What to make of newly unearthed quotes from 2005 John McCain, who, unlike 2008 John McCain, seems to have understood that a long term U.S. military presence in Iraq was neither desirable nor workable. Back then, McCain straight talked that, not only could we get along without a permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, but that “one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence”:

I would hope that we could bring them [the troops] all home…I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.

Watch it:

McCain expressed similar sentiments in November 2007, telling Charlie Rose that he didn’t think that the South Korea analogy was a good one, which is what he thinks now. In other words, back then, he was making some sense. Since then, however, McCain has dug in under his infamous “100 years” comments, insisting that a century-long military presence in Iraq is an appropriate goal of American foreign policy, studiously ignoring or denying the fact that that presence is one of the main drivers of violence in Iraq.

This gets to the serious questions that exist over McCain’s claim of foreign policy as his area of greatest expertise. Or, as Tim Dickinson puts it, “the only game he’s got.” How does McCain’s foreign policy “game” square with the strategic confusion revealed in his flip-flopping on an Iraq troop presence?

Although John McCain’s March 26 foreign policy speech was widely praised initially, some analysts have realized upon closer inspection that, leaving aside a few head-fakes toward responsible multilateralism, the speech is essentially a manifesto for an even more activist and belligerent American foreign policy than George W. Bush’s.

Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria wrote that “the neoconservative vision within the speech is essentially an affirmation of ideology.”

It places the United States in active opposition to all nondemocracies. It proposes a League of Democracies, which would presumably play the role that the United Nations now does, except that all nondemocracies would be cast outside the pale. The approach lacks any strategic framework…How would the League of Democracies fight terrorism while excluding countries like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt and Singapore?…Dissing dictators might make for a stirring speech, but ordinary Americans will have to live with the complications after the applause dies down.

Exactly right. No politician ever lost an American election by praising democracy and condemning oppression, but many thousands of Americans have lost their lives as a result of policies by politicians who assumed that admirable and airy sentiments were the equivalent of workable doctrine.

The real question, of course, is what policies one proposes to achieve those ends, and it’s in this area that neoconservatism has utterly and demonstrably failed in each and every particular. The last seven years of Bush have shown how destructive big and bold-sounding ideas can be in the hands of a president with no good idea of how to implement them.

In his Rose Garden press conference today, an exasperated President Bush lashed out at critics who question whether he is presenting too rosy of an assessment when he says that the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan. “The notion that somehow we can let these people just kind of have their way,” said Bush. “Let’s don’t stir them up, is naive or disingenuous.”

“So, in Afghanistan, yeah, we’re making progress,” added Bush. “Does that mean, you know that we’re — it’s over? No, it doesn’t mean it’s over.”

Bush then, using language that his own administration says is counterproductive, described how he believes “the ideological struggle” against “thugs and killers” and “jihadists” can be won:

We’re in a long struggle as I have told you many a time against these jihadists. You defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy. See, this is an idealogical struggle. These aren’t isolated, kind of law enforcement moments. We’re dealing with a group of ideaologes who use asymmetrical warfare to try to achieve their objective and one objective is to drive us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East or anywhere else we try to confront them.

Watch it:

Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that “federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as ‘jihadists.’”

According to documents obtained by the AP, even if used accurately, the Department of Homeland Security believes that the use of the word “jihad” “glamorizes terrorism”:

U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. It’s entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.”

“Regarding ‘jihad,’ even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world,” the report says.

The AP says that the report “appears to have made an impact” at the top level of the Bush administration because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “does not appear to have used the word, except when talking about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.”

Apparently, the report hasn’t “made an impact” at the highest level.

Transcript: Read more

Earlier this month, British international lawyer Philippe Sands revealed in his new book that Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington personally traveled to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, witnessed an interrogation, and sent approval back to Washington.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has requested that Addington “testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.” But the Guardian notes that in a response today, Counsel to the Vice President Kathryn Wheelberger claimed that “Congress lacks any authority to examine [Cheney or Addington's] behaviour on the job”:

Ruling out voluntary cooperation by Addington, Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger said Cheney’s conduct is “not within the [congressional] committee’s power of inquiry.” “Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by law what a vice-president communicates in the performance of the vice president’s official duties, or what a vice president recommends that a president communicate,” Wheelberger wrote.

As the Guardian notes, the “exception claimed by Cheney’s office recalls his attempt last year to evade rules for classified documents by deeming the vice-president’s office a hybrid branch of government – both executive and legislative.” “It is hard to know what aspect of the invitation [to you] has given rise to concern that the committee might seek to regulate the vice president’s recommendations to the president,” Conyers told Wheelberger.

The lawyers for former Office of Legal Counsel chief John Yoo and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, key players in the torture program, have also rejected Conyers’ invitation to testify. In a statement yesterday, Conyers provided a May 2 deadline for response or, he said, “I will have no choice but to consider the use of compulsory process.”