I had been thinking about the attack from Republicans that Obama had failed to hold a hearing on Afghanistan. His only authority is through the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has oversight over NATO.
I had thought that the war in Afghanistan was being directed by the United States, with NATO assisting. Are Republicans now saying that this is a NATO operation?
Does that mean that NATO is party to the conflict? Wouldn't that hold NATO to the guidelines of the Geneva conventions pertaining to POWs?
Does that mean that if NATO (as a block) decides to leave Afghanistan (or oppose a new surge, or any other military tactic), would the United States abide that decision?
For those Republicans who are attacking Obama for him not holding a NATO hearing, I'd like reporters to ask:
"Is NATO or the US Government ultimately in charge of Afghanistan operations?"
"Will the US Government abide by the wishes of NATO countries on all future deployments and tactics?"
"Does the roll of NATO guarantee Geneva protections to prisoners captured in the Afghanistan theater of operations?"
McCain Tries To Counter-Program A Wave
With Barack Obama gaining foreign policy cred on his big trip, John McCain charges in this new attack ad that the cause of high gasoline prices is ... Barack Obama.
How do you counter-program a wave? With lots of different stuff, it seems, and something of a sulky attitude.
That's where John McCain is, with the eyes of the world, and the US media, trained intently on Barack Obama during his week-long tour of the Middle East and Europe. And that's where he is with the government of Iraq, in what could be a game-changer, essentially agreeing with Obama on a general timeline for withdrawal of US combat forces from its country.
With all this going on, and with Obama delivering a strong performance to date, John McCain has some significant problems. Aside from the point that Iraq's government has essentially endorsed Obama's policy toward Iraq -- which of course underlies a potential tectonic shift (McCain said a few years ago that if the Iraqi government wants us to leave, we should leave) -- there is the question of what to do while all this is going on.
The answer has been something of a kitchen sink approach. McCain vehemently denounced Obama yesterday as, essentially, a know-nothing who was never in the military. He also worked to draw attention to his concern with America's economic and energy crises, now intertwined. But that only draws further attention to Obama, and how well his trip seems to be going. McCain's surrogates attack Obama on national security matters, with foreign policy advisor Randy Scheuneman describing the Democratic nominee in personally denigrating fashion.
McCain had another town hall today in the now battleground state of New Hampshire, supposedly on economic concerns. But inevitably the media focus was on his reaction to Obama's trip. Obama's Iraq plans would "reverse the gains we have made," he declared. "I hope he will have the courage to reverse his position." Which means that McCain hopes the government of Iraq reverses its position.
McCain also has two new TV attack ads up on Obama, the first of the general election campaign. One, on Iraq, is serious. One could argue with it, but that's what makes politics go round. It has credibility.
The other, on gasoline prices, is non-serious. Or silly. Whichever you prefer.
John McCain's other new attack ad, on Iraq and Afghanistan.
The first new TV attack ad of the campaign criticizes Obama for not holding a hearing of his Senate subcommittee on Europe on the topic of Afghanistan, for not going to Iraq since 2006 (he was just there, of course), and for not supporting funding for the Iraq surge.
Well, I think Obama should have held a subcommittee hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't really used that subcommittee. But Afghanistan is not in Europe, and, while NATO forces are in Afghanistan, and NATO is based in Europe, the subcommittee gave Obama no direct authority over Afghan policy. A failing policy which Senate Foreign Relations chairman Joe Biden -- an Obama rival-turned-Obama surrogate -- has been speaking out about for years.
The other attack ad, brand new, blames high gasoline prices on Obama. This, let's just say, tends to leave out the role of President Bush.
The price of gasoline has tripled during the Bush administration. Meanwhile, fuel efficiency has gone up only fractionally. McCain has sometimes opposed efforts to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.
Incidentally, my own gas price has gone down further in the past few days than it would have had the gas tax holiday -- which also would have cut federal highway funding, making for worse roads -- advocated by McCain been enacted. This 20 cent a gallon drop coincided with the US publicly negotiating with Iran, which helped reduce the geopolitical risk premium that oil experts note is built into the sky-high price of crude oil. Less conflict, lower oil prices.
Speculation in oil markets is also a significant factor in the price. McCain used to talk about that. But not much in this campaign.
McCain did reverse his long-held position on offshore oil drilling, and attacks Obama in his new ad for continuing his opposition to offshore drilling, thus causing high gasoline prices. However, the federal government's own energy information agency noted just last year that it would probably take some 22 years before new offshore drilling would have a significant impact on prices at the pump.
And as one of my posters, a Mr. Brasky, pointed out this morning on New West Notes: "That means that if you want to blame Obama for today's high prices, he would have had to be a Senator in 1986. He didn't even go to Harvard until 1988."
McCain was in the Congress throughout that entire period, opposing offshore drilling all the while. His new ad doesn't mention that.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
LET'S TRY THIS ...
I had been thinking about the attack from Republicans that Obama had failed to hold a hearing on Afghanistan. His only authority is through the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has oversight over NATO.
I had thought that the war in Afghanistan was being directed by the United States, with NATO assisting. Are Republicans now saying that this is a NATO operation?
NO.
Does that mean that NATO is party to the conflict?
YES.
Wouldn't that hold NATO to the guidelines of the Geneva conventions pertaining to POWs?
IF NATO WERE IN CHARGE, WHICH IT IS NOT.
Does that mean that if NATO (as a block) decides to leave Afghanistan (or oppose a new surge, or any other military tactic), would the United States abide that decision?
NO.
For those Republicans who are attacking Obama for him not holding a NATO hearing, I'd like reporters to ask:
"Is NATO or the US Government ultimately in charge of Afghanistan operations?"
"Will the US Government abide by the wishes of NATO countries on all future deployments and tactics?"
"Does the roll of NATO guarantee Geneva protections to prisoners captured in the Afghanistan theater of operations?"
No ...
That's a LOT of questions ... :)
Yes.
And they can all be answered by simple "yes" or "no". I know presidential candidates LOVE those ones. :)
Those are good questions.
In all things there are actors and reactors. Actors take the lead and reactors struggle to keep up. Obama is an actor, McCain is a reactor.
McCain is nothing but entertainment. The media will keep putting microphones in front of him so he can react to what Obama is doing at the time. When McCain has made enough gaffs, people will stop taking him seriously and he'll find himself in the "Dan Quayle" position.
It's sad because I used to respect the old McCain.
True. At the moment.
We've "Won." Too bad McCain can't accept "Victory."
McCain is so floundering and angry.
This has been a very frustrating week for John McCain.
You say Obama should have held a hearing on Afghanistan in his sub-committee
BUT Joe Biden SPECIFICALLY ASKED that ALL Afghanistan hearings be brought to the full committe level, not Obama's responsibility.
This attack falls flat, when you learn that mcOld missed 6 Afghan meetings, that he was supposed to attend
The fact is Obama didn't do anything with his Senate subcommittee.
Biden's given him a good excuse, but since Obama was a leading presidential candidate making the point that Afghanistan was the key, not Iraq, he should have used his subcommittee.
It WAS a missed opportunity. But it could also have been seen as grandstanding if he screwed it up.
Bottom line is, it wouldn't have changed the US mission in either theater.
I don't think voters are as stupid as the McCain campaign thinks.
McCain"s outrageous comment (in substance) that our troops will only return with honor if they return as victors must be repudiated. Our troops always serve with honor when they obey any lawful order, including "stand down."
will have to leave my typo name the way it is...huffpost won't let me change it
That isn't what McCain said.
We've already "Won." The surge is a success. Iraq's government wants us out.
McCain is so "yesterday", one could feel pity for him.
He always reminds me of a Don-Quixotian basketball-player who with the audacity of desperation attacks a giant Barack Obama, who is windmilling his arms and dunking one basketball after another into the basket, so scoring heaps of points, while McCain is too tiny to even snatch the ball from Obama, or stop him from scoring or, score himself - always yelling how "unfair" this game is to him.
I think McCain is a prima donna angry because Obama is the new prima donna.
These are ads (as most television ads are) are designed to reach the low information voter. And because the targets are low information, facts aren't so important. If you say that Obama was negligent as a Senator on Afghanistan, well that sounds plausible. Blaming him for high gas prices, less so but people are angry and looking for someone to blame. The gas ad at least plants the seed so when McCain brings it up in an interview or a debate, some people might think, "yeah that's gotta be true, I think I heard that before"
It's a terrible ad and will backfire.
The gas ad is stupid. It's easily made fun of.
The desperation in "Camp McCain" is palpable and will only increase
as November draws near. When you're little more than a used up parody
of a stereotype with nothing to run on, all you can do is try to destroy your
opponent.
McCain should have cooled it this week and played more jujitsu while Obama had his moment.
McCain is not what he was in 2000, that is for sure.
The Mcsame campaign is being run worst than Hillary's
He got his party nomination ages ago but he's still yet to define his opponent
Lousy politician....no wonder Bush defeated him
McCain's Afghanistan ad is dishonest. Obama had nothing to do with it.
That is a problem area of the ad.
Hah!!
McCain's campaign comes off as angry and mean. The old man is jealous.
Posted July 22, 2008 | 06:10 PM (EST)