« Obama: Winning the Iraq Argument
God’s love, satellite delivered: Christian radio opposes local provisions »
More distorted Iraq history from McCain
As per my post yesterday on the real chronology of the surge, I criticized the tendency of McCain to claim all credit for security improvements in Iraq. The surge was a part of that improvement, to be sure, but the majority of the solution came from events outside the control of US troops: the Anbar Awakening that began months before the surge, Sadr’s ceasefire and, sadly, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. I hoped that the media would start to challenge McCain on this assumption.
Oddly enough, CBS’s Katie Couric apparently posed this exact question to John McCain. The answer was shocking – perhaps so shocking that CBS actually scrubbed the answer from the final production. But as Keith Olbermann noticed on the CBS website, the original response is still there. Here’s how the section went:
Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?
McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.
They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that’s effective. We have a legal system that’s working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts, including an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda’s not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.
A matter of history, huh?
As Olbermann himself mentions, the McFarland statement on the Anbar Awakening was issued in September of 2006. The beginning of the Anbar Awakening actually dates to August 2006 when dozens of tribal leaders met in Anbar to plot out an anti-Al Qaeda strategy. The surge did not begin until January 2007 and did not reach fruition until about June 2007.
As I mentioned yesterday, Petraeus was astute enough to back the Anbar Awakening and try to replicate it in Baghdad. He did, in fact, support the sheikhs, although Petraeus’s predecessor did too. Still, the surge did not lead to the Anbar Awakening. That is getting the chronology completely backwards.
It would be like saying that the 9/11 was a retaliation for the removal of Saddam Hussein. It would be as if the US Civil War was caused by the Great Depression of the 1930. It is completely wrong.
Why did McCain say this? Was it just another gaffe like the Iraq-Pakistan border? I think not. The Iraq-Pakistan border reference was a classic slip of the tongue – totally innocent. But this is not innocent as McCain even referred to the whole notion of the Anbar Awakening preceding the surge as a “false depiction of what actually happened.”
I can’t stress enough how infuriating this is. The only word that describes this is that John McCain is lying. He is stating something he knows not to be true. He is so desperate to accentuate the value of the surge that he actually ascribed events predating the surge to the surge itself.
John McCain knows darn well what happened in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. To his credit, he was probably over there then. He did not forget this critical chronology. He wasn’t unaware of it. He knew that the surge started well after the Awakening began – and didn’t take full hold until the Awakening was largely complete in Anbar. And yet he chose to lie about this moment.
8 Responses to “More distorted Iraq history from McCain”
I'm willing to cut anyone some slack every once in a while for misspeaking, especially considering how long and arduous the campaign trail is. It even took a toll on Hunter Thompson. No wait… maybe Hunter took a toll on himself. Anyway, it must be unbelievably tough. But this gaffe is beyond the pale. It's beyond the pale not only because it was a false depiction of history, but also because McCain made such a big deal about how others (at least one) had “such a false depiction of what actually happened”. Good grief!
I'm beginning to think superdestroyer may be right (that McCain has zero chance to win) even if Silhouette is right (that Larry Sinclair isn't bat shit crazy). Lol!
I'm sure McCain remembers all too well how the Bush machine savaged him in 2000; maybe he's decided to adopt a similar model and see if making honesty optional gives him any advantage. It's sad for a couple reasons: one – it's success depends on cooperation from a dumbed down public in order to gain any traction, and two – it's not pleasant to see a person who I respect in many ways making what has to be a conscious choice to play fast and loose with the truth.
Very well said, JSpencer. To be honest, McCain was my pick early in the primaries, and I was glad to see him ultimately prevail. Since then though my disappointment has been growing. He's waffled back and forth on issue after issue so much that I'm not sure what he believes anymore. But even more than that, I'm beginning to think he really is confused. I hate to say that because it has age connotations that I really don't want to imply. Plenty younger people than him are confused. I just don't want them to be president.
Anderson Cooper covered this issue too. The thoughts were quite interesting.
Joe Klein: It's an example of McCain overreaching as he always does. His “rather lose a war than a campaign” charge especially galling to Klein.
Ed Henry: Played a McCain response that just said the Democrats were trying to distract from the surge. Bu then mocked the McCain response.
David Gergen: Said this shows McCain's age. Builds a pattern of gaffes that make him look too old.
Me: I side with Klein. McCain is in desperation mode right now. He wants to claim ANYTHING that will help him. He set a trap for Obama overseas and Obama avoided it.
[...] to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the sunni awakening and the Shiite government …http://themoderatevoice.com/war/iraq/surge/21240/more-distorted-iraq-history-from-mccain/Read “RE: Obama: I Still Would Not Support the Surge in Iraq” at Op EDITORIALS: personal & political [...]
Elrod: He set a trap for Obama overseas and Obama avoided it.
I'd say that's something of an understatement.
McCain’s Surge: Deliberate Misrepresentation or Alarming Forgetfulness?
by Damozel | In an interesting portion of the Couric/McCain interview which ‘mysteriously’ didn’t get included in the interview (but which was left in place at the CBS website), McCain seems either to be either deliberately distorting the chronology…
And who says that McCain is treated poorly by the press? If the press were responsible the press would point out all of McCain's misstatements. If Obama had said this, McCain would be all over him as being ignorant of history or changing history to suit his purposes.
The press, by not talking about McCain's problems with facts and world knowledge is doing a terrible disservice to the American people. I thought the job of the press was to keep us informed, not put make-up on politicians' statements to cover-up such blatant falsehoods. Though having said that I do agree with Ricorun that cutting some slack is necessary, but on this incident (I'm with Ricorun) and not on mistakes candidates make when talking about a field they are considered an “expert” on.