A Second Hand Conjecture

Why the Distinction?

Joshua Foust on Mar 19 2008 at 3:51 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs

11 Responses to “Why the Distinction?”

1. on 19 Mar 2008 at 7:32 am 1Keith_Indy

   Unless he wasn’t really all that confused about the facts, and only in how he was going to present them…

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/mccain_was_right_iran_works_wi.asp

2. on 19 Mar 2008 at 3:42 pm 2Synova

   That’s my feeling as well.

3. on 19 Mar 2008 at 4:01 pm 3Joshua Foust

   For some reason, I couldn’t post from work. But something struck me about the WS post:

   If it is right, which, given that blog’s relationship to the truth isn’t a given, then McCain is still wrong for having recanted what he should known was not really wrong to say in the first place.

   In other words, he’s confused (and the evidence of Iran’s involvement with al-Qaeda is far more tenuous than Jocelyn gives it credit for, though that is its own morass of suppositions vs. provable links). And isn’t knowing half the battle? If McCain is such a foreign policy super-genius, then he should have known enough either to stick to his guns, as he did on the Hugh Hewitt Show, or by not recanting the recanting, as did in a press release today (”Al Qaeda and Shia extremists — with support from external powers such as Iran — are on the run but not defeated.”)

   So… he still comes off as pretty danged confused.

4. on 19 Mar 2008 at 9:03 pm 4MichaelW

   foreign policy genius

   I’m not understanding the link to my post. Where did I, or anyone other than you, claim McCain had some sort of foreign policy genius? Kamm noted that he was right about the surge, as did Dodds, and I simply quoted their takes on that. The point of my post was that regardless of how right McCain may have been on Iraq, much of the left is likely to still unlikely to accept him as their candidate come the Fall. So, again, I don’t understand your link.

   As for the connection between different terrorist groups, I find it hilarious that the same people who are satisfied to lay any perceived misdeed at of Kellogg Brown & Root at the feet of Cheney (because he used to work for Halliburton) scoff at the idea that al Qaeda in Iraq, EIJ, Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda might have some interrelations. And the Iranian involvement with both Sunni and Shi’ite extremists is nothing new as far as I know. Heck, the Middle East is full of strange bedfellows.

   McCain probably misspoke (indeed, it seems like he must have given the contradictory statements), as Josh points out, and he’ll definitely pay for that as the election season rolls along. But, I’m guessing it won’t be much more than a nick. Between the three remaining candidates, there really isn’t any doubt as to who has the most foreign policy experience. As the saying goes “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.”

5. on 19 Mar 2008 at 9:36 pm 5Synova

   Same thing?

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/captured_documents_show_iran_w.asp

6. on 20 Mar 2008 at 5:14 am 6Joshua Foust

   Michael -

   That’s fair, I only linked to your post because it happened to be the most convenient one stipulating the common meme on the right about McCain: that he has the most experience, he’s the most qualified, etc.

   However I dispute the assumption that “experience,” i.e. a lot of time in the Senate, has anything to say about how good one will be at foreign policy. If real foreign policy experience mattered, the two Democrats fighting it out over the nomination would be Joe Biden and Bill Richardson (both of whom have either equivalent or greater experience in foreign policy making); similarly, some of the Presidents we’ve considered to be actual foreign policy geniuses — from FDR to Ronald Regan — had little to no “experience” upon entering the White House. Experience means little in terms of one’s foreign policy acumen, or as one’s performance as President.

   Synova, that NY Sun article, which has formed the majority of the talking/bullet points the Weekly Standard is using to “prove” McCain was wrong to admit he was wrong, wholly relies on anonymous souces and second-hand quotes to make its point. I’ve seen snippets of the translations, and they amount to “we like that they attack Americans.” The Sun article asserts there is evidence Quds was assisting Sunni militants, but can only mention specific ties to Shiite groups… and mentions as well that Talabani actually requested Iranian help in quelling Shiite death squad activity (which would imply using Sunni death squads as a countervailing force). And the end of that article is key:

   A former Iran analyst for the Pentagon who also worked as an adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, Michael Rubin, said yesterday: “There has been lots of information suggesting that Iran has not limited its outreach just to the Shiites, but this has been disputed.”

   He added, “When documents like this are found, usually intelligence officials may confirm their authenticity but argue they prove nothing because they do not reflect a decision to operationalize things.”

   A former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran who left government service in 2005, Wayne White, said he did not think it was likely the Quds Force was supporting Sunni terrorists who were targeting Shiite political leaders and civilians, but stressed he did not know.

   “I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq,” he said. “That’s about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq, but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop.”

   In other words, the only people willing to go on the record about those ties were unwilling to say they actually exist. And haven’t we learned from other newspapers the dangers of relying on anonymous officials feeding stories to the media?

   Actually sourced reports, with officials willing to be quoted, seem to tie Iran only to Shiite militias. Another New York Times report also ties Iran only to Shiite militias, and even then notes the disputes within the intelligence community over how deep those ties actually are.

   In other words, the Weekly Standard is elevating a single report based on anonymous sources above many other sourced reports indicating the opposite… hardly the basis for “proving” McCain was “right” to accuse Iran of supporting Al-Qaeda.

   So no, Synova, it’s not the “same thing.”

7. on 20 Mar 2008 at 7:32 am 7MichaelW

   However I dispute the assumption that “experience,” i.e. a lot of time in the Senate, has anything to say about how good one will be at foreign policy. If real foreign policy experience mattered, the two Democrats fighting it out over the nomination would be Joe Biden and Bill Richardson (both of whom have either equivalent or greater experience in foreign policy making); similarly, some of the Presidents we’ve considered to be actual foreign policy geniuses — from FDR to Ronald Regan — had little to no “experience” upon entering the White House. Experience means little in terms of one’s foreign policy acumen, or as one’s performance as President.

   Agreed. As far as I know, McCain isn’t especially qualified at negotiating with foreign countries, and certainly not as experienced as Joe Biden (I’m not sure how Bill Richardson qualifies at all) or some others.

8. on 20 Mar 2008 at 8:44 am 8Joshua Foust

   Richardson? Congressman for 14 years on the Foreign Relations committee. UN Ambassador. SecEnergy. Even as a two-term governor, he’s been involved in foreign affairs, and negotiated a 60-day cease fire in Darfur (which fell apart for a variety of reasons, namely neither side’s actual interest in a cease-fire).

   You can argue with how good he is at foreign relations — I certainly would argue his performance was not stellar — but you can’t deny he has a tremendous amount of experience. Which again, as we agree, says little to nothing about how good he would have been as president.

9. on 20 Mar 2008 at 2:06 pm 9Synova

   I meant, “was that a link to the exact same information as the other link.”

10. on 20 Mar 2008 at 4:03 pm 10Joshua Foust

    Woops! Yes, they both work off that one NY Sun article.

11. on 20 Mar 2008 at 10:00 pm 11Synova

    Using full sentences helps to avoid misunderstanding. My bad. :-)

Leave a Reply