Response to a University’s newspaper commentary
Ok, so the editor of the “Commentary” section posted an article claiming that Sen. McCain was profiting from the myths and misconceptions of his foreign policy experience. The writer claimed McCain was basing this expertise based upon 1) time as a POW; and 2) being to Iraq several times. Here is my response, hope y’all enjoy!!
To the editor:
In “Candidates examined through VP choices, inconsistencies,” James, with great ignorance, absurdly proclaims of Senator McCain, “He is profiting from the myths and misconceptions that portray him as an expert in foreign policy, which he is not. McCain is supposed to be a foreign policy expert for two reasons: first, because he was a POW; second, because he has visited Iraq several times.” After reading his idiotic commentary, I could not help but say, “Damn, that’s four minutes I’ll never get back.”
Perhaps a more responsible commentary would have included McCain’s leadership role within the Senate Armed Services Committee. Indeed, twenty-plus years of briefings by the State Department, the Pentagon, the Intelligence community, along with joint committee hearings with the Senate Foreign Policy Committee, better portray McCain’s true experience and “expertise” of foreign policy, rather than egregious inferences by a person whose dislike for a particular candidate clouds his judgment.
Moreover, this commentary ridiculed Senator McCain’s foreign policy experience as nothing more than “the word Iraq, a verb, and the name ‘General Petraeus.’” Well, truth be told, Senator McCain could find less qualified advisors than General David Petraeus, who holds a Ph D. in International Relations, has been named to *Foreign Policy *magazine’s list of the top 100 intellectuals, and who just happened to be the commander in charge of Iraqi operations that called for the “Surge,” which Obama hailed, “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
While our list of grievances towards this article is long, we can only laugh at the author’s hypocrisy. James stated, “McCain has referred more than once to the ‘common border between Iraq and Pakistan’ when such a border does not exist.” What he fails to tell you is the context of the quote. Indeed, Sen. McCain misspoke, but it is clear that he was referring to Afghanistan, which was the focus of the interview, and not Iraq.
However, if “Such a mistake is not a minor one or a simple exchange of consonants” as James claims is so noteworthy, would it also be relevant to address Sen. Obama’s call for translators in Iraq be immediately redeployed to Afghanistan, considering the languages of the two lands are completely different? The people of Afghanistan do not speak Arabic, Kurdish, nor Turkoman, but instead, Dari and Pashto. Would it also be important to reveal that Sen. Biden referred to Iranians as Arabs, which is considered an insult to Iranians?
By the way, James, you claim that McCain has made this mistake “more than once,” we challenge you to provide the sources of these “other” occasions!
In the end, it is troubling that the author assumed that the readers would simply take his word, without conducting further research. This absolute disrespect to the intelligence of the student body is an insult, and frankly, and indictment upon James’ integrity. So next time you decide to spew your nonsensical assertions, please do so in a manner that is intelligent, truthful, and somewhat responsible.