1. linking to a video in which a series of opinions made by political opponents of Barack Obama advance their own “career advancing” opinions against Obama
2. linking to his own praise of Sen.’s McCain and Clinton for having made a recommendation for the Nobel Peace Prize — as an example of proof of the ability to lead as President of the United States; Obama’s not made such a recommendation and is therefore inexperienced!
3. frequent reiteration of loaded terms, such as “bigotry” and “race-based”, to describe the Obama candidacy, because the more such opinions are expressed, presumably, the more factual they become.
4. the linking to others’ opinion pieces as “proof” of something (example, which Dan called “a good piece…on Obama’s racist church”)
5. the nearly solipsist interlinking of his own posts which has become a staple of tdaxp, as “proofs” of whatever he is currently reiterating.

Meanwhile, a video showing McCain delivering prepared remarks, or any remarks, although it is something that actually occurred, is derided. Why? I can’t be entirely dismissive of Dan’s approach, simply because the “balance” in modern journalism usually means the presentation of differing opinions only, and because the Blogosphere has extended such balance into a million sites expressing a million opinions which can quickly and easily be linked for proof of anything: so Dan’s style of argumentation is not really of his own concoction but merely a common journalistic/blogospheric practice. One must presume, then, that actual video tape evidence, since it is not an opinion piece made by the person holding the camera, is not worthy of being considered “proof” of anything, if one is Dan tdaxp.

One can see Dan’s audacity of faith in opinion quite clearly. Rather than present any citations of his own to explain away the words coming from John McCain’s own mouth, he dismisses those words without another thought. Actual occurrence is not opinion and is unworthy of consideration. So I must have a tempered “audacity of hope” when I consider whether more factual examples will sway Dan tdaxp. These are factual examples, not opinion, after all.



CNN, airing Sept. 12, 2002:

QUESTION: Senator, as you know the case the president made was based on (UNINTELLIGIBLE) votes, including previous resolutions. Did the president make the case for urgency, for the need to act urgently on this?

MCCAIN: I believe he did in this respect, that everyone knows that Saddam Hussein has embarked on an effort to acquire the weapons of mass destruction, varying from expert to expert as to exactly where he is.

But there is no expert that doesn’t agree that he is bent on acquiring those weapons. So we need to act in a timely and measured fashion in keeping with the decisions that the president makes in consultation with his military advisers. But I think the president made it very clear that there would not be an indefinite period of time of debate, parsing words, et cetera.

But he did, I think, act absolutely correctly. And the will of the American people is expressed by polls: “Go to the United Nations and tell them he wants them to act, which is their responsibility, as well.”

LOTT: You know, the latest action by the United Nations — I guess, maybe it took place in 1999 — we knew a lot of things about what he had, capabilities he had then and we know for sure that he has been continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction and work on the ability to deliver them. You know, one of the considerations here is time. With every passing day, every passing week he gathers greater capability and the threat is even greater.

President Clinton, in 1998, made this comment: “And some day, some way, I guarantee you that he will use the arsenal. If Saddam Hussein rejects peace, we have to use force.” That was in 1998. And there has been plenty of evidence that he has continued to move to develop weapons of mass destruction since then.

MCCAIN: Could I add one comment, which is irrelevant to the question, uncharacteristically of me? And that is that, I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult. It may entail the risk of American lives and treasure, but Saddam Hussein is vastly weaker than he was in 1991. He does not have the support of his people.

Here we have two examples.

Did McCain tow the GWB line (what is being called political propaganda now) that the question of Saddam Hussein’s avid and actual pursuit of WMD was entirely undisputed? I suppose that the error of basing arguments upon opinion might lead us to say that was McCain’s role in speaking as he did; however, recall that many months earlier McCain had delivered a strident declaration of war (in intent if not actual) against Iraq after President Bush’s “axis of evil” declaration. Speaking at the Munich Conference on Security Policy on February 2, 2002, McCain said,

Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shirk from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community’s demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

A day of reckoning is approaching.

Furthermore, eliminating Hussein’s WMD threat (sic) would not be the only reason for attacking Iraq. Rather, Iraq, along with Afghanistan, would serve as examples to the rest of the world:

Our success in Afghanistan has put Al Qaeda on the run, and diminished their ability in the near term to organize and execute mass atrocities as they did in New York and at the Pentagon. But the campaign’s organizing purpose is to put terrorists permanently out of business, and defeating or otherwise transforming the regimes that harbor them.

The combined examples of regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq would likely compel several other state sponsors of terror to change their ways or go out of business, accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms. These nations -Syria and Sudan, for instance - have a choice, and it is in their interest to make the right one. As President Bush has said, Iran and North Korea remain question marks - rogue regimes where a few leaders hold their people hostage, and where aggressive development of weapons of mass destruction has gone unchecked. It can go unchecked no more. The consequences of inaction, of allowing our enemies to choose their moment, are far greater than the costs we will incur in taking action against this clear and present danger.

[“From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order”, 2/2/2002]

Whether McCain spoke from conviction or merely as a mouthpiece for GWB is irrelevant to this present discussion — Dan’s dispute with me concerns the flip-flopping of assessments of the easiness of the process not the reasons for going to war — although looking at the effect on Syria and Sudan of the Iraq war, I wonder if McCain’s casus belli has borne satisfactory fruit.

The second example, of McCain’s certainty of the simplicity and easiness of the Iraq invasion — ” I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult. ” — is more to the point of this present blog post.

A week later, we see more of his certainty:


CNN, airing Sept 29, 2002:

BLITZER: Well, the inspectors in 1998, at the end of 1998, were asked to leave by the U.N. after it became clear that they weren’t able to get their job done and the U.S. and the British were about to launch strikes during the Clinton administration at that time.

I want you to look…

MCCAIN: Could I just make one additional comment?

BLITZER: Go ahead.

MCCAIN: And that’s why the president of the United States challenged the United Nations to say, “Look, you’re the ones that passed these resolutions. You’re the ones that said that Saddam Hussein had to comply with these inspections. And he’s the one that didn’t.

And so, he’s in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. And in all due respect, the United Nations, if that happens, becomes the League of Nations.”

BLITZER: The deputy prime minister of Iraq, yesterday, Tariq Aziz, had some strong words about what would happen to U.S. military forces in the event of another war. “Any aggression on Iraq,” he said, “will not be a picnic. Instead, it will be a fierce fight, where America will suffer losses that have not been sustained for decades. Iraq is determined to resist and defeat any U.S. attack.”

How serious do you take that threat?

MCCAIN: Was that a recent statement or a replay of the statement he made in 1991? Same guy, same song, only — deja vu all over again. It’s the movie “Groundhog Day,” not only in what he says, but in their actions.

Mr. Aziz made those same statements in 1991, before we won an overwhelming victory.

I don’t claim that any military operation anywhere is going to be easy. In fact, I think, whenever you commit American blood and treasure, it’s a great risk and is a last resort and last option.

But I don’t know of any Iraqi soldier who is willing to die for Saddam Hussein. We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.

One of the highpoints, I thought, of the Persian Gulf War was when hundreds of Iraqis surrendered to a UAV.

He is much weaker militarily, and I believe that the United States military capabilities are such that we can win a victory in a relatively short time. And I, again, I don’t think it’s, quote, “easy,” but I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.

BLITZER: For those of our viewers who don’t know what a UAV is, it’s an unmanned aerial vehicle…

MCCAIN: A drone.

BLITZER: … or a drone, for those who aren’t necessarily familiar with military jargon.

The military strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman, testified before Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations Committee at the end of July, and he made the point that this is not going to be an easy military matter by any means. Listen to what Cordesman said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY CORDESMAN, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Only fools would bet the lives of other men’s sons and daughters on their own arrogance and call this force a cakewalk or a speedbump or something that you can dismiss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He was responding, I think, specifically to Ken Adelman, in the past, a former Pentagon official during the Reagan administration, who said it would be a cakewalk.

And since then, you’ve suggested a few times you don’t think it would necessarily be a major military challenge.

MCCAIN: Dr. Cordesman is one of my dearest friends and a former adviser of mine. He and I disagreed in 1991, when he predicted that there would be thousands of casualties as a result of our intervention then. I disagree with him now.

No, I think a “cakewalk” is a very bad choice of words, and I’m sure that Mr. Adelman didn’t mean it that way. No military engagement is a, quote, “cakewalk.” All kinds of things happen — Persian Gulf syndrome.

I mean, so I don’t mean to understate the challenges we face, but the Iraqi military is weak, much weaker than it was in 1991. The Iraqi people do not support a person who has supervised a steady decline of their standard of living and kept them in a grip of terror.

And I believe our cause is just. To protect the United States of America and our allies from the eventual use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein I think is a worthy cause.

With Dan and others in mind — i.e., those who exemplify the audacity of opinion — I can almost join them in imagining a way to turn these items around. I mean, McCain so easily dismisses the words “easy” and “cakewalk” and again, like a week earlier, asserts that of course risk is involved in any warfare effort. But:

1. “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad.”
2. we’re not going to have to do much more than “take out buildings”
3. “we can win a victory in a relatively short time”
4. to be sure the point is drummed home McCain reiterates: “we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.”
5. though his friend, Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies, had warned of “thousands” of casualties, McCain disagreed.
   

[If this blog post seems to be growing long, bear with me. The video evidence was much shorter, a direct example from McCain’s own mouth.]

The second half of the dispute was more strikingly evident — that is, the actual speaking McCain who wanted to assure the American public that although many proposed how easy the Iraq war would be, they unlike him did not know what they were voting for in the first place.

Nearly four years later, after thousands of casualties, house-to-house fighting, and so forth, McCain noticed that the “overwhelming victory” had not occurred. To be fair, I will say I think that it is likely he noticed this much earlier, given the fact that he expressed doubts about our force numbers in Iraq as early as late 2003. (I throw that one out to Dan; he can cite examples if he likes, but I know they are out there already.)

However, in order to assure the public that he, Senator John McCain, was on top of things, he alluded quite strongly to the fact that he was always on top of things:


CNN, airing August 25, 2006:

BLITZER: Andrea, thank you very much.

And to our viewers, this is the second time Congressman Shays has faced off against Democrat Diane Farrell. He beat her by only 4 percentage points in their congressional match-up in November of 2004. We’ll watch this race closely.

Republican Senator John McCain today is denying he’s changed his position on the Iraq War. The possible 2008 presidential contender says he still supports the mission and opposes a premature troop withdrawal despite concerns he raised in Ohio earlier this week.

Here’s what Senator McCain said on Tuesday.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: It grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be. And it has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: In a statement today, McCain says: “I never intended my concern that the American public be fully informed about the conduct and consequences of the war to indicate any lessening of my support for our mission there.” On the contrary, he went on and said, “I view a candid informed public discussion of the war as critical to sustaining popular support for the war and thus indispensable to ensuring the ultimate success of our mission.”

McCain speaking on MSNBC, January 4, 2007:

We’ve made mistakes in Iraq. We all know that we have. The result of our withdrawal will be chaos. Do we have to do a lot better? Yes.

Does the Iraqi government have to be better and the economy better?

Yes. But unless you establish security, you cannot have political and economic development. That is a lesson of history that is—there are abundant examples.

So I believe that we need to win this. When I voted to support this war, I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough. And those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for.

At this point, I wonder if I should continue this post, or whether it would be necessary for me to do so. I have, after all, just posted word-for-word (in the last two quotes) what anyone could have seen in the video Dan disputed, and those words were not enough then. How can they be enough now, and will McCain’s pro-security supporters wave off the flip-flopping as an example of McCain’s willingness to change his story as the times change and adaptations need to be made? (Recall however that the times changed circa September 11, 2001, and how McCain adapted then; use the earlier quotes in this blog post for guidance if you have forgotten.)

I will say this: my wonder, audacious or not, remains the same:

When I read the reasons some give for supporting McCain, I wonder: are they supporting the actual man, the “Real McCain”, or do they merely support the rhetoric he gives? Yes, I can understand that they support the ideas he proposes — that is, after all, why he proposes those ideas in his rhetoric: to gain their trust.