In one sense, of course, John McCain is correct to say:
And while one may say that, more often than not, the United States has been one of, for want of a less crude way of putting it, the Good Guys even that country’s admirers must acknowledge that this has not always or universally been the case. And that has led to problems. It also, frankly, makes one pretty happy that John McCain ain’t President.
“The president saying that we didn’t want to be perceived as meddling, is, frankly, not what America’s history is all about.”
Relatedly, it would be useful if Obama’s advisors ceased this sort of nonsense:
But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic’s Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, “There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities,” adding that “I was struck in the aftermath of the president’s speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach.”…
Obama’s advisers say the outreach may have contributed to the defeat in Lebanese elections a few days later of a coalition led by Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed party, that had been predicted to win. In recent days, administration officials have pointed to the Iranian demonstrations as further evidence of Obama’s possible influence in the region. Really? Well, perhaps. But it’s safer, and probably more accurate, to suppose that Obama’s Cairo speech had, if anything, a tiny impact on recent events in the middle east. We’ve been here before. Remember how the Bush administration tried to take credit for Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution”? That was presumptious in the extreme and it’s equally presumptious for Obama’s officials to make the same assumptions.