So, funny story: John McCain goes into Saddleback Church and tells a story about a guard drawing a cross in the sand, back when Jaundiced McNasty was a POW (not that he’s mentioning he’s a POW; we all know how he hates to talk about it). Said story turns out to be lifted from Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn — hey, if you’re gonna steal, steal from the best. McCain has therefore bourne false witness about Jesus. I’m not a Christian, but I think that’s a sin.
But wait, there’s more! McCain also lied about being in the “cone of silence” in Rick Warren’s gigachurch; he was actually on the way to the Church, and could have listened in on the questions asked, but of course, he’d never do that, because he was a POW. Which he really hates to talk about.
Incidentally when Warren asked about how the “cone of silence” was, McCain did not say, “Well, actually I was stuck in traffic.” Instead, he talked about trying to listen through the walls. That would be at least two lies McCain told, in a house of worship.
Now, if Barack Obama had been caught making up stories about Jesus and lying about being in the green room, I think it would be wall-to-wall coverage about how we can’t trust the nefarious, dusky Obama. I’m sure we will see similar hand-wringing about McCain’s prevarications, if by “will” you mean “won’t.”
It’s a good thing you caught McCain in his obvious lies. What kind of an idiot would think it possible for two Christian guards to make a cross in the dirt as a covert sign of their faith?
Also a good thing that you spotted his listening in on the questions being asked! Knowing that Warren would be asking about Supreme Court justices, education, and abortion was surely a game-changer for McCain. Up until the relayed questions were provided to him in his motorcade, he had been prepared to come talk about the Steelers lineup in 1973.
You didn’t read the linked post, did you, Robert?
I read it. A bunch of Kos kids squealing that they caught McSame in a lielielie. Big whoop. No evidence of any value; “omg he didn’t write about it in his first reporting of his pow experience! and the gulag archipelago came out in the 1970s!!!!!” W/e.
Please guys, keep this up. It certainly makes Obama a more attractive candidate.
I agree with Robert, compared to Clinton’s lies, McCain’s confusion over what happened at a time when some very nasty people where fucking about with his head seems pretty trivial.
Said story turns out to be lifted from Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn
False. Said story turns to be similar to a story told by Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn. It’s hardly a surprise that people held prisoners under similar conditions might have similar experiences. Why would you think that a guard making a cross in the dirt in front of a prisoner and then erasing it would be unique? If you’re going to claim that this story was lifted you’re going to have to prove it a lie. The fact that it duplicates someone else’s experience does not do that.
One of McCain’s fellow POWs states that he remembers (vaguely, as would make sense after almost 40 years) McCain telling this story while they were together in the prison camp.
But he’s probably a big fat liar too. Nobody lies like those prisoners of war lie!
Frankly, if not for 2004, I’d be willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt here. But the folks looking to forgive this are the people who were outraged — outraged! — that John Kerry was six weeks off on his recollection of when he was in Cambodia. It was proof that Kerry was a liar, a cheat, a serial exaggerator, and a horrible human being.
You guys set the rules, I’m just playing by them. If you want to admit that yes, what was done to John Kerry was unconscionable, and that George W. Bush won his second term on the backs of liars, then fine, we back back down here. But Jerome Corsi is still beloved by the right. And the rules are what you said they are. And the fact that John McCain passed on telling this story in 1973, or indeed anytime until 1999 (when he told it in the third person) leads me to believe that his memory on this is wrong. And based on 2004, that makes him a liar, a cheat, a serial exaggerator, and a horrible human being.
By and large, what was “done to John Kerry” was to critically analyze his statements and how they compared with the recollections of others, and the historical record. This is a fair and valid approach to take to someone seeking political power; it was fair and valid to do it to John Kerry, and it’s fair and valid to do it to John McCain. Of course, tragically for your position, the record and the recollections of others are tending to support, rather than to undermine, the claims that John McCain has made.
If you wish to re-open the Kerry files, feel free. I’ll be glad to rehash those arguments again. “My side” won them then, and we’d win them again today.
If I was trying to block for a candidate as woefully underprepared as Barack Obama, I’d be trying to change the subject, too.
Shorter Robert:
IOKIYAR
If I was trying to block for a candidate as woefully underprepared as Barack Obama, I’d be trying to change the subject, too.
You really think that McCain, who apparently knows nothing about foreign policy – countries, geography, demographics, etc. -, is more prepared than Obama? You really think that McCain who confesses to knowing nothing about economics, has a track record of believing that ideas suggested to him by lobbyists are his, and who has yet to lay out a coherent policy on any major issue other than abortion & endless occupation and hamstringing the military by said endless occupation is more prepared than Obama?
Well, we can’t expect reality to interfere with desire, I guess.
I guess I am the only one here (and not only here) who actually read Solgenitzin. As far as I remember, in his (bullshit) story, it was a prisoner who drew the cross, and the whole passage hinted at divine intervention… you see, the other prisoner had no way to know about the author’s intention to commit suicide, but acted to prevent it, and drew a cross to explain his behaviour.
McCain’s story appears to be quite different, and a lot more believable. On the other hand, I would not be surprised that it is just one more attempt to appeal to people I do not particularly respect. Oh, where’s the McCain from nine years ago?
You really think that McCain, who apparently knows nothing about foreign policy – countries, geography, demographics, etc. -, is more prepared than Obama?
You mean the Sen. Obama who thinks there’s as many states as there are Heinz pickle varieties?
Ron, I’m curious. Do you sincerely believe Obama doesn’t know how many states there are?
(For those of you who aren’t familiar with this, Obama once said “57 states” when he apparently intended to say “47 states,” referring to the number of states he had at that point campaigned in.)
In contrast, McCain – to pick an example — repeated his mix-up of shiite and sunni several times, in extended paragraphs, making it far less plausible that it was simply a case of him saying one word when he intended another. It really does appear that McCain didn’t know the difference, and wouldn’t have if Senator Lieberman hadn’t eventually corrected him.
Similarly, his endorsement of a gas tax break — something that reputable economists both left and right agree is stupid — shows either ignorance of economics, or a willingness to completely discard economic substance in favor of pandering.
Real ignorance in a candidate is a legitimate political concern. That a candidate once gaffed and said “57” instead of “47” is silly nonsense; it’s funny to make fun of (and I’m happy to make fun of similar gaffes myself), but it’s not a serious political point.
The problem, in my view, is that Republicans too often respond to real political concerns — like McCain’s evident ignorance of essential policy matters — with silly jokes, like claiming Obama doesn’t know how many states there are. The two things aren’t even remotely comparable.
Yah, I don’t think that Sen. Obama doesn’t really know how many states there are. It was funny, though.
I was not particularly surprised at Sen. McCain not knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni Moslems; I wonder if Obama or Sen. Clinton do (or did at the time). They should – they all should. We all should. But few do, and none of use can afford to be ignorant of this.
OTOH, before either of them actually sit down as head of state with their counterparts in Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc., they’ll get briefed by advisors, the State Department, etc. They’ll be up to speed. I’m more worried about how well they’ll use that briefing in dealing with people like Putin. God knows that President Bush handled him quite badly. I think that McCain is much more on the ball in what a guy like Putin is all about. I think that someone like Putin or Ahmenajad (sp?!) will eat Obama up alive. Perhaps that’s more subjective than objective, but I just get a feeling of naievty (sp again?) on Obama’s part that I don’t get from McCain.
Assuming that their advisors even know.
When I was a kid, I was taught that, just because the other boys were doing something silly, I didn’t have to do the same.
You could start here.
I think that McCain is much more on the ball in what a guy like Putin is all about.
Are you talking about the same McCain who is so blinded by flattery from lobbyists that he’ll believe their suggestions are his own?
I’m confident that both Obama and Clinton know the difference. For one thing, like McCain, they’ve both spoken publicly about Iraq many times; if they had mixed up Shiites and Sunnis several times, as McCain did, we would have heard about it.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect presidential candidates to be familiar with the very basics of the single most important foreign policy issue they’ll be facing. Saying “he’ll probably learn to not be appallingly ignorant after he’s elected” is not a reasonable position.
Perhaps?
Have you noticed that your description of Obama varies? Sometimes he’s a hard-bitten, cynical political operative who does whatever it takes; then other times you seem to think he’s too naive and innocent for politics.
For dealing with Iran and Russia, I think that Obama’s policies are likely to be better than McCain’s macho belligerence — McCain’s foreign policy ideas in recent years have not been substantively different than Bush’s, and Bush’s have been a disaster. Obama has shown substantively better judgment (most notably in opposing invading Iraq) before being President; it’s likely he’d show better judgment as President.
But I also don’t think, especially with Iran, that ANY candidate is equipped to deal with them well. In their own region of the world, Iran’s depth of influence and understanding far exceeds that of the US’s; they play chess while we play checkers. I don’t think it’s surprising that the main winner of our war with Iraq has been Iran.
Speaking of bearing false witness and the story of the guard and the cross in the dirt – while there’s no way to tell if John McCain is doing so, it is now being alleged that Daily Kos certainly is. From TPM Election Central, a link that I got from Neptunus Lex , it is reported that a biographer of Solzhenitsyn says that such a story appears nowhere in any of his writings. To quote:
Now, the story has been publicly attributed to Solzhenitsyn, so those inclined to disbelieve McCain might consider he picked it up from those published reports. But “McCain stole the story from Solzhenitsyn” is apparently factually untrue. And calls into doubt the veracity of the people spreading it.
But “McCain stole the story from Solzhenitsyn” is apparently factually untrue.
I hadn’t known that was where it was claimed the story originated. I would have thought it more likely to come from One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich .
I read Gulag Archipelago about a year and a half ago and I don’t remember that story. Of course my memory has gotten notably worse over the last few years… but, yeah.
Daily Kos is far from a bastion of truth or critical thought IME & IMO, which is why I almost never go to that site.
I believe that Sen. Obama is a clever and willing participant in the Chicago Democratic Machine, a tremendously corrupt organization that has done great damage to the public good in Chicago and Illinois. That participation and his skills in organizing, plus various personal attributes (including excellent public speaking skills) have enabled him to attain his present situation. That doesn’t equate to facility in foreign affairs or to possessing the necessary skill set to deal with people like Putin or Ahmenajad (sp, sorry).
Foir a while Iran benefited from the disruption of Iraq’s society. In the long run, however, I believe that Iraq’s shift from dictatorship to democracy will make it much stronger and provide a check on Iran’s ambitions. Iran was able to fuel a lot of fighting, etc. in Iraq, but with the successes of the counter-insurgency operational strategies Iran’s position vis-a-vis Iraq has actually been weakened. There’s no more talk of Iraq’s Shiite regions becoming an Iranian puppet state, and Iran’s clients in Iraq have been reduced to minor hit-and-run actions. In fact, these days Iraqi and Coalition forces (in that order) are doing the hitting and Iran’s clients are doing the running. There will likely be some actions here and there, but the days of major concerted actions against either Coalition or Iraqi forces are gone. It won’t be that long before Iraq is able to solidify internal security and spend more attention and resources on external affairs.
Reread the first paragraph of the quote. While Gulag Archipelago is discussed in detail, the biographer says it appears nowhere in his published writings.
It won’t be that long before Iraq is able to solidify internal security and spend more attention and resources on external affairs.
The problem with this statement is that it is as unsupported by fact as it has been every day for the last 4 plus years. Seriously, I have heard the exact same claim every day for going on 5 years now & for the same reasons given here. Why should I believe this now?
Iran’s clients are the groups that are actually in power in Iraq. The Shiite group which has been most weakened in the past year (Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army) is probably the Shiite faction with the least ties to Iran. They have plenty of ties to Iran, but their ties are less extensive than the more powerful SIIC (formerly SCIRI), for example.
On the whole Cross thing, the Solzhenitsyn version of the cross story is told in “The Sign of the Cross” published in In Communion in 1997. Solzhenitsyn’s biographer denies that the story is true or makes any sense, which calls into doubt the honesty and accuracy of Fr. Luke Veronis (the author of the piece), but it does not in any way suggest that McCain couldn’t have been inspired by Luke Veronis’s fiction about Solzhenitsyn to create his own cross in the dirt story.
Personally, the Solzhenitsyn angle seems like a complete red herring. McCain’s cross in the dirt story and Solzhenitsyn’s cross in the dirt story aren’t particularly similar (except for someone in a prison drawing a cross in the dirt, they have nothing in common), and it is not as though drawing symbols in the dirt as a means of secret communication is unknown outside of this Solzhenitsyn story. The various arguments that this story was never reported by McCain anywhere until 1999 (when McCain has actually written and spoken very extensively about his POW experience) seemed vaguely more suspicious, and the fact that the first time he wrote about it, he wrote about it in the third person, as happening to “a POW” rather than to himself, seemed even more suspicious, but now that there is someone who claims to have maybe heard the story much earlier, it becomes even less productive to argue that the story is false.
Just FYI, those “cross in the dirt” type stories have been around for, what… 200 years or so? I swear that I’ve seen the roman guard equivalent except that it was a jesus fish.
So this:
applies to most everyone these days. You don’t need to read Veronis to know the story. Hell, I knew it and I’m not even a christian.
oops–2000 years ;)
(but mccain still sucks)
Actually, it is supported by fact. The security situation has changed quite a bit between four and five years ago and now. Four and five years ago Al-Queda ran chunks of Iraq, was engaged in pitched battles with Coalition forces and laughed at Iraqi security forces. Sectarian violence was high, and civil war was a real threat. Now Al-Queda is on the run. They operate freely almost nowhere in Iraq. Iraqi security forces are successfully securing large chunks of Iraq and adding more every month. Sectarian problems are relegated to the political arena. The situation in Iraq has greatly changed since the COIN strategies have started to be employed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/28/iraq.terrorism
So it’s gotten all better since July 28th? Wow. Look how much things can change in only 23 days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/09/world/main4335568.shtml
Oh. Surely you mean that since August 9, 2008 it’s all better. What a difference 11 days makes.
http://www.indianagazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35774&Itemid=2
Or perhaps you meant that “sectarian problems” are relegated to the political arena since August 16th – 4 days ago.
Please stop making stuff up.
RonF, I don’t recall a time time when you having been saying the same thing. You were saying it in 2005 when the violent death rate was higher than it had been at any time previously. And again in 2006 when it was skyrocketing. And again in 2007 when it was almost as bad.
And you’re saying it 2008, when the rate has fallen to the still atrocious 2005 level or thereabouts. Things are much worse now than four and five years ago.
You’ve been 100% consistent on this issue, I’ll grant you that. There has never been a time when you haven’t been in complete denial of reality.
The version of the fish sign story I heard was that it was a call sign for ancient Christians to recognise each other. One would draw the outline of a fish in the sand, and the other person would put in the eye.
I don’t know whether that is true, but it’s a story most Christians would know, I think. Drawing a cross in the sand to signal to another person you already know is likely to be a Christian is a pretty obvious way for a prison guard to convey his support for a prisoner. That doesn’t mean that McCain’s story is true, but I don’t think there is much reason to believe it to be false.
I continue to oppose McCain’s Presidential bid for reasons that have nothing to do with his POW stories.
Writing about the problems w/ McCain the candidate, I wrote:
… has yet to lay out a coherent policy on any major issue other than abortion…
It seems that I was wrong. He hasn’t laid out a coherent policy on abortion, either. See:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/mccain_flip_flops_on_gop_abortion_plank_in_platform/