McCain's Imperial Hubris

The Nation: McCain Is Determined To Ignore Our Economic Meltdown

(The Nation)  This column was written by Robert Scheer.

---

What's it got to do with the price of gas? Would some reporter with access to the Republican presidential candidate please ask John McCain why he wants to continue President Bush's Mideast policy when it has proved so ruinous for American taxpayers? Because McCain is determined to ignore our economic meltdown and shift the debate to foreign policy, shouldn't he have to explain why an open-ended military presence in the Mideast will make us economically and militarily more secure when the opposite is clearly the case?

Let's not waste too much time on the military side of the equation. The argument that troops on the ground have made us militarily more secure is absurd on its face. American resources and lives have been squandered in an inane effort that McCain aptly criticized before becoming a presidential candidate. As a Senate watchdog, he distinguished himself by sharply denouncing one defense contractor boondoggle after another in cases involving hundreds of billions for modern weapons that had nothing to do with fighting cave-based terrorists. But as a presidential candidate, McCain now unabashedly apologizes for every twist of the downwind spiral of the Bush Administration foreign policy, from wasteful weapons to inhuman torture.

McCain's strategy is clearly that of distracting attention from the calamitous economy by sounding the demagogue's alarm about enemies at the gate. This week, McCain again blasted Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the grounds that he underestimated the threat from Iran while ignoring the vast increase in Iran's power — an increase actually resulting from Bush eliminating Iran's only effective enemy, Saddam Hussein. The other winners in this folly have been the oil kingdoms that Hussein periodically threatened, led by the Saudi royal family. Seizing the opportunity presented by the 9/11 attacks, Bush knocked off not the Saudis, who had produced Osama bin Laden and fifteen of his hijacker minions, but rather the royal family's sworn enemy in Iraq, who had absolutely nothing do with 9/11.

And how did the Saudis thank us? Just check the price of oil, which has increased more than sixfold since 9/11. On Friday, Bush went to dine at Saudi King Abdullah's bizarrely opulent horse farm and pleaded for an increase in oil production, but to no avail. Bush received the same rebuff in April 2005, when oil was selling for $54 a barrel. On Tuesday, it sold for $129, and the price rise is a good measure of Saudi gratitude for the Bush family's unwavering support over past decades. Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, couldn't have been more condescending when he turned down Bush's request with the observation that "presidents and kings have every right, every privilege, to comment or ask or say whatever they want." He added at a press conference, "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

Enough to get the price back down to where it was when we saved your sorry oil-well excuse for a country, you ingrate, Bush might have retorted. But our bold leader was too polite for anything like that. "He didn't punch any tables or shout at anybody," said Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. "I think he was satisfied." Why? Instead of pointing out that the Saudis could easily open their spigots in gratitude for our keeping them in power, the President threatened the Saudi king not with an invasion but with a US recession. "My point to His Majesty," Bush warned in an interview with the New York Times before encountering the great man himself, "is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline — in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down. If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased."

He'll show them — we'll have a recession, our families will suffer and, boy, will the Saudis be sorry. A regular Teddy Roosevelt. There is no better measure of the failure of Bush's foreign policy than that, five years after we conquered the second-most important pool of oil in the world, the American taxpayers who paid for this grand imperial adventure are rewarded with skyrocketing prices at the pump.

At least when Bush first hyped his Iraq invasion plan, he had Paul Wolfowitz telling Congress that Iraqi oil would more than pay for it all. Not so McCain, who is so charged with imperial hubris that he is willing to commit to a 100-year lease on Iraq without expecting a penny in oil revenue in return.

[wogerwabbit]

We should have invaded Saudia Arabia instead.

[omnibus66]

Couldn''t have said it better myself. This should be required reading for anyone who thinks that McCain is the answer to anything.

[irliberal]

Republicans are done. Time to stick a fork in ''em.

We have a completely imploded presidency and a thoroughly compromised Congress that has until very recently been under total Rethugnican control.

And now we are treated to the grand spectacle of the Rethugnican party wringing their hands in desperation over the sour prospects that loom in November,

Sorry guys (Actually not one iota sorry) You reap what you sow.

This is really megachickens coming home to roost. You were large and in charge. Instead of thinking what the country needed, you focused on what who you needed to stroke and kiss to keep your plush little nest at Capital Hill.

Instead of really protecting us, you goosestepped in formation to let our government spy on us, render us to torture and deprive us of our privacy.

Instead of ensuring the prosperity of the many, you grossly enriched the favored and the few at our expense.

As far as the majority of Americans are concerned, you can all go jump off a very high building.

Do the honorable thing (for once). Do not write books or give speeches. Just collect your overly generous pension and lay low. Try to disappear.

[elz523]

He''ll show them %u2014 we''ll have a recession, our families will suffer and, boy, will the Saudis be sorry. A regular Teddy Roosevelt. There is no better measure of the failure of Bush''s foreign policy than that, five years after we conquered the second-most important pool of oil in the world, the American taxpayers who paid for this grand imperial adventure are rewarded with skyrocketing prices at the pump.


Exactly!

[tbweb]

My friends were always pretty smart and even at age 12 one of my friends was explaining the metaphor of the "Invisible Hand" to me! At the time I was just becoming interested in girls and listened to see if this "Invisible Hand" could help me with them! lol Anyway Republicans operate on the "Invisible Hand" principle for the most part and this link does a pretty good job of explaining it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

[dewardbowles]

It is truly shocking that anyone would afford any deference to what McCain says at this point.

The man''s campaign has become the "double" talk express.

It is clear he is running for a third Bush term.

You want more of the same, vote McCain.

[tbweb]

Anyway Republicans operate on the "Invisible Hand" principle for the most part and this link does a pretty good job of explaining it!
Posted by tbweb

wrong again, economy breath
touting the "invisible hand" is just another example of republican galactic hypocrisy.
the invisible hand theory states that the market''''s own intrinsic forces, such as supply and demand are enough to effectively regulate itself without any govt or otherwise supervisory interference or regulation.
The neocons have become the masters of stealing your tax dollars and manipulating the economy to further line the pockets of the "already haves"
The vietnam war, before it, and the Iraq war now are some of the biggest tools available to them
Other items of interference to the invisible hand are tax breaks for the super wealthy, tax incentives and NAFTA to take jobs elsewhere, monopoly legislation fo big Pharm, secret nergy meetings etc etc.

Posted by ainttaken at 10:53 AM : May 24, 2008,,,

Oh, I should have mentioned I was referring to the "real" Republican Party, prior to the G.W. Bush administration version, the traditional Republican Party that believes in smaller government etc. Based on your remarks you must think G.W. Bushs version of GOP economics is now permanent! That was not my assumption. :)

[pvperson]

"shouldn''t he have to explain why an open-ended military presence in the Mideast will make us economically and militarily more secure when the opposite is clearly the case?"........You only need look at WHO benefits from the war to see WHY the republicans want it to continue. Bush and Cheney have the closest ties to corporations netting huge profits we''ve ever had and McCain''s organization is riddled with lobbists from those same corporations. Do they care about Americans, NO. They have theirs, nothing else matters.

[joyous88]

the mans name should be McBushCain

or McSame, and THAT says it all,

if you like the fascist Bush and the nazi party that

he represents than you will love MCSAME!

[trillion1]

If he''s the best the GOP can come up with no wonder are people are leaving the party in droves. I honestly think they had a good shot with Ron Paul but he is too honest for them.

[it_oldtimer]

John McCain is the most flagrant example of a totally clueless and hopeless "flip-flopping" politician that this country has seen in many, many decades.

Zero genuine "political integrity" is what he has come to represent.

In the future, I''m sure all Republican campaign advisers will [wisely] warn their respective candidates: "And for God''s sake, DON''T be another JOHN MCCAIN: you KNOW how miserably THAT particular election strategy worked out!"

But, hey, the Republicans are politically bankrupt, it was the best they could come up with - even though they really didn''t like him at all, either.

[walt1944-2009]

"Bagdad John McBush" McCain is determined to follow the policies of the Great Emperor Bush II since those policies have made the Great Emperor so "popular" with the citizens of the USSA: all 27% of them who support the neocon Fascist Nazi GOP and the Great Emperor!

McCain''s political plan is a mirror image of the Great Emperor Bush II.

1. SUPPORT THE TROOPS - by keeping them in uniform FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. That way, the Nazi GOP won''t have to worry about extending the GI bill and will keep the profits rolling in to Halliburton!

2. IGNORE WHAT HAPPENS AT HOME, ESPECIALLY THE BAD! Talk only good, happy talk no matter how bogus or "thin" it may be. That way, if the neocon Fascist Nazis say enough of the BS, surely the stupid, gullible citizens of the USSA will believe it too!

3. SPY ON EVERYONE! Tell them you are "protecting them" from those evil "terrrrrrrrorists" who want to kill us all or convert us all to Islam, just like Hitler''s Nazis told the German people that he was protecting them from the dangerous non-Aryans, Jews, Slavs, and gypsies!

THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE MASTER RACE!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!
sig heil, DEFINITELY MORE OF THE SAME, McCain!!!!

[puritan9]

Robert Scheer has written one fine article. Bushyboy has not contributed anything worthwhile to human existance. And McBucain wants to continue the same failed strategy. Has the Republican leadership not reached the depths of intellectual bankruptcy yet? How far does the nation have to follow the trickle-down Republican model of greed?

[clestes-2009]

Get a clue people, Fossil John is clueless!!

He is from an age that has been left in shambles from the mistakes of the incompetent and destructive shrub admin.

You can divide American history into 2 parts, preShrub and the end of the last century where US was the sole superpower and postShrub, where the US is no longer a superpower. That was squandered during shrub''s time in office. It is GONE and most likely will never return.

McCain still thinks he is in the last century. He is like my Dad was in his last years. He lived more in his past than in the present and remember times of decades ago better than he did last year.

This is NOT what we need for a new president. Someone dedicated to pursueing a dream of US imperialism at the cost of US domestic health.

US domestic health ain''t so good these days and we cannot afford to fund overseas battles that go on and on without end. Don''t let these reports of "Iraq good news" from Gates and Petraeaus fool you. Iraq might be less violent today than it was, but violence at the 2004 or 2005 level after 5 years is still nothing more a dream of "victory".

And I have not even mentioned Afghanistan where the real battles are. Anyone notice that we are sending more troops there this spring?? After the last batch of 3500 troops were sent and we were promised those were the last troops needed.

Yeah, the statment that the "end is near" could mean more than victory you know.

[Marie Zarankevich]

Why not do everything we can to immediately facilitate oil production within the USA, and then invest whatever we have to into alternative energy resources? -- We COULD solve all our own problems if our world leaders weren''t all playing tinker-toys with us on the floor of some gold-plated palaces we will never see. -- We are not helpless. -- We have just been convinced that we have nothing to say about it. -- But we have everything we need to solve all these problems, if we''d just use what we have.

[jon2012-2009]

Scheer makes some fascinating points, one of which is the link between the rising gas prices and the war in Iraq. This is an opinion piece, however, not a research study. It feels right on the surface but I hope we''ll see a more in-depth analysis to substantiate his view.

[fredgrad2000]

The Dems are lucky that Americans aren''t smart enough to see a lack of solutions when they see it. When it comes to Iraq and Iran all we hear is the usual shi* about how we got there and how if we hadn''t gone in Iran wouldn''t be in as strong of a position. You know what, given the time machine option, I''m sure a a majority of the Senators and Congressmen who voted for the invasion of Iraq would change their vote, I know I would, and so would probably ALL of the MAJORITY of Democrats who did as well. But our invasion of Iraq didn''t turn Iran into the largest state sponsor of terrorism of the world, they already were that. Should we have invaded Iraq? No. Is Iran stronger today because of that, and of course their own malicious terrorist actions? Yes, but absent a Soros-funded time machine, our actions now need to be focused on not making Iran even stronger, which our withdrawal from Iraq and negotiating with the terrorist regime, would do...to be cont''d

[fredgrad2000]

Cont''d...What in the name of God does a President Obama expect to say to a regime of religious lunatics that will get them to stop supplying terrorists, stop harboring Al Qaeda members like bin Laden''s son in Tehran, stop starting official government meetings with chants of death of America and death to Britain, or get them to change their official gov''t policy of removing Israel from the map? Withdrawal from Iraq, absent any change in Iranian terrorist policies, will only ease their ability to execute those policies with a direct land bridge thru Iraq to supply Syria and Lebanon (rather than smaller flights into Beirut and Damascus and thru American and Israeli controlled seas such as Persian Gulf and Red Sea), and at least proxy access (Iraqi Hezbollah will formally emerge under that title after America''s retreat) to their Sunni Arab Gulf "competitors".

[joyous88]

McCain you should have said McBUSHsame;

what policy, bomb em till the bubba''s are happy?

thats not a policy, this will be the third term of

the criminal president