Well, he didn’t quite come out and say it, but it’s implied:
…McCain is one of the few in Congress not to indulge in pork, we again are cautiously optimistic with his pledge to stop earmarks by promising to veto every pork-laden spending bill “and make their authors famous.”
Either McCain just made a mistake, or he doesn’t know that foreign aid to Israel is attached as an earmark (which would call into credibility his knowledge of one of our most notable funding packages year over year.)
And now, back to your regularly scheduled primary programming…
Liberal Masochist
For real? I fear for Wilfred’s sanity!
Dug Jay
This is a really silly issue of the sort that only a fool dolt like Yglesias would even bring up. Such funding, as well as other parts of foreign aid, have been handled in this manner in recent budget cycles, but could readily and without controversy, be handled in the budgetary process used in past cycles.
calipygian
So Dug Jay, you are for giving billions of dollars to a rogue nuclear state, who refuses to sign the NPT AND works to steal our nuclear secrets.
If it were Iran, we’d begin bombing in five minutes.
Incertus
McCain said something without understanding the full implications of it? How does that make him any different from any other Republican?
Liberal Masochist
Wilfred – Come out, come out, wherever you are!
Since we have an Israel thread going here, I will just post this here instead of at the bottom of the earlier thread:
Ye. Gods. Let me be clear. Obviously, a different President will engage with Israel differently. Look at the difference between how Clinton and Bush attempted to handle the Mideast peace process. McCain may end up being even less engaged than Bush as compared to Clinton, but Israel will remain an ally and I doubt very much that foreign aid, weapons sales and the like will cease under him (ditto Obama and Clinton).
Here is your argument: You are saying the main reason we have been engaged FOR DECADES in the Middle East is because of our support for Israel and that the primary reason we invaded, tragically lost 4000 soldiers and continue to stay in is because of too much fealty to Israel and their lobby. Your emphasis on Israel is totally out of whack with reality.
The main reason for our decades long engagement has been oil. There are side reasons (checking the Soviets, the post-Shah Iranians and supporting Israel are reasons too, but less important). The British and French played the Great Game too. They did not do it for Israel. They did it to get oil concessions. The coups, the propping up of corrupt regimes etc. were mainly about oil. Supporting Israel has been a way to further these economic objectives.
We are arguing about degrees here. I would submit that most rational people would agree with my reading of history, not yours. Given how quick you let the expletives fly in the “Hillary nukes Iran” thread and the vehemence with which you make your weak sauce case, it sounds to me like you have some serious issues with the state of Israel (disclaimer: I am NOT implying everything the Israelis do is above board – it clearly is not, so don’t go there).
Think of it this way: leave the oil in the mideast and make Central Africa the cradle of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic religions and give the middle east relatively stable religious societies for the past hundred years. Do you really think that we would have been as engaged in Central Africa, a place with little recoverable oil reserves, for the past hundred years as we have been in the MIddle East? Obviously, not. Would we have been as strongly engaged in a religiously peaceful ME over that same time? I would say yes.
Liberal Masochist
At the risk of posting too much. One addendum to my anti-Wilfred screed since he said I dodged this question: If a Dem wins the election and we get the promised quick withdrawal (let’s say 6-9 months with most troops home), it will not be because the new President has a different less favorable view of Israel. It will be because campaign promises were made to end the war and the cost of blood and treasure has been far more than enough. Bush does not care about this, that’s why we are not out. I hope whoever wins does care and does the right thing and ends it.
Keith
ThinkProgress has been on this for a while now. He went back on the Israel part, but then TP brought up the point that there is also an earmark for military housing funding. It’s one of those issues you really can’t soundbite without getting smacked with another exception over and over again.
Chris O.
Dug, the point is that he claims he can save all this money by eliminating earmarks, but it turns out there is lots of that money that McCain doesn’t want to go anywhere. Yeah, you could give the money another way, but then there would be no savings, which was McCain’s whole point.
Logic. It’s what’s for dinner.
MJ
Just because the aid was part an earmark in the past it doesn’t mean it has to be that way in the future.
If you can’t figure out the differences between the two countries then you are hopeless.
Soylent Green
Are you waiting for Wilfred to concede that the Jews and their lackeys might not actually control everything this country does? Good luck.
calipygian
Right. Our “friends” (who, BTW, have killed more American servicemen than Iran ever has) shouldn’t be stealing our nuclear secrets or bombing our ships unprovoked in international waters.
MJ
calipygian you are hopeless.
Liberal Masochist
SG – I guess not. I never realized that was his deal. I seem to recall him being somewhat sensible on most things. Maybe I had him confused with another person. The unhinged anti-Israel rants were out of proportion to what was being said.
Soylent Green
That’s what I thought at first, and tried to engage him, and foolishly let him push my buttons. Read yesterday’s thread, “The Uproar Over Carter,” to see Wilfred drop the gloves, especially toward the end. It’s a classic display of spittle-flecked insanity.
Martin
McCain knows that it’s an earmark. That’s his thing. If he knows anything he knows that.
Either he’s gonna drop it or he’s gonna make it formal and permanent. Either way a lot of people will stand up and take notice. It needs to be addressed.
Has anyone considered that it’s been an earmark and not part of the formal budget for specific and good reasons?
And I actually like the general direction McCain is heading on this. Unfortunately, he’s justifying it in a manner that will make him have to explain all kinds of shit and give the Dems a TON of attack points. Had he presented it not as a cut spending deal (which is a loser because you get killed over it) but due to putting spending under proper Congressional and Executive control, then it’s still a tough sell, but you can sell it much more concisely.
What’s stupid is he’s selling out the tool that his congressmen use to get reelected and get hookers and stuff with. His ground game is gonna suck in November as it is and here he’s screwing over one of the groups that could help him address that since they are all up for re-election as well. They’re natural partners, but not now.
If he’s lying out his ass (maybe) it won’t be hard to flush that bird out into the open either.
TenguPhule
At this point in time, America has no standing to bitch about anything any other country does to them. We’ve done worse.
Wilfred
We’re enemies; that’s fine with me. Our battlefield is the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans who have been exposed to only one side of the story for the past 40 years. I think people should get as much information as possible, think for themselves and make a decision.
That’s not what you want.
If we had not shown such blind support for Israel, the Arabs would have given us their oil. Did that occur to you while you were concocting this imbecilic dodge? The only thing that ordinary Arab Muslims have asked from the United States is fair treatment vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the Israelis. It has never happened, because of Exxon, no doubt; certainly not the Israel lobby – which doesn’t even exist.
Arabs/Muslims despise Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, its ongoing usurpation of Arab land and it most recent destruction of much of Muslim Lebanon.
The United States supports these actions on behalf of whom? Oil interests?
The issue was, is and will continue to be Palestine. The suffering of Palestinians is not due to oil, but to the oppression and tyranny of Israelis, aided and abetted by the most powerful lobby in Washington.The littering of southern Lebanon with American made cluster bombs has nothing to do with oil. It has everything to do with the tacit acceptance of American jews in Israeli oppression of a helpless people
Every jew here wrings his hands and laments what Israel does. You’re all Liebermans to me – ‘progressives’ about everything except the one thing that matters.
MNPundit
You know if McCain really WERE going to cut foreign aid to Israel that would be a huge weight in his favor.
But even if he wanted to do that, AIPAC makes that politically impossible, and of course, if you want to go batshit insane, you can say something about the Mossad and Kennedy. That theory was actually created by an Arab Anti-Semite but it’s kooky enough that I thought I’d bring up here.
merl
Why do we give Israel so much money? And why do we fight their wars?
MJ
Israel fights its own wars and has done a pretty good job at it.
MJ
Israel fights its own wars and has done a pretty good job at it.
chopper
ah, the plight of the single-issue voter. the war in iraq, the shitty economy, skyrocketing food and energy prices, global warming, health care, global terrorism, the shredding of the US constitution, astronomical debt and deficits, cronyism and corruption, none of that matters.
chopper
what’s also idiotic about wilfred’s statement – joementum is a ‘progressive’ anywhere else?
you mean joe lieberman, right?
Wilfred
Oy vey! Timing is everything.
Imagine that. I’ll drop it in on the next open thread – Start spinning.
Birdzilla
No more funds to the UN at all why should we have anything more to do with these bunch of tyrants,despots,dictators and terrorists