Russian to Judgement

Idealogical consistency is admirable,  political expediency-- not so much.  McCain, a decorated veteran, has supported military action under both Republican and Democratic administrations.  The Pauls, father and son, have been as forthright in opposing intervention.

Progressives have been challenged.  Many oppose bombing as they have opposed other uses of force.  While others, including the President, are propelled by concern over the flaunting of the international ban on the use of chemical weapons.  But in a corollary to Obama's cost benefit analysis based foreign policy, progressives understand another mercantile concept, you break it, you own it.  Last night the president made clear that air strikes would have a limited objective, with responsibility for Syria remaining with Syrians.

Republican chicken hawks are flying in circles. Hatred of the president is the only air beneath their wings.  Supporters of unlimited warfare in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction were an illusion, stridently oppose limited bombings in Syrian, where WMD's are a harsh, deadly reality.

If they oppose a military solution, then clearly these Republicans must support a diplomatic resolution.  Again, not so much.  They condemn Obama for considering a Russian proposal, which, if sincere and successful, would place Syrian chemical weapons under international control.  The rub is not the terms of a possible deal, but that it is a Putin proposal.  "We are allowing Russia to dictate American foreign policy," they shout on Fox.  Who else?  Syria is a Russian client state.  Short of pounding Assad in to submission, the only path to the bargaining table is Russian pressure.

Chicken hawks are pooping all over themselves.  Hopefully, the smell of mendacity will awaken the electorate.

Against the Grain

Skewering Rice is impractical as well as unseemly.  The grains scatter to no good purpose.  The sole consequence of her reliance on intelligence community approved talking points, was that for one week, some members of the public thought that Benghazi was part of the spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim video that swept through much of the Muslim world.  As material became correlated and declassified, the misstatements were corrected.

Susan Rice's Sunday show segments had no policy implications, and resulted in neither loss of property, nor loss of life.  Her namesake, Condoleezza Rice, committed a more consequential error, but has been given a non-presidential pardon by Senator McCain.

Condoleezza's pronouncements on Iraq's nuclear capabilities and ambitions, notwithstanding uncertainty in the intelligence community, had far reaching policy implications.  Thousands died and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent. 

If McCain chooses to lead a rabid pack of Republicans, he should go after bigger game.

Ben Gauzy

 Republicans are looking for a smoking gun in an arsenal.  Raw intelligence is like numbers, it does not lie, but liars use raw intelligence.  Until it is evaluated, synthesized and correlated with other intelligence, raw intelligence is gauzy and shapeless.  In the midst of protests sweeping the Muslim world over an anti-Muslim video, it was reasonable to assume a connection to the Benghazi attack.  Given the heavy arms used, it was also reasonable to assume terrorist involvement.  The two were not mutually exclusive.

After an armed uprising of various groups and militias overthrew Gaddafi, Libya resembles a scene from BoardWalk Empire:  "Is that a gun?" gangster Rosetti asks, pulling his piece. "I got a gun... He got a gun ... he got a gun ... EVERYBODY GOT GUNS!" Not surprisingly,  Obama has been cautious about arming Syrian rebels for fear of arming extremists.

 Condemning Ambassador Rice for relying on intelligence community approved talking points, is a cheap shot. Senator McCain had his high noon moment in 2008, and he lost.  Perhaps, given his recent outbursts, it is time for him to ride off into the sunset.

Senator McCain Could Have Won for Losing

With the economic earthquake and the Bush backlash, 2008 was destined to be a Democratic deluge.  If McCain lost the nomination to Romney in 2008, he quite likely would be the Republican nominee now.   Economic stagnation and, at best, ambivalence to Obamacare, would have made 2012 McCain's to lose.

As have often been pointed out, most recently by Sean Trende at http://realclearpolitics.com,  defeating an incumbent takes two steps.  First, the public must be convinced to vote against the sitting President, as is presently the case.  Second, the challenger must be an acceptable alternative, a combination of personality and biography.  As an ever feisty war hero, McCain would have easily cleared the second hurdle.  Although Ms. Palin would no doubt have claimed that, "she could see the economy from her house," she would not have been the VP.  Not needing a game changer, McCain would have picked someone to shore up his economic credentials.

Neither personality nor biography are Romney strong suits.  On camera he is insincere and appears smug.  Romneycare prevents him from running as a former governor, and attacks on Bain fetter his emphasis on his business experience.  Pictures of him with his dog saying, "Roof, roof'" would be over the top.  As a Mormon, he has apparently determined that emphasizing his deep personal, financial and philosophical commitment to his church, is too risky.  As a Nowhere Man, he may indeed go no where in this election.  His only advantage over McCain is that he can enumerate all of his houses.