John McCain has returned the campaign contributions solicited by Jordanian national Mustafa Abu Naba’a on behalf of McCain associate and owner of an oil trading company Harry Sargeant III. Marc Ambinder asks:
If there were a group of questionable donations all with the name Abdullah
that were funneled through a guy in Jordan
who is a Jordanian national
who is under investigation for war profiteering
and it were Barack Obama
instead of John McCain
would this be a bigger deal?
So it’s a rhetorical question, or at least it should be. But it’s just another part of the general curve that McCain is graded on, where no amount of unethical or misleading behavior can damage his “brand” in the eyes of many of those covering him. Greg Sargent adds:
As to why McCain’s pro-war posture doesn’t make him vulnerable to a story about potential war-profiteering by one of his biggest bundlers — and why it wouldn’t be more newsworthy as a result — well, you’ll have to go elsewhere for an answer. I’m totally stumped on that one.
Well since, according to neoconservative doctrine, war is always a good thing because even if wars are waged under false pretenses they affect the “character” of the country positively, by definition those advocating for or profiting from armed conflict always have the best interests of the country in mind.
But it’s one thing for neoconservatives to believe it, and another for so many the press to accept that standard uncritically.
— A. Serwer
