies seeking to start a war with Iran. Also, let's play fill-in-the-blank: "______ does not want a breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines that would strengthen the movement for an independent Kurdistan embracing its own restive Kurdish areas." I'm not entirely convinced that they didn't confuse Turkey and Iran...

Finally, I know Brendan Nyhan; I like Brendan Nyhan. But with regard to this particular story, his partisan blinders are on snugly. Nyhan conflates a truly egregious story from 2006, when the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Democrat Silvestro Reyes, couldn't say whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, with McCain's comments. To Nyhan, the so-called gaffe suggests that McCain "apparently doesn't understand the most basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shiites (i.e. Iran is Shiite, Al Qaeda is Sunni)." It's getting to be a tired old meme that Sunnis and Shiites won't put aside their sectarianism in the face of a common enemy, and it shows a disturbing close-mindedness on the part of its adherents.

McCain's Alleged Misstep

The Left has their collective (unisex/un-gendered) panties in a bunch over John McCain's comments while on tour in the Middle East that Iran was supporting Al Qaeda. It's not clear whether his comments were made thrice over two days - as some allege - or simply twice in a single day. The "he said it thrice" argument centers on a statement from the campaign, which is interesting and, if you believe the Lefty spin on things, potentially damning because he and his campaign must be chugging the neocon kool aid.

Their spin, sold as indisputable truth, is simply that Iran can't be funding, or in any way supporting, Al Qaeda. Why? Because Iran's Shiite and Al Qaeda's Sunni, duh. It's a simple redux of the old Saddam can't support Al Qaeda argument because he was a secularist (though a man of faith when it fit his needs) and they were zealots. Same story, new characters. Stephen Hayes took that one to town, pretty conclusively I'd say, back in 2006.

But what about this new one - is there any reason to believe Iran is backing Al Qaeda? As Ed Morrissey demonstrates with a variety of sources, yes, yes indeed there is. Morrissey draws primarily on "untrustworthy" conservative sources - the Standard and New York Sun to name two, but if you like your media more mainstream, try this one from the Post ('04 instead of '06/'07, so based on the 9/11 Commission instead of sources in Iraq).

So why'd McCain say it? Was it sleep deprivation and jet-lag? That was my original thought, based in part on the fact that that Times piece claims he only came back onto the PC reservation when "he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman." They go on to quote a McCain spokesman who says the Senator misspoke; at the time the Senator himself made a clarification of sorts, saying that “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.” Of course, Al Qaeda would be extremists of a sort, so it's an interesting walk-back.

The DNC immediately fired a salvo at McCain; I'll quote at length from the Times:

“After eight years of the Bush administration’s incompetence in Iraq, McCain’s comments don’t give the American people a reason to believe that he can be trusted to offer a clear way forward,” Karen Finney, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Not only is Senator McCain wrong on Iraq once again, but he showed he either doesn’t understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground.”

The bold highlights are my own; it goes without saying that that statement contradicts evidence presented by the US military, facts on the ground so to speak.

Obama, in a campaign stop here in North Carolina, also pounced on McCain, saying that "Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Again, Obama's statement stands in contradiction to a considerable body of evidence on both the alleged AQ/Iraq and AQI/Iran ties.

The Democratic/media (Democratic media?) narrative is that McCain's misstep was a serious gaffe, contradicting his experience and foreign policy credentials. Perhaps, and if so, it'll take some damage control - though it'll also get somewhat buried given the preponderance of the news coverage being devoted to Obama's speech yesterday.

But instead, indulge me in the product of a heavily caffeinated mind. Perhaps, just perhaps, McCain's "misstep" was intentional. I imagine that for him, the reports of Iran's ties to Al Qaeda are credible. Indeed, who's to say that there aren't more reports to that extent coming out in the near future? He might be privy to them, either from his recent trip in Iraq or his stop in Israel. If so, he just drew both the DNC and Obama way out, essentially invited themselves to put their own necks on the block. If there is more compelling evidence about those ties, if the other shoe's about to drop, their gooses may be up in smoke. Obama proves himself to be inexperienced. A devastating ambush, convincingly set by the wily old Senator, right down to the "correction" by Lieberman and the nuanced "extremists" walk-back with its avenues of wiggle room. Perhaps. Am I crazy? Perhaps not.

Two exhibits in my defense, if you please. First off, McCain's trusted adviser (and coauthor) Mark Salter has already fired back at Obama: "Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of." Your move, Barack - dig in deeper, or go look at that evidence? Second, and perhaps more telling, Hillary's been mum on this. Maybe she wants McCain and Obama to throw a few punches at one another - if they hurt each other, she wins. But maybe, just maybe, she's aware of the evidence that Salter cites, the evidence that Obama (and the American public) seems oblivious to. If so, she's quite content to say nothing and let Obama hoist himself by his own petard.

An additional exhibit, though of a less proximate nature: McCain's hammering Obama a few weeks ago for saying that he would reenter Iraq "if al Qaeda was forming a base" there. McCain slapped him around for suggesting that Iraq wasn't already there, and rightly so.

Another intriguing thing: who is McCain's audience on this present trip; who, outside of devoted Democrats, is most likely to note his apparent "misstep?" Israelis and American Jews, two groups who have plenty of reason to worry about Iran, and who fear the consequences of an American withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not saying all Israelis or American Jews, mind you, but substantial portions of each population. I suspect that many American Jews were already starting to feel a bit alienated from Obama, given the raging anti-Semitism present in some of the Reverend Wright's sermons (for example, the revelation that in one of his bulletins, Wright republished an infamous LA Times editorial penned by a Hamas member). On the heels of that mess, McCain sends a strong signal of his support for Israel. Call me crazy?

So to recap, and I may be crazy: McCain "missteps." McCain's correction doesn't actually withdraw the allegedly incorrect statement, only one part of it. Democrats call him crazy, media claims he's tarnished his foreign policy credentials. Salter fires back at Obama, Hillary says nothing. Obama's just been drawn out and shown up again on foreign policy, twice in a month. Was it an accident, or is the old man that good?

Obama and Clinton Bicker...

...while John McCain not-so-subtly demonstrates that he's got experience and leadership ability.

Meanwhile, Hillary, in a classic Clintonian balancing act, goes after both McCain and Obama on the war. I especially like this bit of verbal jujitsu: "Withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years." So on the Hillary Clinton SAT, withdrawal : victory :: staying there : defeat? Please, someone enlighten me on this one...

UPDATE: McCain, of course, isn't buying her BS for a minute. He fired back (via Ambinder) in an interview with CNN's John King. He gets it, she doesn't. End of story.

Bhutto Assassinated

I woke up this morning to the tragic news that Benazzir Bhutto had been assassinated, apparently shot at close range by Islamists as she campaigned in Rawalpindi, and less than two weeks before the elections scheduled for January 8th. I haven't heard yet, but the fact that an assassin succeeded in getting so close brings to mind the death of Indira Gandhi, when her own security detail turned on her; this isn't to equate a democrat like Bhutto to a disastrous president such as Gandhi, but merely to note the similarities at their death. [According to Powerline, there was a parallel attack on Nawaz Sharif, though it seems less determined and was obviously unsuccesfull.]

Musharraf has already disclaimed any knowledge or responsibility in the matter; the necessity of such a disclaimer is in itself a disquieting thing.

Michelle Malkin and Law Hawk both have lengthy, multi-update posts worth perusing with a bevy of links to follow. More of the same here, here, here, here, and here courtesy of Instapundit.

The last of those links (NRO's Corner) includes reactions from many of the presidential candidates who are rapidly turning this into a football. Even Huckabee has a statement out, though I imagine his morning briefing consisted of locating Pakistan on a map. CQ responds to Bill Richardson's hare-brained notion of forcing Musharraf out of power - the Captain lays out the several obvious layers of idiocy here. And though Thompson made a nice statement to the media, his team screwed up royally, sending out an email entitled "Great News This Morning;" while they probably didn't know about the death of Bhutto before hitting send, it's still a stupid mistake that they'll have to play a bit of D on today. Finally, Podhoretz notes that this morning's bloodshed will require primary voters to pay attention to international events and snap out of the domestic daydream that they've been in for the last several weeks and months (likely a product of our progress in Iraq, which Democrats dare not mention).

VDH, too, writes on Pakistan, a piece that might serve as an epitaph to the deceased, looking for a silver lining in her death. In closing, I think it's best to cite Bhutto herself: "I didn't choose this life, it chose me." Rest in peace.

Iran in Iraq

The Weekly Standard's got a good roundup of the allegations of Iranian involvement in Iraq. Apparently they're looking to turn Iraq into another Lebanon, with all the social and economic turmoil that involves, to say nothing of the country's becoming a playground for terrorists. Oh and of course Democrats in Congress would like nothing more than to enable them in this effort.

WaPo, NYT Legally Complicit in Terrorism?

I've thought so for a long time; now a lawyer is saying the same thing: "The NY Times and Washington Post are every bit the supporters of the terrorist organizations that Tehran and Damascus are when they facilitate the publication of Hamas' messages."

Lugar and Iraq

Dick Lugar, (R-IN), former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came out today and said that we need to undergo some serious self-examination in Iraq. The media has basically spun it as Lugar throwing up his hands - they'd love that - but I think the reality is more nuanced, as his remarks reveal. This isn't to say he's proclaiming that we stay the course, but neither is he demanding we leave tomorrow.

He also, I think, does a fair job of slapping Democrats for their politicizing of the conflict:

The prospects that the current "surge" strategy will succeed in the way originally envisioned by the President are very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate. And the strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East. Unless we recalibrate our strategy in Iraq to fit our domestic political conditions and the broader needs of U.S. national security, we risk foreign policy failures that could greatly diminish our influence in the region and the world.

The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy. Our debate is being driven by partisan political calculations and understandable fatigue with bad news -- including deaths and injuries to Americans.

What he misses is that in saying all of this, he's part of the problem. We don't need 535 commanding generals - we need to essentially shut up and let the war be run by the generals (who have the training) and the executive branch (who don't have the training but do have the prerogative of running foreign policy). Imagine if after the losses at Normandy and the bloody struggle in the Norman bocage, Congress had voted to cut funds for our boys over there! But I do agree almost entirely with this statement:

The task of securing U.S. interests in the Middle East will be extremely difficult if Iraq policy is formulated on a partisan basis, with the protagonists on both sides ignoring the complexities at the core of our situation.

He's right in saying that - it's mostly the Democrats he's aiming at (after all, no one on the left side of the aisle has ever said what Iraq will look like if we precipitously withdraw).

He then more or less jumps ship but also hedges his bets:

In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.

I do not come to this conclusion lightly, particularly given that General Petraeus will deliver a formal report in September on his efforts to improve security. The interim information we have received from General Petraeus and other officials has been helpful and appreciated. I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security. More security improvements in the coming months may be achieved.

So the surge isn't working...but it may yet work but anyways, let's look for an easier course of action (this coming from a guy who was reelected last year with 87% of the vote!). He also kindly identifies three factors that he views as the root of the problem: "the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military, and the constraints of our own domestic political process." Who to blame? British, Democrats, Democrats. His arguments about the first of these are troubling:

I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.

In recent months, we have seen votes in the Iraqi parliament calling for a withdrawal of American forces and condemning security walls in Baghdad that were a reasonable response to neighborhood violence. The Iraqi parliament struggles even to achieve a quorum, because many prominent leaders decline to attend. We have seen overt feuds between members of the Iraqi government, including Prime Minister Maliki and Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who did not speak to each other for the entire month of April. The Shia-led government is going out of its way to bottle up money budgeted for Sunni provinces. Without strident intervention by our embassy, food rations are not being delivered to Sunni towns. Iraqi leaders have resisted de-Baathification reform, the conclusion of an oil law, and effective measures to prevent oil smuggling and other corrupt practices.

His omission of sectarian labels here obfuscates issues: the Shia (especially more radical elements, those allied with Moqtada al-Sadr) would love a free hand to deal with their Sunni co-religionists and pay them back for the years of mistreatment under the Hussein regime; of course they're calling for our withdrawal - that would give them the freedom of action they covet! But if we can reconstitute our spine and show some commitment to building a better Iraq, many of them will fall into line for lack of a better option. He continues with this line of argument:

[Foreign Minister Zebari] believes other policy advancements will take considerable time, but that consensus is the safest and most appropriate approach in a fledgling democracy.

This may be true, but Americans want results in months. Meanwhile, various Iraqi factions are willing to wait years to achieve vital objectives. Even if the results of military operations improve in the coming months, there is little reason to assume that this will diminish Sunni ambitions to reclaim political preeminence or Shia plans to dominate Iraq after decades of Saddam's harsh rule. Few Iraqi leaders are willing to make sacrifices or expose themselves to risks on behalf of the type of unified Iraq that the Bush Administration had envisioned. In contrast, there are many Iraqi leaders who are deeply invested in a sectarian or tribal agenda. More often than not, these agendas involve not just the protection of fellow Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, but the expansion of territorial dominance and economic privileges.

Even if U.S. negotiators found a way to forge a political settlement among selected representatives of the major sectarian factions, these leaders have not shown the ability to control their members at the local level. After an intense year-and-a-half of bloodletting, many sub-factions are thoroughly invested in the violence. We have the worst of both worlds in Iraq - factional leaders who don't believe in our pluralist vision for their country and smaller sub-factions who are pursuing violence on their own regardless of any accommodations by more moderate fellow sectarians.

In effect, we're a nation with the attention-span of a toddler and we're stamping our foot and demanding something new now that we've grown tired of the struggle in Iraq; and whose blood will be shed for our childishness? Iraqis' of course. As I stated earlier, I disagree with his belief that even a change in the military balance won't affect the calculus of the leaders - they'll adjust to fit the new playing field.

There's much more that I don't have the time or interest to quibble with; feel free to do so yourself!

A Brazilian Weapon in the War on Terror?

From the Weekly Standard: USAF looking at Brazilian-made counter-insurgency aircraft? Embraer's Super Tucano bridges a gap between our jets and helicopters, in the mold of the AC130. I'll be interested to hear what the military has to say about them.

CAFE Standards, Gas Taxes, and Winning the War on Terror

One of the rare times when I agree with Democrats (and in fact most of the political spectrum is united in this) is when they call for ending our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously the greatest flaw in our "war on terror" (a misnomer in my view: war on Islamo-fascism is better and too rarely used) is the fact that every time we go to the pump we fund our enemies. It is after all Saudi petrodollars that are flowing into the coffers of jihadist groups worldwide, where they are then spent to further their struggle against the US and the West. But the $64,000 question has always been what do we do about this?

Democrats have a rather wrong-headed approach to reducing our dependence on imported oil (remember, if it's not coming from the Middle East, it's likely coming from Venezuela, another unfriendly regime). The central plank of their new energy policy, passed 65-27 in the Senate this week, are increasing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards and boosting ethanol production. as well as mandating that consumers be offered alternative-fuel cars. I have two big problems with this package and a host of smaller ones.

Obviously, I feel like this is too much government regulation of the auto industry - consumers demanding more fuel-efficient cars will deliver them too. I also feel that they're working towards the right thing (energy independence) for the wrong reasons (environmentalism) and through the wrong means (big government).

I also feel that their insistence on increasing ethanol production (sevenfold in the next fifteen or so years) is wrong-headed because it's done with an eye towards domestic lobbies, particularly in the Midwest. Yes, we have lots of corn. And yes, corn can be distilled into ethanol. But corn isn't the most efficient source of ethanol - however sugar is. So while it would make sense to produce sugar-based ethanol, that requires far more sugar than the domestic sugar industry could provide and would thus necessitate importing raw cane; it goes without saying that the domestic sugar lobby will not allow that (I hate agricultural special interests). In effect, everyone's embrace of corn-based ethanol is misguided and largely symbolic (it's a nasty side-effect of the Iowa caucuses being so prominent); some studies also suggest that producing ethanol from corn (because it's so inefficient) actually releases more greenhouse gases than are saved with the alternative fuel - which if you're wrapping yourself in the mantle of environmentalism when you call for these measures is rather self-defeating!

CAFE standards are also ineffective and misguided, as was pointed out in Opinion Journal last month. More efficient cars may actually cause consumers to drive more, thus negating much of the intended savings of both imported gasoline and exhaust emissions. It's also suggested that the smaller cars that CAFE produces are less safe and result in at least 3,200 more deaths a year. And increased CAFE standards won't save Detroit: just making them competitive with Asian imports in terms of economy don't solve the long-term issue of healthcare and pension costs, the real killers of the Big 3.

All of this isn't to say that there are no solutions: there are, but they require political courage and entail something more than symbolic efforts and slaps at the auto industry. I am of course talking about a gas tax. Mort Kondracke had a great piece in yesterday's Roll Call, laying out all of the benefits while acknowledging the unlikelihood of any politician having the gumption to call for such a tax. We pay nothing for our gas compared to the rest of the world, and its low cost is one of the reasons we're such a vast consumer. But putting those very consumers on the hot seat would instantly produce the kind of pressure on the automakers that Washington's looking for. Currently, the US average for gas taxes (state and federal) is $.42 a gallon. Aka nothing. In 2003, the country used some 360 million gallons of gas; even a dollar per gallon tax would be a significant source of revenue, despite the necessary rebates to low-income drivers and likely the trucking industry (who would otherwise just pass the costs on to consumers). This revenue could be used for research as Kondracke suggests, though I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of government doing so because it'll be inefficient or paying down the deficit or any number of other useful things. Perhaps we could recognize that we need to stop buying foreign oil because those who sell it want us dead and instead funnel the revenues to the military, paying for better benefits for veterans or the like. Long-term, it will bring down our consumption of gasoline and the market will generate a demand for cheaper fuel sources and more efficient cars. All that's needed is some spine in Washington.

UPDATE: Check out Glenn Reynolds' take on the issue.

You Just Can't Please Some Guys

From PJM:

Six long-held captives at Guantánamo were sent home, two to Tunisia and four to Yemen, the Pentagon said Tuesday, swiftly drawing denunciations from human rights groups.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York identified one of the Tunisians as detainee Abdullah bin Omar, 51, and said his return “put him at grave risk for torture and abuse.” (Miami Herald)

Heh - two follow-ups

First another Ramirez gem:




Secondly, this quote from some Progressive Loon/Edwards-Lover over at Kos suggests how far from comprehension the Left really is:
"The best way to reduce terrorism

as was so eloquently stated here by another poster who I don't recall....

Stop being a dick to the rest of the world.

The "terrorists" don't hate us because we're free or rich or white or because we drive nice cars or have nice houses or any other bullshit right wing talking points.

They hate us because of what we do around the world.

If America stops being a dick to much of the third world, very few people would be willing to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in hopes of taking a few of us with them."

So far from the truth as to be comic if ignorance were not so dangerous.