Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

John McCain’s Wiki- Foreign Policy Knowledge

By

More from the most stupidly entertaining Presidential campaign in modern history:

link from Political Insider:

A Wikipedia editor emailed Political Wire to point out some similarities between Sen. John McCain’s speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. Most people would consider parts of McCain’s speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.

First instance:

   one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

   vs.

   one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

   After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

   vs.

   After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

Third instance:

   In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze’s ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country’s military and economic capabilities. (Wikipedia)

   vs.

   Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. (McCain)

p.s. McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann had been a paid lobbyist for the government of Georgia. Why didn’t he just write the speech?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. History and Wikipedia talks about Georgian history.  Is the history wrong in either instance. perhaps it seems similar because they were both talking about the same history.  Just a thought.  

    • of course, I don’t spend my time reading papers/speeches referring to historical events, so maybe I’m just naive or obtuse — but is the speech really that close?

      • does look pretty close to verbatim.  that said, there are only so many ways to restate concise historical facts.  i’ve run up against this problem myself while writing science papers.  

      • that a wikipedia editor chose to call it to Political Wire’s attention.  Seems reasonable to assume that the researcher who drafted the speech used wikipedia as a major (only?) source, and perhaps was pressed for time.

  3. The little changes are interesting.  Taking out the unnecessary “in the world” is simply good editing, but adding “crumbled at the end of the Cold War” adds some interest and stirs memories of Reagan, and adding “corruption” to its early independence ills might show McCain’s view, as opposed to the neutral wiki viewpoint of “civil unrest”.  That happens again when McCain switches from “monitors asserted” to the non-neutral fact of fraud in 2003, and clarifies what side we were on in the Rose Revolution, which McCain must have known was “peaceful and democratic”, because that’s not in the wiki.

  4. From the original post:

    p.s. McCain’s top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann had been a paid lobbyist for the government of Georgia. Why didn’t he just write the speech?

    Who said Randy Scheunemann didn’t write both the speech and the wiki entry?

    <

    p>Meanwhile, MSNBC First Read came up with an interesting thought.

    Finally, just asking: Did Joe Biden’s stock just go through the roof with the Georgia crisis?

     Just asking.

    • I expect a speech writer to have written the speech-not McCain nor Sheunemann.

      <

      p>Whether Sheunemann is a wiki-contributor is speculative…

      <

      p>Still, this is something that would be a big no-no for an undergrad.

      <

      p>For a Presidential candidate running on his foreign policy experience? Unreal. Imagine if Obama did this!

      • that’s what is most amazing.  McCain is touting his foreign policy experience as a reason to vote for him.  Now it’s found that he’s cribbing from Wikipedia?  Truly amazing!

        <

        p>Debate all you want about who did what, the words came from McCain’s mouth, he ultimately responsible for what he says.  If he’s not, should be even be a candidate to be president?

    • has everything: corporate welfare, widespread public endangerment, and a stunning lack of cognition in the person of John McCain.

      Aug 12, 2008

      Leave it to John McCain to pick the site of a horrific atomic meltdown to symbolize his push for nuke power.

      McCain says he wants at least 45 more US reactors as part of his “do everything” campaign for American energy independence. […]

      Thus, it was fitting he chose Monroe, Michigan, for a nuke-powered energy push. The town’s central square hosts a statue honoring General George Armstrong Custer, wiped out by Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse at the Little Big Horn in the summer of 1876.

      More important was the melt-down at Monroe’s Fermi Unit I on October 5, 90 years later.

      Fermi I was a sodium-cooled fast-breeder. Its promise was not only electricity “too cheap to meter,” but a fuel system that would magically generate more than it used. This astonishing fantasy was part of a government sponsored “Peaceful Atom” push to paste a happy face on the nuclear weapons industry.

      Fermi I was key in a number of ways. Detroit Edison’s legendary boss, Walker Sisler, told the feds he would be a prime nuke booster. But like the rest of the nation’s utility execs, he demanded protection against the monstrous liability that could come with a major melt-down.

      So in 1957, before the “inherently safe” Fermi I was built, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, shielding reactor owners from the billions in lawsuits that would follow a catastrophe. Since they believed it would be a short time before private insurers stepped in, the bill was only good for 15 years. Since then, it has been constantly renewed. Today the prospective builders of new reactors demand this same federal insurance protection. So the “temporary” acknowledgement that private insurers won’t touch atomic reactors is now a permanent shield for this “safe” technology.

      Fermi I was subjected to the first major legal challenge to reactor construction by the United Auto Workers’ legendary lawyer, Leo Goodman. The UAW took Edison all the way to the Supreme Court, where it lost 7-2. In a benchmark minority decision, Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black warned that nuclear power involved “a lighthearted approach to the most awesome, the most deadly, the most dangerous process that man has ever conceived.”

      In 1966, a blockage occurred in the $100 million plant’s cooling system. Because it carried highly volatile liquid sodium, which can explode when exposed to air, all of southeastern Michigan stood at the brink of an unthinkable catastrophe. Police officials seriously debated evacuating Detroit, just 40 miles north.

      But an explosion at Fermi would have permanently irradiated the Great Lakes and a gigantic area of land stretching hundreds of miles in all directions. Countless thousands of people would have died from both short-term and long-term radiation sickness. One actual victim from the releases that did occur may have been then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who spoke in Monroe the day after the accident and later died of cancer.

      The public was kept totally in the dark. That day I served as editorial director of the University of Michigan Daily, where we were tapped in to the core of the nation’s major news sources. Though I was the Time Magazine and United Press International correspondent for Ann Arbor, just 40 miles west, I never heard a word about this accident until I stumbled upon John G. Fuller’s legendary WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT in 1974. Writing for the Readers Digest Press, Fuller’s astonishing tale still sends chills down the spines of a whole generation that lived in the neighborhood and never suspected the danger we were in.

      So Monroe is indeed a fitting global symbol for nuclear power. In mere moments, a $100 million asset became a multi-billion-dollar liability, and millions of people and square miles were put at unconscionable — and uninsured — risk.

Archives