May 6, 2008
Column: Why McCain’s big idea is a bad idea
American presidents are meant to have big ideas about the world: a “new frontier”, an “alliance for progress”, a “war on terror”. Unfortunately for the Democratic party the big idea that most animates their two would-be presidents – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – seems to be mutually assured destruction.
That has left the field open to Senator John McCain. The Republican is currently the only presidential candidate to champion a striking new idea about America’s role in the world. The world should pay attention, since the chances of Mr McCain winning the presidency are going up by the day.
Mr McCain’s big idea is for the formation of a “league of democracies” with America at its heart. In a recent speech in Los Angeles, he outlined a plan to “harness the vast power of more than 100 democracies”. This was not just a vague notion tossed out to fill a speech. Mr McCain has been banging on about the league of democracies – in public and in private – for more than a year. In another speech at the Hoover Institution last year, Mr McCain gave some concrete examples of what such a league might do. Essentially, it seems to be a means to get around the United Nations.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
Oh, now I understand why they hired David Beckham.
The major question here is “Who is going to be the judge?”.
I agree with Mr.McCain that UN, UN Security Council and even NATO format of making decision is not enough flexible and purpose oriented. But it is especially good at preventing global (not local) conflicts. “League” would have the opposite features. Solving local and creating global.
The level of democracy is not that easy to indpendently measure. The measure is extremely dependent on the case. And you may find out that Boris Yeltsin’s elections in 1996 were “a triumph of democracy” and Mr.Mevedev’s elections in 2008 with his shocking liberal speaches “an example of true autocracy”. And in some cases that type of evaluation may even be a subject to corruption. 10 democracy points for 10 barrels of oil.
The only solution is probably to hire independent democracy auditors somewhere from Mars.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | May 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am | Report this commentMr. McCain’s policies, as described here, are mainly a continuation of the stupidities of the Bush era whereby they only wish to talk with their “friends” and bury their heads in the sand about the existence of other, competing ideas and forces.
The effective undercutting of the U.N. (as witnessed in the run up to the Iraqi fiasco) is another deplorable American instinct which McCain, with his make-believe “league” seems to be prone to.
Those policies ill-served America and the world and will be bad news if continued for another 4 years.
Surely, relics of the cold-war era like McCain and Cheney belong in the dustbin of history as do old men who like to send young men to die in their futile wars (again like McCain and Cheney).
The World deserves better. America deserves better.
All the Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am | Report this commentAfter “Bush-Cheney” the pendulum has fiercely swung in the opposite direction, as witness the FT leaders and the contributions on this blog. But the greater the momentum the faster the pendulum swings: I wonder how far into an Obama presidency will it take for sentiment to change course once again.
Recall a previous barely electable weakling, Jimmy Carter, who bares a large share of responsibility for the geopolitical disaster of the Iranian Revolution.
Posted by: RCS | May 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm | Report this commentUntil not so long ago, John McCain was a typical “realist”, concerned about the US armed forces getting bogged down in conflicts, without clear objectives or exit strategy, operations like Lebanon and Somalia. He has long been of the same chord as James Baker. As a professional Navy man, graduate of Annapolis and the son and grandson of very important admirals, that is the role that comes most naturally to him.
What has changed?
He is running for president, with a serious chance of getting elected… that’s what.
McCain is popular with independents and even with many Democrats, but he is viewed with distaste and concern, that borders on alarm, by many core Republican constituencies. He is seen as anti-defense industry, anti-Wall Street, anti-pharma and not very religious… What other powerful and influential group is left?
The neocons.
I think John McCain is shamelessly pandering to the neocon faction.
What do they want?
It is said that if one wanted to hide an enormous elephant in the middle of the street in a big city, the best way to do that would be to organize a huge parade of circus elephants and hide one’s elephant among them.
If we start with the premise (highly controversial) that one of the main interests,of the American policy makers known as “neocons” is to reinforce Israel’s position vis a vis the Palestinians, ( see “A Clean Break”) than is is easy to see that in a world at peace, Israel’s conflict with the Palestinian people stands out like a lonely elephant on a busy street.
Like some one smoothing a rumple in the covers while putting the final touches on making their bed, a world at peace, with diminishing American influence, would pressure Israel to comply with UN resolutions beginning with UN-242, or the Saudi peace plan. That would mean the end of the Zionist (both Christian and Jewish) right wing fundamentalist’s dream of “Greater Israel”, including Judea and Samaria, which would end both their millenarian dreams. This would be a great relief to a great many Israelis themselves, but never enough for the neocons.
If however there is constant tension and confrontation between the “West” (including Japan) Russia and China, than Palestine and even Iran become very small elephants indeed.
I have some (not very much) hope that McCain’s neocon part is pure, cynical pandering in order to get into the White House. And when you pander to the neocons you cannot be tepid, you have to pull out all the stops.
If I were a neocon, however, I wouldn’t trust McCain very far on this, all through his career, until he saw the presidency in his grasp, he has been a realist and an exponent of the Weinberger-Powell doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine ): once in the White House and because of his age and whether he likes it or not, he knows he would probably be a one-term President, so it’s anybody’s guess what he would do.
A slim hope indeed.
Probably nothing, not even the credit crisis and the collapse of the dollar, has exasperated America’s friends, clients and allies and provoked more of their contempt than the supine helplessness of the American political system on this question. Certainly future Chinese historians will have fun with it.
Posted by: David Seaton | May 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm | Report this commentThe word “democracies” is a euphemism for nations that will join the US as it threatens other countries that have natural resources or markets to exploit. It’s certainly cheaper for US businesses than dealing on a level playing field especially as the sort US government actions we’ve seen are financed by taxpayers.
Posted by: toosinbeymen | May 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Report this commentIt is going on 5:30 am here and I have not yet hit my cafe for a much needed latte so I will re-post what I said about this in March on your “Boycott China” entry:
““A League of Democracies” no doubt some concept cooked up in one of Bill Kristol’s many funded think tanks…(maybe Bruce Kovner’s hedge fund will suffer a severe setback in this crisis..that will be the only way to dampen the impact of the neo-cons, i.e., a loss of funding!) …in any event, here is yet another idea to divide up the world some more!…in a West -East (Secular/Christian v Muslim & Eastern religion) fashion! I note that MCCain’s conceptual approach to the world not only pits Western values against most of the Muslim world and Eastern religious traditions…but leaves much of the vital natural resources that keeps Western civilization especially our economy going on the other side of his imposed divide of his…by his own admission MCcain said he does not understand the economy …well he might just understand foreign affairs for the 21st Century far less…if that is possible.”
This seems an especially old thinking idea! …as the world is NOT divided up into camps anymore, nor should it be, and it is vastly interdependent…that is the reality…he is not thinking or really looking at the world.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentWhat is the solution to Darfur-like problems if not the League of Democracies?
Exacerbating tensions with Russia by creating the League could damage mostly US and the West itself and only economically: oil and gas supplies from Russia are at stake.
So claiming that League of Democracies is a bad idea, it is to say that the West must be egoistic and not trade oil and gas supplies presumed stability (is there a stability now?) for well-being of Darfur-like wretched peoples.
Non-proliferation is in the Russia’s own interest unless there is an absolute idiot in the Kremlin.
Nuclear war or any kind of World war is not a possibility in minds of even Chinese or Russians.
Anymore colder war than currently is not possibility either, as China and Russia are interested in the Western markets, etc.
So it is dubious that even oil and gas supplies from Russia could be damaged by the League creation.
Pacific: Burying heads in the sand is what France and Germany are doing towards some conlicts on the globe which are not of their direct economic interest. This is the reason why they do not like the idea of League of D.
Posted by: Kost Kirnas, Ukraine | May 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentMcCain’s big idea should not be dismissed out of hand. If it is plausible to speak of a two-speed Europe, then why not a two-speed world? The “league” could succeed if it gained legitimacy, and that would happen if the US would be willing to engage. However, if McCain plans it as a rubber stamp for American policy, then no amount of his geniality will save it from the dustbin. America must recognise that its relative standing has deteriorated and that if it wishes to leverage its still formidable influence in the world it must strive to build consensus. Therefore the Big Idea has merit if soundly implemented as a consensus-building tool.
The properly implemented Big Idea could also function as a beacon for the rule of law and democracy, since it would become a prestigious club which countries strive to join — just as happened with the EU and OECD (the League being the political equivalent of the latter).
Posted by: RCS | May 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Report this commentAt your suggestion, I read Samantha Power’s book, Chasing the Flame. Firstly, the book surprises in its insider’s perspective, as she was a reporter, and secondly, it offers a very real account of how the UN works and how it works with the governments that try to pull its strings. It offers the only combined account of two recent major US foreign policy fiascos (Iraq and the Balkans), as well as a clear reporting of events and policies in Lebanon; and it tells much about corners of the world that too rarely merit FT coverage or analysis (or most major media). Lastly, it serves as an indictment, particularly, of repeated incidents of Israeli mendacity.
Unfortunately, the UN’s ageing infrastructure and human failings are laid bare in Power’s book as well.
McCain’s ‘big idea’ needs to be exposed for the Neocon agenda talking point it is. Nonetheless, the UN, respect for it, and the broader context/role of international law in a changing world should be on each of the US candidate’s agendas.
As I noted here at the time, Power was a bit short of the policy role Obama had given her. Her dismissal, following her rather inane comment about Hillary, was one of the first low points of his campaign. Brzezinski is not the UN’s best friend. On Clinton’s team, Albright is rendered the meddling biddy she is in comments attributed by Power to Vieira de Mello.
What should one expect now?
Posted by: WCM | May 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm | Report this commentWhat a wonderful idea of McCain’s and his neo-con sidekick, Robert Kagan! By all means, let us have a “League of Democracies” so that, for example, the US can join with bastions of freedom such as Uzbekistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in combating the China, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe axis, and/or a Russian -led equivalent. This League would, no doubt, be even more brilliantly successful than the League of Nations.
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this commentWhat is the use of such league? I mean, U.S. already can do whatever it wants to do in this world, regardless UN’s votes. Iraq and Af are typical examples. U.S. has all its allies’ supports. But it just cound not finish the job. Let’s face it. If U.S. has such ability to command and order other countries, it can enforce its will in UN. It can always ignore China and Russia’s votes. If U.S. lost its relative wealth and power, even a league of D cannot save it.
Posted by: jin | May 6th, 2008 at 3:15 pm | Report this commentAs others have pointed out, the league will include such such “demockeries” as Uzbekistan, Israel and Azerbaijan. Moreover, like the WTO, its membership becomes a matter of political arm-twisting by the US and, in short, yet another tool of US imperialism.
If you cannot make the UN work, you are very unlikely to make this League of Nations ala Americana perform any useful function either.
Posted by: Pacifist | May 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Report this commentThe idea does have its attractions - and it’s rapidly becoming more attractive as we see the likely response from those excluded reflected in the bleatings posted here. Depending on how it was used, the League could indeed be a force for good - an inspirational club, like the OECD, for those not invited. The promotion of democracy around the world should be the goal of every democracy, and this seems to be an admirable way of raising that aspiration into something more concrete.
If this is more about soft power than hard power, and there is every reason to believe so, then surely this is something to be welcomed, not least by all those who have been banging on for the past 8 years about “lack of engagement”, the “hyperpower” and “a unipolar world”.
Posted by: AYC | May 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm | Report this commentAYC, as flattered as your words sound, what problems exactly did OECD solve? Does it sovle the food crisis? lift poverty? fight terrorism? fight climate change? or bring down oil price and solve global credit crisis?
It is a creative way for bureaucrats to waste pulbic moeny and elites to enjoy some luxury and tedious vacations for sure.
Posted by: jin | May 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentLOL jin… I can already see the likes of Mr. Rachman adding another entry to their annual events’ calendar… the League of Nations summit at somewhere nice…Cannes, Rome, Rio etc….good for the hospitality and industries.
Posted by: Pacifist | May 6th, 2008 at 5:42 pm | Report this commentObviously, RCS, the League would be little more than a rubber stamp for US imperial power ambitions, a possibility that you have rightly suggested. In this connection, read McCain advisor and neocon luminary Robert Kagan’s new book “The Return of History”. It would seem clear that Kagan is the one who dreamed up this whole idea.
This doesn’t mean that trying to uphold democracy is a bad idea. But it might be better to start by making the UN more representative of today’s realities, rather than trying to do an American imperial end run around autocratic China and Russia by creating a new, American-dominated organization.
Posted by: algasema | May 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm | Report this commentGideon–Your column mentions Burma, so let me call attention to the White House’s Big Idea on promoting democracy on the back of disaster.
Yes. Burma is governed by one of the most reprehensible regimes. I will venture that I know it better than many here, but that is not relevant, other than to state my unmitigated disregard for the junta. I also will remind readers that there is an open debate on US sanction games. Also, one cannot forget the UK’s miserable exit in 1947 when it burned most of the country’s rice paddies (including those flooded this week and televised on the BBC) in retribution for what it perceived then as collaboration with the Japanese on the part of Aung San Suu Kyi’s father. Let us not forget also that history books still note that the British have openly been accused of organising the assasination of General Aung San.
It is today President Bush’s response that needs some critical light shed on it. Firstly, he put his rarely staged wife in front of the press corps yesterday to utter criticism of the Burmese military’s immediate responses to the crisis (which are no doubt poor and at least evidence of years of negligience).
Secondly, Bush himself offered the world messages that have yet to be challenged wherein he openly seeks to leverage intelligence access to Burma as terms for aid, along with meaningless pressure to force democracy (of the AYC school variety, no doubt).
Does anyone remember Katrina in the US? Does anyone remember Laura Bush addressing the nation in those tragic hours? I wasn’t there, but I didn’t see it reported.
Thirdly, the media is eager to play along with this soft strategy. Ditto recent coverage of China. Ditto the sudden arrival of a global food crisis that coincides with pressures to deregulate food markets in favour of global food companies. Anyone remember Progress for Peace and United Fruits? (Criticism of the UN’s food and agro programmes ARE more than just.)
The result is that those who are suffering today will share my disgust at the bald hypocracy and opportunism at play. The Burmese junta win more points than they will lose. Distrust of the US and its interests grows by the hour.
Posted by: WCM | May 6th, 2008 at 10:40 pm | Report this commentLet’s see…The Economist’s list (Sept 2007) of most Democratic countries …the US ranked 17th after Sweden, Iceland,Netherlands,Norway, Denmark,Finland,Luxenbourg,Australia,Canada,Switzerland, Ireland,New Zealand,German,Austria,Malta,Spain THEN the US!!!
In any event the “MCCain League” is a silly idea that will go no where…MCain also wants to kick Russia out of the G8!…(he is too clueless to understand that the G8 will and should be expanded not reduced)….and Hillary is no better…tweedle dee to his tweedle DUMB!
http://flavor8.com/index.php/2007/09/04/us-17th-on-economists-list-of-most-democratic-countries/
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 12:23 am | Report this commentI agree with you completely, Gideon. The next administration needs to strengthen the UN, not weaken it with a spurious scheme such as the one John McCain proposes. McCain’s object, as president, would be to use American power to enable Israel to keep the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Posted by: James Canning | May 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am | Report this commentJames C” agree with you completely, Gideon. The next administration needs to strengthen the UN, not weaken it ..’
Oh It WILL BE!!!!! …when Obama is President beginning Jan 09!!1 He is speaking BOW after a big win in a big state! and Hillary has a teeny weeny win in IN,,,I am off to dinner with with friends to celebrate, that is after I send him some money on the internet!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 2:20 am | Report this commentwoops! typo! should read Obama is speaking NOW! …
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 2:22 am | Report this commentRight on, Lisa-Helene Lawson. What a wonderful, historic night for America and for the world. The Obama era has begun!
Posted by: algasema | May 7th, 2008 at 3:32 am | Report this commentAs I already mentioned the key question is who is going to be the judge. I’m not sure that democracy development bothers McCain as much as deterioration of US influence.
Remember the phylosophy of creating UN, EU. That was anything, but not hostility to the neighborhood.
So League would probably make sense if that was voluntary organization promoting democracy development with Board including neutral nations. Such as Sweden, Luxembourg, Switzerland and etc. But definitely not Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia and other “triumphal democracies” on the front.
At the moment the League is just an attempt to create a simple political and military decision making formula, that creates wealth and opportunities for the cost of other nations. That type of formulas were well described in the works of John Nash.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | May 7th, 2008 at 3:59 am | Report this commentAlgasema “Right on, Lisa-Helene Lawson. What a wonderful, historic night for America and for the world. The Obama era has begun!”
YES! YES!He may now win Indiana! What Poetic Justice! for “MS. Gas Tax Holiday/Obliterate Iran”….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | May 7th, 2008 at 5:13 am | Report this commentFor most people who know their history this is a very old and tired theme. The main argument goes like this: “We are the civilized and the properly managed. The rest of the world consists of people resisting good government and civilization”. Let us civilize them.
So we go from “The White Man’s Burden” to “Manifest Destiny” to “Making the World safe for Democracy” to Humanitarian Wars and now that the shop has bare shelves we try to get some european suckers and Japanese to help out.
Cui bono? I definitely am not bying!
Posted by: Cassandra | May 7th, 2008 at 7:21 am | Report this commentNicely put, Cassandra! The rhetoric spinning on Burma today extends this model of US leadership, and the FT front-page correspondent seems to play the story as Washington’s PR agencies scripted it.
Posted by: WCM | May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 am | Report this commentIf big Western Europian countries do not join the League of D., then it will not be created most certainly.
If they join the League, then the League will not be ‘dominated by the US’ and ‘promote US imperialism’ as these countries can oppose any ‘imperialistic’ or other dicision which does not suit them as Nato summit in Bucharest showed.
Posted by: Kost Kirnas, Ukraine | May 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am | Report this commentPacifist:
Posted by: Kost Kirnas, Ukraine | May 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am | Report this commentI am not sure about Israel, but who ever proposed Uzbekistan and Azer. as candidates to the League?
Before commenting, it would be helpful to have a link that provides a US-accepted definition of democracy.
US policy seems no longer to suffer from any delusions of support for the United Nations. Yet I watched a UN official, LMr Rachid Khalikov, display the highest level of professionalism in addressing aid responses to Burma.
New Orleans would’ve been so fortunate to qualify for such support.
The US and Israel are trying–nearly desperately–to create a new international order. In today’s world, the right buzz words take such ideas further than they merit. Despite compliant –if often passive aggressive–support from much of the “democratic” world, one should fear the day when a bit of hell breaks loose.
Posted by: WCM | May 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am | Report this commentSpeaking of the State of Israel, I’m sure none of you will join me in wishing it a happy 60th birthday and continued success as it stands in forefront of the fight against the Islamic death cults.
If it is asked to join any “League of Democracies” (something you can bet the fascist regime in Tehran won’t be) it will be well deserved.
Posted by: AYC | May 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am | Report this commentExcuse me for beng a simpleton but how does Sen. McCain’s exclusionist utopia propose to deal with the real world?
How do you tackle the environmental problems if you are reluctant to talk to China? Would pollution stop at the border of those democracies (however defined)?
How about secure energy supplies if your policy is one of confrontation and antagonisation of Russia, Saudi, Venezuela and Iran? (and presumably support for the life presidents in Central Asia and W Africa!!)
I think the article also mentioned the problems of arms control if you don’t want to play ball with the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter).
With one side of their mouth they complain that they have not managed to settle Iraq down because of Iran, with the other side of their mouth they speak of excluding not only Iran but China, Russia and a whole load of other nations too.
Do they really think that by getting their rubber stamp approvals to attack Iran from some make-believe league, they will overcome the problems they encountered in Iraq?!
Do they really think that their league will save them if they goad China into attacking Taiwan?
League or no league, will democracies like India continue to kowtow to the US or will they assert themselves as they have done recently over the arrogant US critique of their relations with Iran?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am | Report this comment>>AYC–With respect for the State of Israel, I find your sentiments rude. Israel has matured like other democracies; it has a mendacious political gang that is having its days in the sun. We pray the Washington sunblock’s effectiveness wear off soon. Then perhaps the world will remember that Israel was founded on democratic principles.
Posted by: WCM | May 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am | Report this commentWCM, “We pray the Washington sunblock’s effectiveness wear off soon. Then perhaps the world will remember that Israel was founded on democratic principles.” I take it you don’t wish it happy birthday then.
As an aside, I thought you had moved on from this site?
Posted by: AYC | May 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am | Report this commentI wish Israel and all of her people well, but not in the context of the greetings I suspect you solicit.
You are right. I had moved on, and on very pointed questions. Given the Obama revelations, I apologised to Gideon for my sharp criticism of what I suspected then to be less-than-objective undermining of Obama. I am now amongst those with serious questions about who/what Obama really represente, although Gideon and I unlikely share all reasons for our respective scepticism.
Posted by: WCM | May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentMeanwhile this is how the Americans are “spreading democracy:-
http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html
Quote
Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials
Unquote
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm | Report this commentPacifist:
environmental problems.
Is China on the same planet as we are or not?
Are they willing to kill themselves before we wish it be done?
energy supplies & arms control in relation to Russia and China were mentioned in my previous comments
Posted by: Kost Kirnas, Ukraine | May 7th, 2008 at 1:19 pm | Report this commentDear Kost,
The Chinese are anything but stupid but they (and other Third Worlders trying to pull themselves up) ask, with a lot of justification, why they should remain in poverty whilst Americans consume a quarter of the world’s energy and whilst the Westerners have polluted the planet most heavily since the Industrial Revolution.
Who would compensate the Chinese or Indians for not “going for growth”? This kind of issue needs planet-wide negotiations and compromises. The kind of atmosphere that McCain advocated is not conducive to such talks and relations.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Report this commentI think Chinese would not mind any intervention to Sudan, Iran or the like (this is the worst the League can do according to its opponents) UNTIL (and to the extent) these events DIRECTLY influence the Chinese economically or else.
They seem to be much more economically motivated than the West.
Thus negotiations on environmental issues with China will not be influenced by the trade sanctions against Iran by the L. of D.
The Chinese are much more likely to demand some economical privileges from the West independently of what League of D. would do to some distand autocracies.
Posted by: Kost Kirnas, Ukraine | May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm | Report this commentKost,
You ignore what the article said the intentions of McCain are against Russia and China and how part of the motive for setting up the league was to dodge the ability of those two to veto in the UN.
The Chinese and Russians will not be happy to be sidelined in those ways.
On your broader point, you are right. China does not care a fig about who runs Tehran and Khartoum. They only care about their own energy and raw material needs.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | May 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentWill the UK be part of this “League of Democracies?” For Pete’s sake, it’s not even a republic yet, much less a democracy; they’ve still got a queen. Something tells me McCain will bend the rules to let the United Not Even a Republic in.
Another “democracy” that McCain will embrace is the Saudi family dictatorship (Saudi Arabia). Then there’s the Kingdom of Jordan, and Morocco, and all our other monarchical allies.
Indeed, “the League of Those Most Eager to Piss Off Russia and China” would make a better name for McCain’s concept. He’s hated them for decades.
Posted by: Tikhon Gilson | May 7th, 2008 at 11:45 pm | Report this comment