Rich is dead on. McCain knew. In fact, McCain blew huge amounts of political capital, in 2000, attacking people like Hagee and I suspect the Senator's highly aware that, had he refrained from those attacks, it might well have been McCain and not Bush who wound up in the oval office.
Extraordinary, scary Meet The Press segment
I'm relaying this per the account of my friend George E. Lowe, who just called to describe to me today's Meet The Press segment [May 4th, 2008], in which Tim Russert suggesting the US is ready to attack Iran and is planning the bases that the US would establish in that country.
It sounds as if it was an extraordinary segment. As Lowe told me, Russert cited Hillary Clinton's now infamous "obliterate" quote and also asked Barack Obama about Clinton's "Nuclear Umbrella" idea that Clinton floated in the last debate between Clinton and Obama.
Obama's response to Russert's "Nuclear Umbrella" question was, as Lowe described it to me, politically astute and also sane - Obama said something like 'this isn't a good time for such proposals' and questioned a NATO-like approach to the Mideast situation [NOTE: those are only very inexact characterizations].
[NOTE: if anybody comes across clips from this segment please let me know so that I an put them up here.]
Russert: The Administration, we have reported at NBC are drawing up some plans for potential air strikes in Iran at different missile, weapons factories or special force compounds because we have indications/evidence that the Iranians are helping some of their supporters within Iraq to kill US troops. If it could be demonstrated that was a fact, would you be in support of such limited attacks within Iran ?
Obama: Let me not speculate yet I want to take a look at the kind of evidence that the administration is putting forward, what these plans are exactly... I've always said that as commander-in-chief I don't take military options off the table, and I think it's appropriate for us to plan for a whole host of contingencies but let's look at the bigger picture - Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. They are stronger because of our decision to go in. What we have to figure out is how are we going to recalibrate our strategic position in the region. I think that starts with puling our combat troops out of Iraq. We have placed them in harm's way, we have fanned the flames of anti-American sentiment, we are distracted from what's the real battlefront that we to focus on, which is Afghanistan and rooting out Al Qaeda. And if we put forward a plan where we are not going to be a permanent occupier in Iraq and we force the Iraqis to stand up and negotiate and come to a compromise that includes, by the way, a regional discussion with Iran, with Syria as well as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and the other regional powers then I think we are going to be in a better posture to deal with the long term threat of Iran and particularly its development of nuclear weapons. That's something that ths administration has failed to do. I have consistently said that we've got to talk directly to Iran - send them a clear message that they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of Iraq but they also have to stop funding Hamas, they have to stop funding Hezzbollah, they've got to stand down on their nuclear weapons, there will be continued consequences for those sorts of behavior but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change behavior. Those kind of direct talks have not taken place. That's the kind of change in foreign policy that I plan to put in place when I'm President of The United States. . .
Russert: Hillary Clinton was about if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel. This is the answer she gave - let's listen:
[Hillary Clinton"Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president we will attack Iran and I want the Iranians to understand that. We would be able to totally obliterate them."
Russert: Obliterate them. What do you think of that language ?
Obama: Well, it's not the language that we need right now and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber rattling and tough talk and in the meantime we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. The irony is of course Senator Clinton during the course of this campaign has at times said we shouldn't speculate about Iran, you know we've got to be cautious when we're running for president, she scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue and yet a few days before an election she's used that language...
Russert: Would you respond against Iran ?
Obama: Israel is an ally of ours, it is the most important ally we have in the region and there is no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran nuclear or otherwise [note: Obama seems have misspoken, using "Iran" instead of "Israel"]. But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world's community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach.
Russert: Senator Clinton also called for an "umbrella of deterrence" in the Middle East defending not only Israel but she said also "other countries in the region" - suggesting that perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, other places in that region. Should the US have an "umbrella of deterrence" to protect Arab nations ?
Obama: Well, it... look, this is presupposing something I'm unwilling to presuppose, and that is that Iran's going to get nuclear weapons. My intention is to make sure they don't. And the way we do that is, as I've indicated before, to rally the international community, to engage direct talks with Iran, to send a clear signal about the consequences of continuing to develop nuclear weapons but also to send a signal that if they are willing to stand down that we can provide the with the kind of assistance that they need in order to help their people. So my central goal is to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. I'm troubled by the idea that as a throwaway line in a debate you start expanding the US nuclear umbrella potentially to a whole host of other countries without any clear idea of what these criteria are, who might be involved, and so forth. I think there's no doubt that that we need to think about what our strategic posture is with respect to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other allies - other friends in the region. But right now we don't have a formal alliance with many of these other countries and if we are to develop that we should do it prudently, cautiously and we should do it in consultation with Congress.
Russert: Do you think the American people would want to send American men and women to Saudi Arabia to defend them against Iran ?
Obama: Well, I think that's part of the debate that should be taking place. Obviously we've got national security interests in oil supplies in the region and as president that's something that I would factor in. But I am not willing at this point to suggest that somehow we are going to extend our nuclear umbrella or that we have the same sorts of alliance with Saudi Arabia that we do with NATO countries or that we do with Israel.
Well, with enough people in the blogosphere pounding away the answer to that question is, apparently, yes.
MCCAIN Endorser Hagee Says GOD May NUKE US in War He Clamors For
[NOTE - please feel free to paste the graphics in this post all over the internet. That's what they're for.]
Recently it has come to light that John Hagee declared "America is under the curse of God" but Hagee has also stated that, in the war he predicts will ensue after a US or Israeli attack on Iran, God may well punish the majority of Americans living, immolating them in a Russian nuclear strike on America's east and west coasts or devastating the United States with terrible natural disasters. The reason Hagee suggests for a possible divine nuking of the coasts ? - a failure, on the part of Americans living in those regions, to back the vigorous defense of Israel which Hagee claims will be necessary when Islamic and Russian armies march on the embattled nation, in the course of a war Hagee himself has advocated starting.
Given that Pastor John Hagee advocates a preemptive US and/or Israeli strike on Iran and also believes that would touch off "Ezekiel's War", which would in turn lead to a massive Russian-Islamic assault on Israel Hagee thinks in turn may cause God to nuke America's coastlines via a Russian nuclear strike, it logically follows that Hagee is advocating a US foreign policy course he believes may well get the majority of living Americans incinerated in a nuclear holocaust.
All in a day's work for a busy presidential candidate-endorsing pastor.
Hagee has repeatedly advocated for a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran, and Hagee has described the expected outcome of such an attack on Iran as "thrilling".
The initial controversy over Pastor John Hagee's highly public endorsement of Senator John McCain's presidential bid, at a nationally televised press conference viewed potentially by millions of Americans, arose when the Catholic League, a far-right Catholic defense organization headed by William Donahue, attacked the endorsement on the basis that Hagee was virulently anti-Catholic. Beyond Hagee's demonizing of Catholics and Catholicism, pastor Hagee appears radically anti-American to the extent that he hopes and expects, as evidenced by a 2006 Hagee appearance on WHYY's "Fresh Air" radio show and also in Hagee's 2006 best-seller "Jerusalem Countdown", that God will incinerate most Americans now living - with a nuclear strike on America's coastal regions. In 2006 Presidential hopeful John McCain appeared to hold a similar view on possible outcomes of a US war with Iran. In an April 2nd, 2006 appearance on Meet The Press, Senator John McCain, describing to Tim Russert McCain's view of the possible result of a US war with Iran, declared war with Iran "could be Armageddon".
On September 18, 2006 John Hagee appeared on the WHYY radio show "Fresh Air", and the recorded show segment [PDF of transcript] began with an audio excerpt from one of Hagee's recorded sermons in which Hagee enthusiastically declares that envisioned chain of events he expects will follow a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran, which include "Ezekiel's War" and the "Rapture", would be "thrilling". Hagee proceeded to state, in the interview with Terry Gross, that during "Ezekiel's War" that God will cause a Russian nuclear strike on America that will destroy the East and West coasts.
On the available evidence it is not clear if Hagee expects that the nuclear incineration of what Hagee himself notes would comprise most Americans now living would be "thrilling", whether Hagee feels the "Rapture" which he expects will vacuum him and other "Bible-believing" (fundamentalist) Christians up to Heaven, prior to that nuking, where they can safely look down on the ensuing global carnage, will be "thrilling" or whether Hagee feels that the "Rapture" and the nuking of America would both be "thrilling". [more on Hagee's 'thrilling' worldview]
John Hagee has further elaborated on that theme in his writings.
"[W]hat is America's role [in "Ezekiel's war] ?", Hagee asks rhetorically in his 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To War". A few pages later, on page 150 of the book, Hagee provides an answer; America's role is to get nuked by God, writing "Could it be that America, who refuses to defend Israel from the Russian invasion, will experience nuclear warfare on our east and west coasts ? That's exactly where most of us live today." [note: Pastor Hagee himself lives in Texas]. Hagee answers that question with the following: "Why would God allow this? The Bible gives a clear answer: "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you." (Genesis 12:3). Pastor John Hagee has made defense of the current territorial borders of Israel a centerpiece of his hybridized Christian theology but defense of Israelis themselves is not.
A close reading of Hagee's statements and writings shows Hagee's belief closely follow the mainstream view of Apocalyptic Premillennial Dispensationalism, that most Jews in Israel (and presumably along with them most non-Jews as well) will be killed in the train of events and conflicts following "Ezekiel's War". In that view, a "remnant" of Jews who have converted to Christianity, traditionally numbered at 144,000 (12,000 for each of the 12 Tribes of Israel), will survive and will be granted superhuman, divine powers to, acting as what some have termed "super Billy Grahams", will evangelize all humans who have survived the predicted global holocaust.
In his book "Jerusalem Countdown", pastor Hagee states that historical anti-Semitism, culminating in the Holocaust, resulted from God's curse upon Jews, as a people, because of the ancient Jewish worship of idols described in the Bible. In the book Hagee also writes that Hitler and the Nazis were acting as divine agents, to drive European Jews towards Palestine where, per Hagee's view, God appears to demand be their only residence on Earth and where, according to Hagee's apocalyptic theological views, those Jewish settlers will be most killed in the conflict Hagee militates for by advocating an attack on Iran.
