John McCain: I Would Block Susan Rice For Secretary Of State

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rebels also had the goal of exerting a dreadful retribution against the rulers and armed forces of the Qadaffi regime.

And this is a problem how? Let me see if I can muster shedding a tear for a brutal dictator, his cronies and his bloodthirsty supporters...no I can't.

It is a problem independent of other factors but any attempt to use it to argue that the rebels and the Qaddafi regime were morally identical or equivalent is in my view wrongheaded.

Well this is from a guy who has in the past argued that the Allies and Axis powers in WWII were basically morally equivalent mind you.

No, the issue that you fail to grasp is that I do not subscribe to moral relativism. Given that I do not believe in aiding and abetting evil of any kind, it is of no importance whether one side is more flagrant than the other. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rebels also had the goal of exerting a dreadful retribution against the rulers and armed forces of the Qadaffi regime.

And this is a problem how? Let me see if I can muster shedding a tear for a brutal dictator, his cronies and his bloodthirsty supporters...no I can't.

It is a problem independent of other factors but any attempt to use it to argue that the rebels and the Qaddafi regime were morally identical or equivalent is in my view wrongheaded.

Well this is from a guy who has in the past argued that the Allies and Axis powers in WWII were basically morally equivalent mind you.

No, the issue that you fail to grasp is that I do not subscribe to moral relativism. Given that I do not believe in aiding and abetting evil of any kind, it is of no importance whether one side is more flagrant than the other. 

I don't subscribe to moral relativism either, but it's very possible to aid and abet evil by omission. If you want to actively do otherwise than aiding and abetting evil, become a crusading peacemaker of some description or work, either on the job or as a side project, in nonviolent conflict resolution. If you're already doing so, good job, and you have some moral standing to criticize the United States' handling of the situation, but do tell us how you would have recommended handling Libya circa March 2011 (beyond not getting involved militarily. We know that much).

[SPC]

I don't subscribe to moral relativism either, but it's very possible to aid and abet evil by omission. If you want to actively do otherwise than aiding and abetting evil, become a crusading peacemaker of some description or work, either on the job or as a side project, in nonviolent conflict resolution. If you're already doing so, good job, and you have some moral standing to criticize the United States' handling of the situation, but do tell us how you would have recommended handling Libya circa March 2011 (beyond not getting involved militarily. We know that much).

The same way dozens of other humanitarian crises around the world are handled in the absence of a mass media fixation for the creation of a narrative. You didn't see any mass calls for American intervention to help the Gazans, the West Papuans, the Tibetans, the Tamils, the Chechens, the Congolese, the indigenous Brazilians, the Shia Bahrainis, the Uzbeks, the Kyrgyzstanis, or any other myriad of oppressed peoples whose plights have not garnered sympathy from the mainstream propaganda outlets. Either the United States should militarily intervene in any conflict around the world, none of them, or just the ones that are arbitrarily selected for sympathy.

That said, if you as an individual would personally like to donate to a humanitarian effort to help innocents in trouble spots around the world, I have no objection to that. I only object to using the tax and debt-funded military as a vehicle for the White Man's Burden around the world.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and several others participated in Libya, so, no, not really.

Also, the presumption of people referring to this as "US" action in Libya is very disrespectful to our NATO allies.

The involvement of the US is a US action, just as the involvement of the UK is a UK action, etc.  NATO is a coalition of nations, not a federation.

[Zioneer]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and several others participated in Libya, so, no, not really.

Also, the presumption of people referring to this as "US" action in Libya is very disrespectful to our NATO allies.

Actually, Germany did not. (Although we should have.)

I have to say that it's ironic that Germany refrained from participating in fighting, while France almost eagerly jumped into the fray. Totally opposite of the stereotype.

[badgate]

Senator McCain can try to block Susan Rice, but he will probably forget that it's on his schedule.

[Franzl]

Were all the members of the UN required to fight in Libya? Or is the US special in some way?

UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and several others participated in Libya, so, no, not really.

Also, the presumption of people referring to this as "US" action in Libya is very disrespectful to our NATO allies.

Actually, Germany did not. (Although we should have.)

I have to say that it's ironic that Germany refrained from participating in fighting, while France almost eagerly jumped into the fray. Totally opposite of the stereotype.

Germany is extremely reluctant to send troops for any type of combat - ever. That's usually a good thing and a policy I support, but there are exceptions. Libya is one that happened to not only be a good idea, but one that also worked quite well.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I opposed intervention in Libya, but it was actually legal under the U.S. law.

Worse than Iraq? Seriously?

[Marokai Backbeat]

McCain continues to be a disgrace: he skipped a closed briefing yesterday by administration officials on Benghazi, to give an attention whore press conference demanding more information from the administration about Benghazi.

And then, when a CNN reporter called him on his hypocrisy, he erupted like the angry, senile old man he is: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/15/1196411/mccain-may-have-skipped-a-briefing-on-benghazi-to-hold-a-press-conference/

The man obviously has no place in the senate.

How you know when someone is being disingenuous is, when given what they supposedly keep screaming about and demanding, they just keep screaming about things and demanding. This guy is supposedly a national hero? Maybe 15 years ago.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And for the record, McCain has really done nothing in service to the US. He fought to defend a fascist regime that in no way benefited US interests

Clearly.

Yeah... Vietnam War was a resounding success.

[Frodo]

McCain seems to be backtracking.

Thankfully. 

[Maxwell]

Look, I respect John McCain as a military figure, but, unlike some of these guys, I am not going to treat him like a demi-god because of his service. As a politican, he's been nothing more than a power crazy philanderer, and this is no exception. Getting his name in the headlines again by blocking an appointee only to backtrack when the press is bad is just silly. The man has no core values or principles.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I see that the Republican effort to reach out to minorities and women is off to a great start.

Ahh yes, because blocking one woman must mean that McCain would never vote to confirm any women...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I see that the Republican effort to reach out to minorities and women is off to a great start.

Ahh yes, because blocking one woman must mean that McCain would never vote to confirm any women...

Well, to be fair to McCain, he votes for black women who are alumni of Stanford and are named Rice to be Secretary of State if they have lied repeatedly to start a $1 trillion war.

[Paul Kemp]

Look, I respect John McCain as a military figure, but, unlike some of these guys, I am not going to treat him like a demi-god because of his service. As a politican, he's been nothing more than a power crazy philanderer, and this is no exception. Getting his name in the headlines again by blocking an appointee only to backtrack when the press is bad is just silly. The man has no core values or principles.

wut

[Simfan34]

I see that the Republican effort to reach out to minorities and women is off to a great start.

Ahh yes, because blocking one woman must mean that McCain would never vote to confirm any women...

Well, to be fair to McCain, he votes for black women who are alumni of Stanford and are named Rice to be Secretary of State if they have lied repeatedly to start a $1 trillion war.

When you put that way, you make it sound like you have something against Stanford alumnae. What gives?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This issue aside, when was the last time McCain had credibility? 2000?

I also anxiously await Senators McCain and Graham announce their support of an investigation into the deaths of almost 5000 Americans in Iraq from 2003 to 2011.

But dude... it was justified because of Saddam's terrorist ties WMD... um... some important national security reason.