Media report that McCain now insists on respect for U.S. allies -- but ignore 2003 smears of Germany and "aging movie actress" France
SUMMARY: Several media outlets reported Sen. John McCain's assertion, in his March 26 foreign policy speech, that "[w]e need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," without nothing that, during the run-up to the Iraq war, McCain made statements that suggested the opposite of "respect" for the views of U.S. allies. For example, in February 2003, McCain likened France, which opposed the invasion, to an "aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it."
In reports on Sen. John McCain's March 26 foreign policy speech, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and NBC's Nightly News reported all or part of McCain's assertion: "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them." But the reports did not note any of the statements McCain made during the run-up to the Iraq war about France, Germany, and Belgium, which suggested that McCain did not "respect" their "collective will" and was not "willing to be persuaded by them." Indeed, as the blog Think Progress noted, in a February 16, 2003, appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, McCain asserted that the French "remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it," adding, "[T]he cynical role that France is playing proves that if -- if you are not -- you cannot be a great nation unless you have great purpose."
Similarly, in a February 10, 2003, interview on CNN's Inside Politics, McCain asserted that then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the invasion was a case of him "us[ing] an anti-American card to get reelected." McCain continued:
McCAIN: And what I say is both the French and Germans and Belgians have vetoed, for the first time in history of the alliance, a planning for the emplacement of defensive weaponry in Turkey. I mean, that is unheard of. It's so far over the line that we've never seen anything like it. They've made clear their intentions to use whatever means to block our military action in Iraq no matter what we do. So they have to be, I think, treated for what it is, a -- an election ploy on the part of the German leader. And in the case of French, simply kind of classic French misbehavior.
Also, in a February 13, 2003, speech, McCain asserted that "Gerhard Schroeder's Germany looks little like the ally that anchored our presence in Europe throughout the Cold War. A German Rip Van Winkle from the 1960s would not understand the lack of political courage and cooperation with its allies on the question of Iraq exhibited in Berlin today." In that speech, McCain also said of former French President Jacques Chirac: "President Chirac, who once approved the sale to Iraq of a nuclear reactor knowing that in a country floating on a sea of oil it could have only one real purpose, today says he sees no irrefutable proof of Iraq's WMD program." In a February 8, 2003, speech, McCain said:
McCAIN: The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self-interest -- a very flawed calculation, I fear -- to a routine American request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For nearly three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is.
[...]
Foreign Minister [Joschka] Fischer recently warned against "primitive anti-Americanism." I thank and commend him for his statement. But I am concerned, we should all be concerned, not only with the "primitive" anti-Americanism of the street that resents America's successes, exults in our misfortunes, and ascribes to us motives that one must be a fool or delusional to believe. We should also be concerned with the "sophisticated" anti-Americanism, or perhaps more aptly, the "cynical" anti-Americanism of political leaders who exploit for their own ends the disinformed, "primitive" hostility to America voiced in some quarters of their societies; to further their ambitions to govern or to inflate perceptions of their international influence.
Just as some Arab governments fuel anti-American sentiment among their people to divert them from problems at home, so a distinct minority of Western European leaders appears to engage in America-bashing to rally their people and other European elites to the call of European unity.
Moreover, in a February 13, 2003, article, The New York Times reported that McCain said: "The Lord said the poor will always be with us, and the French will be with us too. ... This is part of a continuing French practice of throwing sand in the gears of the Atlantic alliance."
In addition, in a March 27 article on McCain's speech, The New York Times reported: "[A]nother [McCain] adviser, Richard S. Williamson, an assistant secretary of state under Mr. Bush's father and a former representative to several United Nations bodies, said Mr. McCain recognized that in relations with allies, there was a 'need to exchange views, not just bludgeon people with our own views.' " But the Times did not note McCain's previous comments about France and Germany.
From the Post's March 27 article:
In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a "global compact -- a League of Democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade.
"We need to listen -- we need to listen -- to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."
Bush's foreign policy approach has moderated significantly in his second term, with greater outreach to European allies and a willingness to strike deals with countries such as North Korea. In essence, McCain suggested he would embrace Bush's policies on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan while extending his willingness to meet allies halfway.
From the Los Angeles Times' March 27 article:
Recalling his military experience -- and that of his father and grandfather, who were admirals -- McCain declared: "I detest war. ... It is wretched beyond all description." When Americans believe military or diplomatic action is needed, he said, "we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we in return must be willing to be persuaded by them."
He said the struggle against terrorism was not primarily about military force, but instead about winning over moderate Muslims through development aid, diplomacy and trade.
From the AP's March 26 article:
Republican John McCain on Wednesday called anew for the United States to work more collegially with democratic allies and live up to its duties as a world leader, drawing a sharp contrast to the past eight years under President Bush.
"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the likely presidential nominee said in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain added.
Coming days after his trip to the Middle East and Europe, McCain's speech was intended to signal to leaders abroad -- and voters at home -- that he would end an era of what critics have called Bush's cowboy diplomacy. McCain never mentioned Bush's name, though he evoked former Democratic Presidents Truman and Kennedy.
From the March 26 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): Now to the McCain campaign. While the Democrats engage in this back-and-forth hand-to-hand combat, John McCain can aim for the general election audience, explaining who he is and who he's not. That's what he tried to do today. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell traveling with him in Los Angeles tonight.
Kelly, good evening.
O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. Part of John McCain 's goal today was to take on two big perceptions about him: his views on the war and his ties to President Bush. He continues to support both, but much of what he said was really aimed at voters beyond the Republican Party base.
[begin video clip]
O'DONNELL: There was something different about John McCain today in Los Angeles. Known for his continued support of the Iraq war, McCain revealed a part of himself seldom seen in public.
McCAIN: I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are.
O'DONNELL: More emotional words intended for those who want a swift end to the war, and also those with loved ones in uniform. McCain recalled the long absence of his father after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
McCAIN: My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed as commander of a United States submarine. I rarely saw him again for four years.
O'DONNELL: And described the sudden loss when his grandfather returned from World War II.
McCAIN: Came home from the war exhausted, from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day.
O'DONNELL: Acknowledging the costs, McCain then argued for the current U.S. strategy, and against what he called a premature withdrawal from Iraq.
McCAIN: We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq.
O'DONNELL: Beyond the war to America's role in the world, McCain claimed he could improve the nation's standing. While McCain did not criticize President Bush by name, clearly he set out to distance himself in key areas, rebuffing what critics have described as "cowboy" diplomacy.
McCAIN: Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want.
O'DONNELL: Trying to appear more aggressive than Mr. Bush on climate change.
McCAIN: The risks of global warming have no borders.
O'DONNELL: And more measured on the treatment of detainees.
McCAIN: We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured.
O'DONNELL: Though McCain has voted to permit the CIA to use some harsh techniques.
McCAIN: We need to listen. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.
[end video clip]
O'DONNELL: As for those allies, McCain says that Russia no longer deserves to be considered a big industrial democracy. And he encouraged Western nations to really be wary because of the changes in Russia to view that as a potential threat. All part of what could be McCain doctrine -- Brian.
WILLIAMS: Kelly O'Donnell in Los Angeles.
From the February 16, 2003, edition of CBS' Face the Nation (transcript from Nexis):
DANA PRIEST (Washington Post staff writer): What do you think it will -- will mean for a post-Iraq reconstruction if we've so alienated the French and the Germans, who, after all, make up three-quarters of the peacekeeping forces in the Balkans? Are they going to be willing to help the United States in the long reconstruction in Iraq, do you think?
McCAIN: I'm sure they will because it's in their interests to do so. The French have a long commercial connection with the Iraqis, and let -- let me just say a word about the French. They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it. The cynical role -- the cynical role that France is playing proves that if -- if you are not -- you cannot be a great nation unless you have great purpose. And they've lost their purpose. And it's very unfortunate, and perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council, following -- when the United Nations was organized.
PRIEST: So you don't think that people who disagree with the administration can have legitimate differences of opinion over, for instance, the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein? There seems to be a lot of people who have questions about that. Are you totally convinced with the administration's position?
McCAIN: I'm totally convinced of one thing: Given Saddam Hussein's record of using weapons of mass destruction, of slaughtering his own people, that there's not a doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein would give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist organization, because they have common cause in trying to destroy the United States of America. So there's no doubt in -- in my mind as to what he would do. I don't know the connection that exists right now between the two, but I know they have common cause.















Coming to the White House soon..... Bush II
Starring- John McCain.
I am not a fan of France, Germany, or Russia. For whatever reason, they were right not to invade; we, of course, were wrong.
Let me translate:
.gnorw erew ,esruoc fo ,ew ;edavni ot ton thgir erew yeth ,nosaer revetahw roF .aissuR ro ,ynamreG ,ecnarF fo naf a ton ma I
Obviously the only way MMFA could make its case here is to use the word "smear" in describing McCain's criticism of Germany and France, which is ridiculous. Why not just use "criticisms" instead of "smears"?
Must you editorialize through hyperbole to make your point here, isn't what you've laid out quite enough?
Curiously, apparently not.
I'm just some clown with a keyboard. McCain is running to be the leader of the free world.
Why does he get a pass for making derogatory remarks about age but I get criticized?
I never said he should be given a pass, I said it was not a smear, the word MMFA chose. He criticized Germany and France, but he did not smear either one.
so France really is an aging movie actress?
*Meryl, France just auditioned for your part, and you're out of the movie.*
I will agree: it is not a smear. But saying something like that doesn't build many bridges.
A follow-up question for McCain:
"Knowing what we know today [more the facts we disregarded then], do you concede that the French, Germans and the UN were right not to invade Iraq?"
forgot the word "like" in the bracketed part.
Speaking of Brackets...
Go Michigan State!
But it is a smear.
The difference between criticism and a smear is the lack of respect.
Comparing France, a country that has a right to hold its own opinions about invading Iraq, to a has-been movie star who doesn't have the right stuff anymore and shouldn't try to get away with perks and privileges reserved for real celebrities is showing a lack of respect. France had sufficient standing to disagree with us, and it turns out that they were right and Bush was wrong!
When you hear "aging movie actress", what comes to mind?
For me, it's Norma Desmond. A person once popular and respected but is now sad, pitiful, marginally delusional, and stuck in the past.
And that, my friend, IS a "smear".
...but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation...
Using YOUR DEFINITION, Tommy, what was leveled against Germany and France for not blindly followin Bush into an illegal invasion of another soverign nation was indeed a smear campaign.
"It is not a smear, perhaps it's a silly descriptor, but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation"
Why in the world
"It is not a smear, perhaps it's a silly descriptor, but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation"
Why in the WORLD do otherwise intelligent people insist on giving THEIR "definition" of a word and expect the rest of us to accept it without question? There is such a thing as a dictionary, you know...and the dictionary SUPPORTS MMFA's usage of the word "smear":
"to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.). "
So comparing France to an aging movie actress sullies their good name?
Gosh, I had no clue the damage that did, or how fragile their "good name" is, apparently.
Just because the smear was laughably ineffectual doesn't mean that it was not a smear. The intent was to sully the name and reputation.
I routinely wonder if you are aware of the gigantic logical holes in your arguments and you just go around in circles for fun, or if you really believe that you have a logical point. Just curious. I ask mainly because you regularly post comments here and it is about 50-50 whether they make perfect sense or if they are all the way in left field. There is rarely anything in between. Maybe there are 2 Tommies.
I ask mainly because you regularly post comments here and it is about 50-50 whether they make perfect sense or if they are all the way in left field. - jawill11
A minor point, but more likely "right field" =>
In conservative circles if you can present a coherent, consistent argument around half the time you get a radio or television show along with a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract.
And if you're totally incoherent, they nominate you for president. :-)
No it wasnt, it was stupid. McCains comment is rightly described as a smear. Dem doesnt even TRY to make sense just slam the left. Ignorant doesnt become good because you agree with the sentiment.
By George, I think he's got it! Democrats have been critical of Bush's invasion of Iraq, for example, and have been smeared as unpatriotic for that reasonable criticism.
I don't know Tommy, criticisms would seem to me to be more along the lines of "I don't agree with France or Germany and here is why...", which is kinda what I would expect from a person who is saying "we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."
Calling one ally "an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it" seems to fall under the definition of "smear" to me.
Barring that disagreement, this is further information detailing the kind of President Sen. McCain would make...and further it details the fact that many major media outlets reported on the Senators speech without providing citizens with any context.
Why not just use "criticisms" instead of "smears"?
It's a common practice in journalism to use the shortest words possible in headlines, Tommy. I believe this is why MMFA chose the word it did.
Besides - if you recall, all the criticisms leveled against France and Germany back around the beginning of Bush's illegal war in 2003 was part of an all-out effort to smear these two long-time allies. Or have you conveniently forgotten about "Freedom Fries"????
Oh, so smears was used instead of criticisms because it has 4 fewer letters?
I should have known, sorry.
Oh, so smears was used instead of criticisms because it has 4 fewer letters?
I should have known, sorry.
There are a lot of things in this world you should have known, Tommy....
With the elections of Merkel and Sarkozy, Germany and France are finally worthy of respect.
Wrong-o. It it the US of A that is unworthy of respect, and shall remain that way until George W. Bush is driven into shame-filled retirement.
Her Gent's Art? The rest rang? The stern rag? Get rent rash? Ear strength?
Trash regent?
The difference between criticism and smear is respect.
The very thing McCain is demanding.
Criticism does not mean there's a lack of respect. Smears mean there's a lack of respect.
Man,Snoop, that Krauthammer is not the guy you want in the room when you're going over the top secret plan. Whatta blabbermouth.
And I take offense at McCain's description of France as an "aging" movie actress. If I wanted hateful ageism, I'd read Worrierking's bigoted posts.
Lynn
Ohhhhhh Nooooooo I'm not thinking about Hillary, I'm in my happy place. Thinking about Hillary makes me leave my happy place.
"Why not just use "criticisms" instead of "smears"?"
I believe smears is a better choice of words here, as criticism implies a thoughtful analysis. In reading McCain's remarks, I got more a sense of smear ( to make untrue and harmful statements about) than criticism (an essay evaluating or analyzing something).
Too little, too late, John.
A few words here and there are not going to erase seven years of you, Bush, and all your fellow Republicans and enablers giving the world the finger.
If you really want it that bad, you're going to spend all four years working to get the global credibility of America back, and I think even that's not going to be enough time.
I actually think it was France and Germany giving US the finger - we were just showing them the mirror. Mr. Sarcozy has rightfully extended the olive branch which is being received.
Please do not mistake me for a supporter of McCain - but this flip-flop is a logical one.
So criticizing their decision to stay uninvolved is a "smear"?
No, Tommy, likening one of the nations that helped us gain our independence to an aging actress trying to get by on her looks is not a criticism. A criticism involves some sort of reasoned argument. Sen. McCain is trying to compare France to Norma Desmond. If this is a criticism, which should supply the critized with some guidance for improvement, what should France do? Go get some plastic surgery?
Criticizng their decision and supporting that with a reasoned agrument is fine...that is not what Sen. McCain did. He didn't provide anything other than "commercial connections" in the whole discussion with Face the Nation...then he took off into a tirade against France. He never came back to tell us why France should follow the US into the war in Iraq. If that is an indicator of his diplomatic style, OKTHXBAI.
I agree, Tommy, we liberated France in WWII. So? Does that somehow change the remainder of my argument?
Oh well, at least you didn't "smear" him.
Yup...now please explain to me how comparing France to Norma Desmond is criticism? Please help me understand how Sen. McCain's analysis on Face the Nation did anything to advance the dialog or understanding between nations? You were concerned about the word smear, you wanted to substitute criticism...I think we both accept that the context provided by MMfA helps us better understand this candidate. So what's up? When do we get back to the semantics of smear v. criticism? Or should we move on to France's involvement in the Far East and our subsequent involvement in Viet Nam? :)
"So what's up? When do we get back to the semantics of smear v. criticism?"
Do you really want to go there? Just a heads up: this is the guy who thinks "creating" and "inventing" mean the same thing!
This was quite a minor piece of his rhetorical puzzle, yet for some reason, it was far more important to you than the criticism of your argument.
I wonder why that is?
OK how about 2002? When they saved American missionaries and their children in the Ivory Coast??
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020926/ai_n12648698
ABOUT 300 US special forces soldiers landed in Ivory Coast yesterday as French troops rescued 100 American children who had been cut off at an isolated mission school by a military uprising.
Yesterday about 100 French soldiers broke through to Bouake's outskirts to reach the American-led academy. Two hundred foreigners, including about 100 Americans, had been trapped at the white-washed mission compound.
Oy.
Here is another smear campaign against those who don't bother to check who is paying for their trips or where the money is coming from:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/jim_mcdermott_we_dont_mind_bei.asp
What a joke.
"(Which we now know was a big fat lie)"
True for most...but I knew it was a lie from the getgo. I wanted to personally shake every Congressperson who voted yes on that stupid "authorization to use force" bill because I KNEW Bush would abuse it.
Ha ha! Those guys sure took Saddam for a ride. Took a vacation on his dime, and the guy ended up killed anyway. Chump.
I wonder how a simpleton like Saddam Hussein was able to sucker Bush into spending a few hundred billion of his own money, not to mention thousands of lives, to go over there?
This is pretty ballsy, even for the Flying Monkeys. Can't wait to see how hysterical the Troglodytes become over this one.
I caught this on Hugh Hewitt's show driving home from work yesterday.After listening to Hewitt hyperventilate on this for quite a while, calling the congressmen dupes and useful idiots, a caller suggested execution for treason. Hewitt, seeming to realize that his audience is as stoopid as he is, had to talk the guy down to resignations and apologies.
You know what the cool part was about that piece, PC? They self-referenced and old report on the very same subject and referenced it in their story. If the media outlets highlighted in this MMfA thread had done some background work, they may have been able to provide us with the context.
But I didn't see any smears...looked like criticism to me. The author explained what was done, why it was a bad idea, provided some guidance to preventing the mistake in the future, and then offered a nice little closing using the subject's own words. Nicely done. :) Criticism.
Subject-wise, OT. Concept-wise, these three Reps should have known better.
I fail to see what the big deal is. Saddam flew them over there to make his case about the WMDs, since the Numbnuts Administration wouldn't listen to reason. Like it or not, Saddam was not guilty on the WMD charge.
This smells like one more manufactured scandal.
proudconservative wrat:
>> Here is another smear campaign against those who don't bother to check who is paying for their trips or where the money is coming from:
The funny thing about the author who accuses Democratic congressmen and Scott Ritter? It is the inestimable Steven Hayes, who insisted that there were WMDs in Iraq, who ridiculed those who didn't agree with him. He also argued for a connection between Saddam and Al Quaida. But the funny thing is that the book in which he makes this argument is now selling for 1 cent. Yes, as in $.01.
link
Apart from that, I would doubt anything Steven Hayes says.
Also, see:
link
Thanks, FMP! Ain't context grand? :)
I guess I'll have to stand by my previous "kudos" to the author, he did make a nice '"criticism"! :)
somethingfunnyinmypants,
Nice try with the Amazon thing....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Stephen%20F.%20Hayes
the same could selling price could be listed for any author....
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-8254224-0698250?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=al+franken&x=15&y=19
Remember that most of the western world believed that Hussein had or was working to obtain WMD. It is a nice trite saying that Bush lied, people died, but there was no reason for him to claim something that was going to prove him a liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/
Sorry, PC, but Snoopy is right...it makes more sense from any position to do EVERYTHING possible to avoid war prior to engaging in war. Even Sen. McCain said something to that effect yesterday.
Pres. Bush failed to let the inspectors complete their work, he failed to listen to any voices of dissension, he failed to listen to his own advisors in some cases.
And yeah, the Amazon thing is funny and all, but come on...OT and the argument that these Reps might have known they were being paid for by anyone other than the charity is debunked by the Department of Justice. See the Scarborough thread on MMfA. :)
proudconservative wrat:
>>Nice try with the Amazon thing..
I don't know what your links are supposed to be showing. I didn't find any books from Al Franken that are selling for 1 penny! Further, Hayes was making the claim that there was a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq long after it was proven there was not one.
Regarding Bush's lies, it is well-documented how many lies the Bush administration made:
link
Last, most of the Western world did not believe that Hussein was a threat. The UN inspectors, who were in Iraq more recently than any other inspectors, did not believe Saddam had WMDs. In fact, El Beraidi, in charge of finding any evidence of a nuclear program, flatly stated there was no evidence of such a program. In contrast, Bush ignored or denigrated the UN. Who turned out to be right?
There is no question Bush lied. I have proven it over and over on this site. France was one telling us there were no weapons programs in Iraq and Germany was telling us to listen to France
http://www.sundayherald.com/34271
It's not a smear to compare a country to a washed up movie actress because we elected a washed up movie actor as our president...TWICE!
I shoulda taken French...I have no CLUE what that WK thing meant, I think I can fillet a duck, though.
Gotta go fire up a babelfish. :)
OK, got it. I love Wiki! :)
Two more, WK and you can be the Four Horseman! One more and you can be the Three Amigos! :)
Welcome to "The Disparaging the Elderly Time Out Corner.
I got in trouble yesterday for calling Gramps McCain, Gramps.
At least I didn't call him a washed up movie actress.
I'm a grandfather myself!