McCain's dilemma

John McCain has been criticizing Obama for not visiting Iraq and Afghanistan. He has wondered publicly how Obama thinks he can know what's actually happening there if he hasn't been there in person.

While McCain has visited Iraq, it didn't seem to do him much good as he didn't learn the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. And his characterization of Baghdad as being a "safe" place to visit was pretty well negated by the small army that accompanied him on his trek through part of the city.


Two things have happened since. McCain presumptively commented on when Obama was going to the Middle East, actually telling the terrorists when to expect him. That was not a nice thing to do; in fact it was quite stupid. The Obama camp had been deliberately secretive about the timing of the trip so as to avoid setting their candidate up for an assassination attempt.

McCain's big mouth undid their careful planning, and actually put Obama at risk!

The second thing is that McCain's tactics backfired. Not only is Obama tripping about the world, but he's reveling in tons of free publicity, and is expected to be heartily welcomed wherever he goes - the Middle East or Europe -- much to McCain's dismay!

And that's why McCain's camp is attacking Obama for doing what McCain said he ought to do. Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director disparaged Obama, called Obama's trip a "campaign rally overseas."

In an email to reporters, she highlighted these words: "Let's drop the pretense that this is a fact-finding trip and call it what it is: the first-of-its-kind campaign rally overseas."

As one more example that McCain's left hand does not know what his right hand is doing, McCain contradicted his communications director. When asked about her comments, he said, "The fact is that I'm glad he is going to Iraq. I am glad he is going to Afghanistan. It's long, long overdue if you want to lead this nation."

Later, he "clarified" his remarks, saying that if Obama held political rallies in other places, "obviously then it's a political trip."

(I think McCain's a bit worried about Obama's planned appearance at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, which will likely be accompanied by thousands of screaming fans!)


McCain's hypocrisy is overwhelming! He points his finger at Obama via his communications director who accuses Obama of using his trip as a campaign rally, when McCain is the one who actually held a campaign fund-raiser in London on March 20!

The Washington Post revealed it took place in a "stately, 18th century stone palace that once served as the home to the Spencers , of Diana fame."

In fact, the event was held "by kind permission of Lord Rothschild..." Tickets cost between $1,000 and $2,300. Attire was to be "lounge suits."

While McCain did not stick around to talk to reporters at its conclusion, attendees said he spoke about the bad U.S. economy, and dealt with U.S. foreign policy, specifically as related to the Middle East as well as global warming.

McCain insisted that "his trip abroad ... is not a campaign event. Rather, he insists, it is a fact-finding mission..." It was paid for by the U.S. government.

No politics here!

It seems that McCain has taken a page from the Bush book. Say one thing, do the opposite and then claim you did not do what you obviously did!

As Americablog put it: "Just for one second imagine the outcry on Fox News and right wing talk radio if a Democrat had a fundraiser in London hosted by a British Lord or any foreigner."