home

McCain Would Refuse To Meet With Leader Of NATO Ally Spain

This is outrageous from John "We Are All Georgians Now" McCain, in light of his, to put it charitably, confused response on Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero:

[W]as McCain purposely trying to diss the Spanish leader? Questions about whether McCain forgot which country Zapatero leads, got confused about Spain's geographic relationship to Latin America, or confused Zapatero with the Zapatista rebels from Mexico have exploded on blogs since reports of the interview first surfaced.

More...

McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Sheunemann said McCain's answer was intentional. "The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview," he said in an e-mail.

(Emphasis supplied.) Let me get this straight, McCain would risk war with Russia for the sake of an unhinged leader of Georgia, but he would not even meet with the leader of a longstanding US ally and member of NATO? This is grossly incompetent and irresponsible. This is more than a gaffe. This is a scandal. John McCain is unfit to be President.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain's Spain Gaffe: Spanish Press Abuzz | McCain Was For Meeting With Spanish Leader Before He Was Against It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is a really good (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    "attack his strength" story

    Randy Scheunemann (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    Former lobbyist to  Georgia, explaining McCain to the Washington Post:

    "The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id'd him in the question so there is no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview," he said in an e-mail.

    "In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally," he said in an e-mail. "If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open, unlike Senator Obama, who has publicly committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office."

    Completely ridiculous spin.  Agreeing to meet with a NATO ally in Washington DC will somehow compromise national security??

    Think of it this way.... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    if McCain is elected, he is obligated by treaty to defend the borders of Spain with American blood, if necessary.  

    But he is unwilling to commit to meeting with the elected leader of Spain?

    American blood...no problem.  Cup of coffee at the White House...lemme think about it.

    ???

    Political relations (3.66 / 3) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    with Spain have been chilly for some time now, for obvious reasons as has been stated up-thread.

    If the explanations of McCain's people are correct I really don't get the outrage with this.

    "In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally," he said in an e-mail. "If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance."

    He doesn't say he "Would Refuse To Meet With Leader Of NATO Ally Spain," as some have alleged here - despite that position being a continuation of current and existing US policy toward Zapatero - he's saying he won't commit to it at this time.

    iow, "You cheated on me. You gotta send me some flowers, or something, anyway, before we go ahead and sleep together again."

    And, yes, invites to the WH are the political equivalent, or close enough anyway, to "sleeping together."

    International politics ain't the same as inviting the ahole next-door neighbor over for beer and brats in an attempt to clear the air, as much as we average Joes think it should be...

    Heh (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    Perhaps you can explain the flip flop.

    Keep digging.

    Parent

    Nope, that's inexplicable to me. (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Such is life.

    Parent
    No "President" (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    Spain has a monarch--brought back after Franco died.  So, there is no President but a Prime Minister.  That the McCain camp would get the title wrong in a supposedly thought-out written statement shows incompetence.

    That McCain would botch an answer on Spain's current government is interesting....He has said that his favorite novel is Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, whose protagonist (who McCain says he idolizes) was American Robert Jordan who fought on the losing side of the Spanish Civil War for the anti-Fascists....who were defeated by Franco.

    McCain thought the Prime Minister of Spain was another left winger friend of Hugo Chavez from South America-instead the head of a NATO ally.  McCain is losing it....

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    Maybe they would all prefer to meet with the King of Spain instead, after what he famously said to Chavez.

    Parent
    A propos. . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST
    I've always loved that song!  But I did not believe anyone else on the planet was familiar with it.

    Parent
    Franco still dead? (none / 0) (#40)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    Who knew?

    And King Juan Carlos is reputed to be a cool guy -- there were stories circulating in the hitchhiking community in the 80s that he would pick up hitchers on his motorcycle.

    Parent

    Well, I think you're being a little (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    too persnickety here. From wiki:
    Today, Spain is a constitutional monarchy, and there is thus no person holding the title of President of Spain. However, the Prime Minister holds the official title of President of the Government.
    And I think your last paragraph is ridiculous. McCain obviously knew and knows exactly who Zapatero is.

    Parent
    Apparently McCain (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    is the only one who calls Zapatero "President."  Everyone else calls him "Prime Minister" including those in Spain....

    And McCain's meandeirng comments about Spain make no sense....They are an ally.....Even France under all their difficult leaders has always been an ally.

    Wow, going to the barricades for McCain.....

    Parent

    Oy. Yes, only McCain... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    ...and WaPo, US News and World Report, Think Progress, the LA Times, venezuelanalysis, etc, not to mention the latina interviewer herself.

    fwiw, I mostly spend my time here pointing out BS - whether it's "president v. prime minster" BS or "Rezco bought Obama his house" BS.

    I'm an equal opportunity BS pointer-outer.

    Parent

    Yeah, I am sure undecided voters (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    will be swayed by this argument.  The Zapatero led government has had a rocky relationship with the US since coming to power.

    Somehow this doesn't seem like an argument that will work with swing voters.  Although I am sure it will generate tons of genuine outrage, shock and horror in Left blogs.

    Guess what (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    I could not care less who it works with.

    This is a scandal and an outrage.

    Parent

    No, it really isn't. But spin yourself (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    up BTD, it is kind of humorous to watch.

    Parent
    So you think it's ok (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    That McCain might not meet with the president of Spain???

    A NATO ally who has troops fighting with us in Afghanistan.

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!???!!!

    This isn't North Korea we're talking about here.  The president has to use SOME diplomacy.

    Parent

    Yes it really is (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    And it is quite pathetic to see you deny it.

    Hell, your willingness to consider voting for McCain because easier to understand now.

    Parent

    A standard trollery (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    technique is to feign having once been on the same side as the group but having become disillusioned and then switching.....It gives the troll credibiliy of being "one of us".....

    I'm not saying that is necessarily in play here...

    Parent

    Note the (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    pejorative use of the term "Left."  

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    I think McCain should make it clear that he won't sit down and speak to those terrorist lovers in France and Germany either.  

    I'm about tired of our leaders cozying up to those appeasers.

    Parent

    as Ben Smitch pointed out (none / 0) (#1)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    McCain said he WOULD meet with him just last April

    so as Ben asks and everyone should ask

    what tell hell changed?

    typo. (none / 0) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    but yeah I obviously meant, "what the hell"

    Parent
    In that interview in April (none / 0) (#9)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    he says that we have to look forward with Spain and forget about the past. 16 days later Bush is upset with Spain because Zapatero wants Spanish troops out of Iraq.

    George W Bush voiced regret at the "abrupt Spanish action" in a five-minute phone call to Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the White House said.

    Now McCain isn't agreeing to meet with him because of what transpired 16 days after he extended the olive branch and now he looks like he's being friendly to a country that has abandoned the US in Iraq.

    Parent

    well thats terrible for McCain (none / 0) (#13)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    the surge is working so well that Bush-McCain get mad and refuse to speak to any country that pulls troops out!

    Parent
    Huge Mistake (none / 0) (#2)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    I have no idea why they didn't just say he misunderstood the interviewer, which is clearly what happened and which would have made this a tempest in a teapot story.  By affirmatively stating that Spain is now a part of McCain's axis of evil, they have turned this into an international incident--this story will now have legs it didn't have to have.

    Indeed, (none / 0) (#10)
    by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    and now we have proof that McCain would rather take an absurd, untenable, dangerous position than to admit a mistake.

    Parent
    he should have gone with the excuse (none / 0) (#3)
    by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    that he just misheard/misunderstood the question.  Now that his people are taking the position that he meant his answer, he is stuck with this absurd position.

    Pretty unbelievable (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    McCain Meltdown (none / 0) (#53)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    I think the man is in the beginning stages of dementia or Alzheimers. It's the only explanation that fits. What, you insult an ally just for the heck of it?

    Parent
    No, he really can't afford. . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    to introduce the idea of any age-related questions.  He also can't afford to cough, even once, in public between now and the election.

    Even if the real reason is that he misheard or misunderstood, given that the tape is apparently quite clear on how specific the interviewer was, playing tough-guy-to-the-European-sissies may be his least harmful out.

    Parent

    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by indy in sc on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    I know that he is carefully trying to avoid anything that can be viewed as a "senior moment" but here he had the cover of an interviewer with a heavy accent.  Even though what she said was clear to most of us, people would have given him a pass on not understanding her.  In the absence of an accent, I could see staying away from admitting he misunderstood.  Even if he didn't want to admit the mistake, after deciding to address it, he should have taken the opportunity to clarify that "of course, he would be welcome--I was just emphasizing that I will look closely at anyone before extending an invitation to the White House unlike my reckless opponent..."

    Parent
    A malevolent fool (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    As I've always said.  And he very well might "win", though what winning means in our incapable-of-pulling-off-a-fair-election atmosphere is debatable.

    If we are to take this seriously.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    and not as the lame excuse to cover up for McCain's shortcomings that most of us think it is...who are we not gonna talk to next?  Canada?

    I've got an isolationist streak when it comes to military intervention and deployment, but it doesn't apply to simple dialogue.  The president should talk to anybody who will listen, and listen to anybody who will talk.

    I thought we were a lock for an improvement over G-Dub...now who knows?

    "Who are we not gonna talk to next?" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    Great question that underlines the beauty and power of McCain's approach. You can handle many countries simultaneously.

    Parent
    That's new clarification of what McCain meant (none / 0) (#14)
    by wasabi on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM EST
    is right up there with his explanation that the fundementals of our economy is the common working man.  Oh yeah, riiiight...

    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.

    I was trying to remember (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    the story of Condoleezza Rice's meeting with Zapatero in 2007:

    Rice was scheduled to arrive just after midday, meeting with Spanish King Juan Carlos before talks and a working lunch with Moratinos, the foreign minister. She planned to meet with Zapatero in the afternoon, followed by the head of Spain's conservative opposition, before departing.

    Zapatero is one of the few European leaders not to have been invited to the White House since taking office.

    In fact, relations between Washington and Zapatero, who openly supported Democratic challenger John Kerry on the eve of the U.S. elections in 2004, have been frosty since even before the Spanish leader took power.

    In 2003, as head of the Socialist party then in opposition, Zapatero did not join other Spanish officials in standing up when U.S. troops marched past a VIP stand during a parade to mark National Day. The next year, as prime minister, he didn't even invite the Americans.

    That followed Zapatero's decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, which he did a month after taking office in 2004. The war has been deeply unpopular here, particularly after a terror attack by Islamic militants that year that killed 191 people on Madrid commuter trains. The militants said they targeted Spain because of its participation in the peacekeeping force in Iraq.

    Despite these fissures, Spanish and U.S. officials say relations have never been as bad as the media has made them out, and point to frequent ministerial level contacts between the two countries. Trade figures show the political chill has not extended to business.

    So I mean, I understand why they would be interested in knowing if McCain plans to follow in Bush's footsteps.  I'm not disagreeing that refusing to meet with a NATO ally is "incompetent and irresponsible" in this case, but it's apparently current U.S. policy!

    By the way, I feel somewhat ashamed in that I totally do not "get" Spanish surnames.

    gee (none / 0) (#17)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    He's not talking about Spain, he's talking about the evil-doing Spanish Inquisition.  Rush Limbaugh will clarify the whole matter.

    It is hard for me to see scandal as (none / 0) (#29)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    the operative term here. Major blunder or prickliness might be a better term.  It seems totally stupid to the left for McCain to be so heavy handed considering the political cover they can use for Spain helping in Afghanistan, but he does seem to have his shoes stuck in GWB's road manure. OTOH I am sure there are people in his camp that will see the beauty of the consistency.

    I'm not sure what to make (none / 0) (#30)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    of all this, given how it's been described.

    From what was reported, all that McCain has done is refused, at this particular moment, to make a commitment to meeting with Zapatero.

    How is that in any way equivalent to saying that he refuses to meet with him, period? How about the possibility that he simply doesn't want to make the commitment at this moment, because he may or may not regard such a meeting as sufficiently urgent, given current circumstances, to make such a commitment this far in advance?

    Isn't it perfectly consistent with this that he may choose to make such a commitment in the future, if the circumstances warrant it?

    If someone asked McCain if he would meet with the leader of Lithuania, and he refused to make a commitment at this point, would that be equivalent to saying that he refuses to meet with the leader of Lithuania?

    What am I missing here?

    The scandal is that (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    he made a mistake in an interview, refuses to admit it, and has thus taken a position that is both absurd and ill-advised.

    Parent
    Except that (none / 0) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    people are claiming that McCain has now refused to meet with Zapetero -- and that's what makes what he has said so scandalous, I gather.

    Except I don't see how McCain has said anything that implies he has made that refusal.

    Parent

    To be clear, the official McCain campaign line (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:24:45 PM EST
    is this:

    In this week's interview, Senator McCain did not rule in or rule out a White House meeting with President Zapatero, a NATO ally. If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance.  He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries.

    So it is clear that 1)he won't "rule out" a meeting with Zapatero, 2) he will meet with allies, and 3)he won't make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries.

    All of this because McCain can't admit that he made a mistake in an interview.  As Joe Klein says, "Seems to me that putting a chill in the relationship with one of our NATO allies simply because McCain misheard a question is going a bit far."

    Parent

    just making himself seem (none / 0) (#54)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    more like GWB...

    I really want to believe that John McCain wouldn't be another 4 years of the travesty we've lived in the past 8, but I'm starting to doubt that more and more...

    Parent

    "What am I missing here? " (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    A Democratic voter registration card?

    Parent
    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    I gotta tell you I've been wondering lately if the price one has to pay for being a "good Democrat" nowadays is to get rid of any claim one might have to being "reality based".

    Sorry if words mean what they mean. I'm asking how McCain's answer on the question implies what people are saying.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    Well, considering he said in April of this year that he would invite Zapatero to the White House, the sudden change in his position is inexplicable and bizarre.

    Parent
    Explainable only (none / 0) (#42)
    by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    by the fact that he and his campaign are refusing to admit the flub in the interview.  If anything, the failure to admit the mistake is starting to be the most important aspect of this.  Too much like Bush.

    Parent
    the right is just out of touch with reality (none / 0) (#55)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    almost more now that the extreme right evangelical side is becoming more mainstream...


    Parent
    You really (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:33:06 PM EST
    are not being reality based at all on this.

    Let's face it, you have been biased against Obama for a while now and it is reflected in your participation in this thread.

    You really do not even understand this story.

    Parent

    You are missing (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    That Spain is not Lithuania.

    He already made that commitment 5 months ago and is now backtracking.

    Refuse is too strong a word, I grant you that.  But why put it up in the air at all?  Of COURSE he should meet with the leader of a NATO ally who has troops fighting with us in Afghanistan.

    The NATO and Afghanistan issue is a CURRENT problem under existing circumstances.  I would say that makes it sufficiently urgent that he commit to meet with the leader of Spain.  The circumstances already warrant it.

    Parent

    The one thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    that isn't obvious to me is how urgent it is to meet with a country like Spain, given all of these circumstances.

    Yes, Spain is in NATO. But does the President really in the ordinary course of things need to have a (presumably separate) meeting with each and every leader of members of NATO? It's not obvious to me how much an obligation that really is, given all the other leaders a President must meet with, or all the other things he must do.

    In any case, I am very suspicious of how this whole incident was reported. All that's said is that McCain repeatedly refused to make a commitment on the spot. Was he being badgered, and just didn't want to make that commitment to some random, perhaps hostile questioner until he gave it some more thought? I'd like to hear more about how that went down before I'd declare the refusal to make a commitment to have any real signficance.

    This is what you are missing (none / 0) (#47)
    by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    he DIDN'T refuse to agree to meet with Zapatero in the interview.  If you listen, McCain wasn't following the questioner at all.  He just kept talking about Latin America, Mexico, and the Hemisphere (meaning this one).  It was clear he wasn't talking about Spain at all.  Either McCain was drifting off or he just plain couldn't understand the interviewer.

    All of this post-hoc explanation about meeting with Spain or not is simply a giant coverup for McCain's performance in that interview.

    Parent

    You can listen to the (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Zapatista rebels (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    in southern Mexico....Zapata, instead of Zapatero.....That could confuse McCain.....but the Zapatistas have never been in power even in the state of Chiapas where they have held a town or two for a moment or two.....Well, not since the days of Pancho Villa anyway....

    Por que no te callas (none / 0) (#56)
    by Oceandweller on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:03:51 PM EST
    as said very aptly El Rey Juan Carlos to Hugo Chavez,
    said king who to my knowledge is Spain head of state as Spain is a monarchy since... at least the fall of the Wisigothic kingdom of Spain in 711.
    Let see if Arizona can be around as Spain is in 1000years...