An Open Note to Brian Williams
Dear Brian,
So many deserved and targeted shots have been taken at your colleague Tim Russert in the last 48 hours that one curiosity of your own performance at Tuesday's Cleveland debate has been overlooked. You spoke these words to Senator Obama:
you could be going into a general election against a Republican with vast foreign policy expertise and credibility on national security.
What is the nature of Senator McCain's "vast foreign policy expertise"? On which piece of this expertise did he rely while "pushing for Saddam Hussein's forcible overthrow" starting in 1997 (John B. Judis, "Neo-McCain," TNR, 10/6/06)? When he advocated "rogue-state rollback"? When he "welcomed Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), to Washington and pressured the administration to give him money"? When he replied to Chris Matthews in March 2003, who had asked him whether the Iraqis would treat Americans as liberators, "Absolutely, absolutely"? Did he acquire it while graduating 894th out of 899 in his class in Annapolis (Matt Welch, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, p. 24)?
So will you pledge to tell us on what basis you speak of his "expertise"?
Comments (19)
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
February 28, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm just easily amused, but I still laugh every time I see this.
February 28, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain apparently gained his vast experience in foreign policy as a POW. For sure he had plenty of time then to think about the topic from A to Z. Other than that experience, one that all of us should be proud of him for being able to survive it, I don't see any more experience he has than either Obama or Clinton has.
On national security, he knows how to fly a fast, small aircraft, and launch its munitions. Nothing else in his resume seems to add to that expertise.
Let's face it, the next president will take office with zero relevant experience and expertise at being president. That is what we experience with every new president.
February 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question, but let's keep in mind that Obama responded very well to Williams, addressing the expertise/experience claims of both MaCain and Clinton.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Senator Clinton I think equates experience with longevity in Washington. I don't think the American people do and I don't think that if you look at the judgments that we've made over the last several years that that's the accurate measure. . . we are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years, spending $12 billion a month that could be invested in the kinds of programs that both Senator Clinton and I are talking about. . . .on the critical issues that actually matter I believe that my judgment has been sound and it has been judgment that I think has been superior to Senator Clinton's as well as Senator McCain's.
February 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good call, Gitlin.
February 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be silly, everyone knows that McCain has vast experience in foriegn policy, for about 10 years he has been on TV every Sunday talking to Tim or Chris or George or Cokie or Ted or whoever about it:-)
I mean come on what better expoerience can there be than getting grilled by Tim Russert, I mean sheesh if a guy can withstand that barrage of inanity he can handle anything Putin can throw at him.
February 28, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be silly, everyone knows that McCain has vast foriegn policy experience, he has been on TV every Sunday for 15 years talking about it with Tim and Chris or George and Cokie and so on:-)
Talking to Timmah about foriegn policy is waaay more important than doing icky things like Diplomacy.
February 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about the double post, thought the first one got eaten.
February 28, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree with McCain's foreign policy vision, his support for privatizing social security and a few other issues. And I think he probably has more experience with military strategy than foreign policy. But I sure wish you hadn't included Welch's absurd title, "The Myth of a Maverick."
Forget about the fact that McCain survived a POW camp and refused to be let out before they released other American POW's who had been captive longer.
John McCain has consistently bucked his own party and the establishment on important issues with respect to the welfare of this country (campaign finance, most of bush's tax cuts, earmarks, etc.).
McCain also went after the tobacco industry. He supported Jeffords when Jeffords defected to become an independent after extremists hijacked the Republican party.
But the best evidence of all that Mccain is a maverick with some real principles who bucks the status quo when he doesn't agree? Just take look at the folks who absolutely hate McCain, like Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, the most political and extreme religious right folks, etc. And remember the way Bush establishment went after him the last time he ran for the presidency.
February 28, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You confuse McCain's ambition for principles. The two are not the same. I will allow that McCain has ambition. Does he have principles... not so much.
March 1, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But the best evidence of all that McCain is a maverick with some real principles who bucks the status quo..."
That's the old 'McCain,' not the new, improved 'McBush.' Since he started this campaign, he's jettisoned all that old maverick stuff, starting with his sudden true believer conversion to Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle down economics.
Yes, he's still going to campaign as the maverick - in the general election, at least. But policy-wise, he's had the Bush lobotomy, and you can bet he'll be doing everything he can to prove to the evangelical right AND the corporate right that he's now one of them.
February 28, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preacher (of mega-hate) John Hagee has endorsed McCain mostly because of his foreign policy expertise (that is, his grand strategic doctrine AKA "Bomb Bomb Iran").
February 28, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree that on some issues he has a "new, improved McBush" quality. But I still think there is some of the old maverick in there. And so do many extremist Republicans who--despite McCain's promises to make the tax cuts permanent,etc.-- continue to rail against him as though their lives were at stake.
February 28, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that McCain is now trying to repair any damage his "maverickism" has done to the country by doing things like going to Liberty University and kissing Jerry Falwell's ass, sucking up to John Hagee, supporting the permanantcy of Bush's tax cuts, running from McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
Maybe all of this is part of McCain's version of Maverickism's 12 Step Recovery Program.
February 29, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt there have been many admirable moves in McCain's career, but why are you knocking Welch's book without having read it?
February 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, Todd. This is a good example of calling the media, right away, when they pass along unfounded false assumptions about McCain as received wisdom.
You'll let us know, I hope, if you receive a reply?
February 29, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is knocking Welch's book? If you are addressing me, you might want to reread my post. I said nothing about the content; I said the book title you referenced absurdly implies McCain's maverick reputation is a myth.
I thought your choice to reference that title in this context confused the issues.
I think you are Right On to shine the spotlight on the conclusory and misleading way Williams framed that question. So many in the media have discredited themselves, debates and their organizations by characterizing things that have not been established as fact as foregone conclusions.
Some even have the audacity to imply that they speak for the majority of the American people. And too many pundits have crystal balls that tell them what millions of members of their political parties believe. I think this is why blogs with standards do so well.
I wish more people would take note of this important problem the way you did here. Had I not been distracted by the "myth" issue, that would have been my comment--so thanks for the very important point you shared.
February 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about Brian Williams, not McCain.
Brain Williams is another Russert. He seems to be under progressive's radar and he shouldn't, Daily Show appearances notwithstanding.
The Daily Howler writes about Williams.
February 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concern is this: If we don't give due credit to the few politicians who have stuck their necks out when they could have taken an easier route, why would any future politician even bother?
I'm not in McCain's head, so I can't say with absolute certainty that he has principles. He's certainly ambitious.
What seems clear to me is that McCain has consistently jumped into the shark tank by working on some things that were good for the country but angered fanatics within his party.
I would have preferred to see him run as the old McCain on an Independent ticket. It's disheartening to watch him twist himself into a pretzel to avoid the onslaught of attacks by extremists in his party.
March 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink