My Lai probe hid policy that led to massacre
By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - For decades, it has been generally accepted that the My Lai massacre of as many as 400 Vietnamese civilians by US Army troops on March 16, 1968, was a violation of official policy directives on the treatment of civilians in South Vietnam.
That was the conclusion reached in the most definitive official account of why My Lai happened - the final report by General William Peers, who investigated the question of responsibility for the massacre in late 1969 and early 1970 for the Department of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff.
Documentary evidence from US Army archives shows, however, that the Peers report misrepresented a key directive from the top commander in Vietnam, General William C Westmoreland, describing it as calling for a blanket policy of humane treatment of civilians in villages controlled by the communist movement.
The directive in question, a copy of which has been obtained by Inter Press Service, makes it clear that the policy of humane treatment did not extend to civilians in areas which had been under long-term communist rule, as was the case with My Lai. That revelation would have placed the responsibility for the orders on the My Lai operation squarely on Westmoreland's shoulders.
The Peers report found that the troops who entered My Lai and three other hamlets of the village of Son My had been led to believe that everyone in the village should be killed. Testimony before the Peers inquiry also showed that the platoon leaders involved in the operation had been given that same message by two company commanders.
The report concluded that the task force commander responsible for the operation, Colonel Frank Barker, had failed to "make clear any distinctions between combatants and non-combatants in their orders and instructions". The result, it stated, was that he had "conveyed an understanding that only the enemy remained" in My Lai.
The report asserted, however, that there was no higher command responsibility for what happened in My Lai. It concluded that the policy guidance from General William Westmoreland, the commander of all US forces in Vietnam, was "consistent in adhering to the humane standard of protecting the civilians within the combat zone".
The most important document cited by the Peers report in support of that conclusion was Directive 525-3 from the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV), called "Combat Operations: Minimizing Noncombatant Battle Casualties".
The Peers report said that one of the "significant points" of the directive, first issued on September 7, 1965, and reissued in slightly revised form on October 14, 1966, was that "Specified strike zones should be configured to exclude populated areas."
"Specified strike zones" was the term that replaced the original term "free fire zones" created in 1965 to refer to zones where air strikes and artillery fire could be used freely with the approval of the province chief - approval which was routinely given to US forces.
That description of a key point in the directive, which avoided direct quotation from the document, made it appear that the non-combatant population was to be protected from indiscriminate US firepower in all Viet Cong hamlets. The report stated without any qualification that "specified strike zones" were "usually free of any known populace".
But the actual text of Directive 525-3, a copy of which was obtained from the US Army Military History Institute in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, makes it clear that the intention of Westmoreland and the US military command in regard to hamlets like My Lai was exactly the opposite.
The five-page directive was explicit about its concern with minimizing such casualties in contested areas, where the population had not been under long-term communist influence. As the directive explained, "The use of unnecessary force leading to non-combatant battle casualties in areas temporarily controlled by the VC [Viet Cong] will embitter the population, drive them into the arms of the VC, and make the long-range pacification more difficult and more costly."
But the directive made it clear that this motivation for humane treatment of civilians did not apply to those who had been under long-term communist rule. A key point in the directive said, "Specified strike zones should be configured to exclude populated areas, except those in accepted VC bases."
The term "accepted VC bases" referred to large parts of South Vietnam, including Son My village and most of Quang Ngai province, where the Viet Minh movement had mobilized the population to fight against the French and where the communist movement had strong organizations throughout the Diem regime and in the early years of the US war in Vietnam.
The directive thus made it clear the US military command's policy was to consider the civilian population in long-term communist base areas as the enemy which could be subjected to the same treatment as communist military personnel. The Peers report description - which avoided quoting directly from the document - effectively covered up the actual intention of the command's policy toward non-combatants in places like My Lai.
Directive 525-3 is not the only piece of evidence pointing to a military command policy of treating non-combatants in Viet Cong base areas as subject to indiscriminate violence. In his own memoirs published in 1976, Westmoreland himself wrote that, once the "free fire zones" were established, "anybody who remained had to be considered an enemy combatant", and operations in those areas "could be conducted without fear of civilian casualties".
Westmoreland was even more explicit in a visit to a unit of the 101st Airborne Division called the Tiger Force in Quang Ngai province in 1967. As recounted by members of the Tiger Force who were present, and reported by Pulitzer Prize-winning Toledo Blade journalists Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss, Westmoreland told them, "[I]f there are people who are out there - and not in the camps - they're pink as far as we're concerned. They're communist sympathizers. They were not supposed to be there."
That message gave the Tiger Force officers the idea that they were authorized to kill anyone who chose to remain in Viet Cong base areas. Sallah and Weiss found that Tiger Force had carried out no fewer than 19 killing sprees against civilians in "specified strike zones". The unit commanders justified the wanton murder of civilians to army investigators by explaining that the creation of a free fire zone gave US troops the right to "kill anything that moved".
The Peers report recommended disciplinary action against 30 army officers, including two generals and four colonels. But when it came to his treatment of Westmoreland's policy directives, Peers had a strong incentive to absolve him of any responsibility for My Lai.
James K Walsh Jr, who was special counsel to the Peers investigation, recalled in an interview with IPS that Peers had hoped to become commander of the 8th Army in South Korea after his service in Vietnam.
That meant that he had to have the support of Westmoreland, who had become the army chief of staff in 1968 and thus was in a position to determine whether he would get the choice assignment he wanted.
Unfortunately for Peers, Westmoreland was replaced as chief of staff by Creighton B Abrams in June 1972, and Abrams was openly hostile to the whole Peers investigation, according to Walsh. Peers never got the 8th Army command and chose early retirement.
Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.
(Inter Press Service)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The US Election Season: Security Challenges and Conventional Wisdom - By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
STRATFOR - The US Election Season: Security Challenges and Conventional Wisdom - By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
The U.S. Election Season: Security Challenges and Conventional Wisdom
March 26, 2008
Graphic for Terrorism Intelligence Report
Related Special Topic Page
· The 2008 U.S. Presidential Race
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
As the struggle grinds on in the United States for the Democratic presidential nomination, it appears there will be no clear winner before the Democratic National Convention begins Aug. 25 in Denver, Colo. This contest of firsts — the first female presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton and the first African-American candidate to win so many primaries and delegates in Barack Obama — has been hard-fought, and likely will become even more heated between now and the convention.
The Obama campaign has leveled claims of racism over remarks made by former President Bill Clinton before the January South Carolina primary, and more recently over the widely publicized comments by Geraldine Ferraro, who was forced to resign from the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign also has had to face racism charges over controversial comments made from the pulpit by Obama’s longtime friend and pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who until February was pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
From a security perspective, each election cycle brings huge challenges. The task of protecting presidential candidates has become ever larger and longer as campaigns and primary elections have been pushed ever earlier. In fact, when Obama received U.S. Secret Service (USSS) protection in May 2007, he made history by being the candidate to receive USSS protection the earliest. Much of the rationale behind the decision to provide Obama with protection so early was based on the conventional wisdom that radical white racists would seek to harm him. A review of several radical white racist Web sites, however, shows that many radical white racists would prefer that Obama be elected, rather than Clinton or Republican candidate John McCain, both of whom they consider to be controlled by Jewish interest groups. Perhaps the greatest threat to all three of the candidates — as is nearly always the case — would be a mentally disturbed lone gunman, and such a person could choose to target any of the candidates for any number of reasons.
Challenges
Major presidential candidates have been afforded USSS protection since the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy at the site of a campaign event. Presidential elections give the USSS and other security personnel headaches for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is the fact that campaigns are, by their very nature, fast, furious and geographically diverse. In the run-up to an important primary — or on a day like Super Tuesday, when there are multiple primaries — candidates can hopscotch across a state or even across the country. Candidates’ schedules often are packed with events that start before sunrise and last until long after dark, and each of the events on that very full schedule requires a great deal of security planning and preparation. Each site on the candidate’s itinerary must first be visited by a security advance team or agent, who will survey the site, gather all the details of the event and then create a plan, called a security sur vey, for the measures to be put in place for the event. In the case of a 10-minute stop at a diner, for example, the plan can simply outline which entrance should be used and how the agents should be deployed, as well as provide emergency evacuation procedures. Such small events often can be handled by the security detail itself, as are most of the impromptu stops and events. In general, the threat is smaller at an impromptu stop than it is at a planned event, because the spontaneous nature of the impromptu stop does not give potential malefactors the opportunity to make attack plans. Large, well-publicized events, on the other hand, can provide ample opportunity to plan, and because of this they require additional security measures.
In the case of a large planned function, security measures can be expanded to include bomb sweeps, access control and screening, countersniper coverage, sweeps for hazardous materials, etc. Any event that is swept for bombs by an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) team must then be watched, or “posted,” for the entire period between the sweep and the event. Advance work, pre-posting, close protection, protective intelligence, liaison with local and state police agencies and access control all require bodies. Consider the manpower required to secure one such event, multiply that by several similar events daily and by the number of candidates being protected — and then spread it over a period of many months — and it becomes apparent why the USSS, with its 3,200 special agents and 1,200 uniformed officers, is hard-pressed during an election season. Add to all of that the fact that the USSS is required to maintain its normal protective coverage of the s itting president and vice president, first lady, former presidents and first ladies, and visiting heads of state. In fact, the USSS frequently lacks the manpower for all of these functions and often will borrow special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Internal Revenue Service, or deputies from the U.S. Marshals Service.
Another challenge during election season is the fact that candidates are compelled to meet and greet supporters, kiss babies and press the flesh. This means they need to enter crowds. This is the aspect of the job that protection agents most abhor, because danger can lurk in a crowd. The compact nature of a crowd makes it very difficult for agents to see bulges and bumps that can indicate that a person is armed. Moreover, the sheer number of people makes it difficult for agents to spot individuals who are behaving abnormally. That said, U.S. protective agencies such as the USSS and the Diplomatic Security Service spend much time and effort training their special agents to “work the crowd.” They are the best in the world at it, but that does not mean it is an easy task or one the agents enjoy.
As we have discussed in relation to the two assassination attempts against Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, crowds are a security nightmare. This is true anywhere in the world. Indeed, a number of assassins and would-be assassins in the United States have struck from crowds. President William McKinley was greeting a crowd at an exposition in Buffalo, N.Y., in 1901, when he was shot by anarchist Leon Frank Czolgosz, who had concealed a revolver in a handkerchief. Presidential candidate George Wallace was shot in 1972 by Arthur Bremer, who emerged from a crowd during a campaign stop in Laurel, Md. Wallace survived the attempt, but the attack left him disabled for life. Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sarah Jane Moore both attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford from crowds in September 1975. John Hinckley also used a crowd of reporters (an area known as t he press pen) as camouflage in his 1981 assassination attempt against President Ronald Reagan. In the past, one radical group threatened to stab politicians working the crowds with HIV-infected needles, and other groups have plotted to attack prominent politicians with toxins such as ricin.
Conventional Wisdom
At present, the conventional wisdom holds that Obama, as an African-American, is under a greater threat than either Clinton or McCain. However, a close look at the rhetoric on many radical white racist Web sites reveals a couple of things that appear to contradict the conventional wisdom. In fact, the rhetoric seems to indicate that all three remaining candidates are at risk. First, many people who post comments on these types of sites believe the real problem is not African-Americans, but Jews, whom they believe are using African-Americans as a tool to oppress white Americans. In other words, they see African-Americans as a symptom of a larger Jewish problem. They believe that a cabal of Jews — an entity they call the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) — secretly controls the U.S. government. They further believe that both McCain and Clinton are totally controlled by the ZOG, and that the ZOG will oppose Obama because he is not toeing the line. Using the logic that an Obama victory would be bad for the ZOG, these racists would rather see Obama get elected than either the “ZOG-controlled” Clinton or McCain.
Many of these same radical white racists also believe that Obama is a godsend to them. First, they believe that if he is defeated in either the primaries or the general election, it will spark huge riots in inner cities across the United States — riots that, they say, will demonstrate the “true nature” of African-Americans. Even if Obama is elected, many white racists believe he will behave in a manner that will inflame racial tensions, causing a polarization that will assist them in their recruiting efforts and ultimately in their fight to wrest control of the United States from the ZOG. Of course, some white racists also say they hope a lone wolf will assassinate Obama in an effort to spark a race war. This is the reason he is under USSS protection.
But Obama is not the only candidate at risk from right-wing extremists. In addition to the white racists who believe McCain and Clinton are Jewish puppets, there are other right-wing radicals who are unhappy with both McCain and Clinton over their respective stances on immigration. Right-wing radicals also were not fond of the Bill Clinton presidency. When they discuss the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency, they frequently refer to people such as former Attorney General Janet Reno and incidents such as the Waco siege and the air campaign against Serbia.
All of the presidential candidates also face the threat of a mentally disturbed lone wolf, like Hinckley or Bremer. Such individuals have long posed one of the most severe threats to prominent individuals in the United States.
McCain also has the additional threats of radical leftists who oppose his stance on the war in Iraq, though frankly they are more likely to embarrass him than seriously harm him. More concerning is the real threat posed by radical Islamists, of both the jihadist and Hezbollah variety, who see McCain’s stance on the war in Iraq, his unequivocal support of Israel and his tough rhetoric toward Iran as threatening.
Any election season poses difficult security challenges for the USSS, but the unique circumstances of this year’s election are making the job especially tough on the already overtaxed protection service.
The U.S. Election Season: Security Challenges and Conventional Wisdom
March 26, 2008
Graphic for Terrorism Intelligence Report
Related Special Topic Page
· The 2008 U.S. Presidential Race
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
As the struggle grinds on in the United States for the Democratic presidential nomination, it appears there will be no clear winner before the Democratic National Convention begins Aug. 25 in Denver, Colo. This contest of firsts — the first female presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton and the first African-American candidate to win so many primaries and delegates in Barack Obama — has been hard-fought, and likely will become even more heated between now and the convention.
The Obama campaign has leveled claims of racism over remarks made by former President Bill Clinton before the January South Carolina primary, and more recently over the widely publicized comments by Geraldine Ferraro, who was forced to resign from the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign also has had to face racism charges over controversial comments made from the pulpit by Obama’s longtime friend and pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who until February was pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
From a security perspective, each election cycle brings huge challenges. The task of protecting presidential candidates has become ever larger and longer as campaigns and primary elections have been pushed ever earlier. In fact, when Obama received U.S. Secret Service (USSS) protection in May 2007, he made history by being the candidate to receive USSS protection the earliest. Much of the rationale behind the decision to provide Obama with protection so early was based on the conventional wisdom that radical white racists would seek to harm him. A review of several radical white racist Web sites, however, shows that many radical white racists would prefer that Obama be elected, rather than Clinton or Republican candidate John McCain, both of whom they consider to be controlled by Jewish interest groups. Perhaps the greatest threat to all three of the candidates — as is nearly always the case — would be a mentally disturbed lone gunman, and such a person could choose to target any of the candidates for any number of reasons.
Challenges
Major presidential candidates have been afforded USSS protection since the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy at the site of a campaign event. Presidential elections give the USSS and other security personnel headaches for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is the fact that campaigns are, by their very nature, fast, furious and geographically diverse. In the run-up to an important primary — or on a day like Super Tuesday, when there are multiple primaries — candidates can hopscotch across a state or even across the country. Candidates’ schedules often are packed with events that start before sunrise and last until long after dark, and each of the events on that very full schedule requires a great deal of security planning and preparation. Each site on the candidate’s itinerary must first be visited by a security advance team or agent, who will survey the site, gather all the details of the event and then create a plan, called a security sur vey, for the measures to be put in place for the event. In the case of a 10-minute stop at a diner, for example, the plan can simply outline which entrance should be used and how the agents should be deployed, as well as provide emergency evacuation procedures. Such small events often can be handled by the security detail itself, as are most of the impromptu stops and events. In general, the threat is smaller at an impromptu stop than it is at a planned event, because the spontaneous nature of the impromptu stop does not give potential malefactors the opportunity to make attack plans. Large, well-publicized events, on the other hand, can provide ample opportunity to plan, and because of this they require additional security measures.
In the case of a large planned function, security measures can be expanded to include bomb sweeps, access control and screening, countersniper coverage, sweeps for hazardous materials, etc. Any event that is swept for bombs by an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) team must then be watched, or “posted,” for the entire period between the sweep and the event. Advance work, pre-posting, close protection, protective intelligence, liaison with local and state police agencies and access control all require bodies. Consider the manpower required to secure one such event, multiply that by several similar events daily and by the number of candidates being protected — and then spread it over a period of many months — and it becomes apparent why the USSS, with its 3,200 special agents and 1,200 uniformed officers, is hard-pressed during an election season. Add to all of that the fact that the USSS is required to maintain its normal protective coverage of the s itting president and vice president, first lady, former presidents and first ladies, and visiting heads of state. In fact, the USSS frequently lacks the manpower for all of these functions and often will borrow special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Internal Revenue Service, or deputies from the U.S. Marshals Service.
Another challenge during election season is the fact that candidates are compelled to meet and greet supporters, kiss babies and press the flesh. This means they need to enter crowds. This is the aspect of the job that protection agents most abhor, because danger can lurk in a crowd. The compact nature of a crowd makes it very difficult for agents to see bulges and bumps that can indicate that a person is armed. Moreover, the sheer number of people makes it difficult for agents to spot individuals who are behaving abnormally. That said, U.S. protective agencies such as the USSS and the Diplomatic Security Service spend much time and effort training their special agents to “work the crowd.” They are the best in the world at it, but that does not mean it is an easy task or one the agents enjoy.
As we have discussed in relation to the two assassination attempts against Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, crowds are a security nightmare. This is true anywhere in the world. Indeed, a number of assassins and would-be assassins in the United States have struck from crowds. President William McKinley was greeting a crowd at an exposition in Buffalo, N.Y., in 1901, when he was shot by anarchist Leon Frank Czolgosz, who had concealed a revolver in a handkerchief. Presidential candidate George Wallace was shot in 1972 by Arthur Bremer, who emerged from a crowd during a campaign stop in Laurel, Md. Wallace survived the attempt, but the attack left him disabled for life. Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sarah Jane Moore both attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford from crowds in September 1975. John Hinckley also used a crowd of reporters (an area known as t he press pen) as camouflage in his 1981 assassination attempt against President Ronald Reagan. In the past, one radical group threatened to stab politicians working the crowds with HIV-infected needles, and other groups have plotted to attack prominent politicians with toxins such as ricin.
Conventional Wisdom
At present, the conventional wisdom holds that Obama, as an African-American, is under a greater threat than either Clinton or McCain. However, a close look at the rhetoric on many radical white racist Web sites reveals a couple of things that appear to contradict the conventional wisdom. In fact, the rhetoric seems to indicate that all three remaining candidates are at risk. First, many people who post comments on these types of sites believe the real problem is not African-Americans, but Jews, whom they believe are using African-Americans as a tool to oppress white Americans. In other words, they see African-Americans as a symptom of a larger Jewish problem. They believe that a cabal of Jews — an entity they call the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) — secretly controls the U.S. government. They further believe that both McCain and Clinton are totally controlled by the ZOG, and that the ZOG will oppose Obama because he is not toeing the line. Using the logic that an Obama victory would be bad for the ZOG, these racists would rather see Obama get elected than either the “ZOG-controlled” Clinton or McCain.
Many of these same radical white racists also believe that Obama is a godsend to them. First, they believe that if he is defeated in either the primaries or the general election, it will spark huge riots in inner cities across the United States — riots that, they say, will demonstrate the “true nature” of African-Americans. Even if Obama is elected, many white racists believe he will behave in a manner that will inflame racial tensions, causing a polarization that will assist them in their recruiting efforts and ultimately in their fight to wrest control of the United States from the ZOG. Of course, some white racists also say they hope a lone wolf will assassinate Obama in an effort to spark a race war. This is the reason he is under USSS protection.
But Obama is not the only candidate at risk from right-wing extremists. In addition to the white racists who believe McCain and Clinton are Jewish puppets, there are other right-wing radicals who are unhappy with both McCain and Clinton over their respective stances on immigration. Right-wing radicals also were not fond of the Bill Clinton presidency. When they discuss the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency, they frequently refer to people such as former Attorney General Janet Reno and incidents such as the Waco siege and the air campaign against Serbia.
All of the presidential candidates also face the threat of a mentally disturbed lone wolf, like Hinckley or Bremer. Such individuals have long posed one of the most severe threats to prominent individuals in the United States.
McCain also has the additional threats of radical leftists who oppose his stance on the war in Iraq, though frankly they are more likely to embarrass him than seriously harm him. More concerning is the real threat posed by radical Islamists, of both the jihadist and Hezbollah variety, who see McCain’s stance on the war in Iraq, his unequivocal support of Israel and his tough rhetoric toward Iran as threatening.
Any election season poses difficult security challenges for the USSS, but the unique circumstances of this year’s election are making the job especially tough on the already overtaxed protection service.
Presidential Candidate John McCain calls for more vigorous US diplomacy
McCain calls for more vigorous U.S. diplomacy
By Tim Gaynor2 hours, 20 minutes ago
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to chart an independent course on U.S. foreign policy, called on Wednesday for a more vigorous international diplomacy and a new effort to rebuild frayed relations with allies.
Distancing himself from the sometimes unilateral diplomatic approach of President George W. Bush, McCain said the United States needs to live up to its responsibilities as a world leader and become a "model citizen" in the global community.
"The United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," the Arizona senator, back from a trip to Iraq, the Middle East and Europe, said in a speech to the World Affairs Council in California.
"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said.
McCain, who has been criticized by Democrats for hewing too closely to the policies of Bush, his fellow Republican, acknowledged the damaged U.S. image around the globe after five years of the Iraq war.
"Leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation. One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies," he said.
McCain slammed both of the two Democrats seeking to become their party's candidate in the November election, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for advocating quick withdrawals from Iraq.
He also signaled he would have a more hands-on approach than Bush in working for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"I would devote every effort, including personal deep engagement and involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process," McCain said in response to a question after the speech. "It is too important ... for us not to give it the highest priority."
'WE CAN'T TORTURE'
McCain restated his opposition to torture and said the United States should close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where it holds terrorism suspects.
"America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model," he said. "How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured."
The Bush administration has admitted using waterboarding -- a simulated drowning technique widely regarded as torture -- in some instances.
McCain has clinched the Republican nomination, while Clinton and Obama are still battling one another on the Democratic side, and the speech in Los Angeles was his second major policy address in two days after one on Tuesday on the U.S. housing crisis.
Obama, back on the campaign trail after two days of vacation, criticized McCain for not offering specific approaches to easing turmoil in housing markets. McCain had said he was open to a variety of approaches.
"He said that the best way to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen," Obama said in Greensboro, North Carolina.
"We have been down this road before. It's the road that George Bush has taken over the last eight years," he said.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama's "blatant mischaracterizations aren't the new politics he's promised America, they're the old attack and smear tactics that Americans are tired of."
McCain rebuked Obama, an Illinois senator, and Clinton, a New York senator, for supporting relatively quick withdrawals of troops from Iraq.
"We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq," he said. "It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal."
(Additional reporting by Matthew Bigg, writing by John Whitesides; editing by Patricia Zengerle)
(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http:blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
By Tim Gaynor2 hours, 20 minutes ago
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to chart an independent course on U.S. foreign policy, called on Wednesday for a more vigorous international diplomacy and a new effort to rebuild frayed relations with allies.
Distancing himself from the sometimes unilateral diplomatic approach of President George W. Bush, McCain said the United States needs to live up to its responsibilities as a world leader and become a "model citizen" in the global community.
"The United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone," the Arizona senator, back from a trip to Iraq, the Middle East and Europe, said in a speech to the World Affairs Council in California.
"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said.
McCain, who has been criticized by Democrats for hewing too closely to the policies of Bush, his fellow Republican, acknowledged the damaged U.S. image around the globe after five years of the Iraq war.
"Leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation. One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies," he said.
McCain slammed both of the two Democrats seeking to become their party's candidate in the November election, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for advocating quick withdrawals from Iraq.
He also signaled he would have a more hands-on approach than Bush in working for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"I would devote every effort, including personal deep engagement and involvement in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process," McCain said in response to a question after the speech. "It is too important ... for us not to give it the highest priority."
'WE CAN'T TORTURE'
McCain restated his opposition to torture and said the United States should close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where it holds terrorism suspects.
"America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model," he said. "How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured."
The Bush administration has admitted using waterboarding -- a simulated drowning technique widely regarded as torture -- in some instances.
McCain has clinched the Republican nomination, while Clinton and Obama are still battling one another on the Democratic side, and the speech in Los Angeles was his second major policy address in two days after one on Tuesday on the U.S. housing crisis.
Obama, back on the campaign trail after two days of vacation, criticized McCain for not offering specific approaches to easing turmoil in housing markets. McCain had said he was open to a variety of approaches.
"He said that the best way to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen," Obama said in Greensboro, North Carolina.
"We have been down this road before. It's the road that George Bush has taken over the last eight years," he said.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said Obama's "blatant mischaracterizations aren't the new politics he's promised America, they're the old attack and smear tactics that Americans are tired of."
McCain rebuked Obama, an Illinois senator, and Clinton, a New York senator, for supporting relatively quick withdrawals of troops from Iraq.
"We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq," he said. "It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal."
(Additional reporting by Matthew Bigg, writing by John Whitesides; editing by Patricia Zengerle)
(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at http:blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)