by Damozel | Yesterday, Elrod commented at TMV on misstatements by John McCain
which he made during his interview with Katie Couric. ‘Mysteriously,’ these were not aired.
This misstatement isn’t another amusing gaffe by a crusty old maverick; this one matters. As to what it tells you about him, take your pick. More than one interpretation is possible, as Elrod and others have pointed out. Which do you like best? He’s either (1) deliberately distorting facts he knows perfectly well because he’s desperate to discredit Obama; (2) has forgotten the facts because his recollection has become blurred; or (3) —’the Bush option’—he is indifferent to the facts (because he thinks the end—deflating Obama—justifies the means).
Here’s Katie Couric’s question to McCain and his reply (via Elrod at TMV):
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. (TMV; emphasis in original)
As Ilan Goldenberg said:
John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I’m concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I’m actually sitting here wondering who McCain’s advisers are. This isn’t some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It’s a real misunderstanding of what has
happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the "war on terror." If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about.
This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander in Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that according to McCain’s inaccurate version of history, military force came first and solved all of our problems. If that is the lesson he takes from the Anbar Awakening, I am afraid it is the lesson he will apply to every other crisis he faces including, for example, Iran. (emphasis added)
Writing on June 21st about McCain’s mistakes in chronology, Elrod wrote:
[H]ere’s the chronological problem with McCain’s “fruits of the surge” claim: The Sunni Arab community in Anbar Province had already begun to organize against Al Qaeda several months before the surge began and Petraeus arrived in command. The Anbar Awakening resulted from the arrogant claims of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s successor to create an Islamic State of Iraq, which dismissed the old Sunni insurgents as infidels. It imposed draconian social codes on a population that had long supported the more secular, nationalist Sunni insurgency from the beginning. Sunni tribesmen increasingly felt that their own insurgency had been hijacked by outsiders - Jordanians, Libyans, Egyptians, Saudis and others who cared little for Iraqi sovereignty. And so Abu Risha and other tribesmen met secretly with US commanders to get money and weapons to fight off Al Qaeda. The move was a stunning success. By Spring 2007, long before the surge had taken full hold, the Anbar Awakening was bragging that it defeated Al Qaeda in months when the US couldn’t finish the job in years.(TMV).
Did McCain not know this? Apparently, he used to.
At HuffPost, Seth Colter Walls wrote:
[T]he military official cited by McCain, then-Colonel Sean MacFarland, described the Anbar Awakening in September 2006– four months before the "surge" was even announced — noting that tribal leaders were "stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against Al Qaeda." Moreover, a military review written by MacFarland notes that his unit actually left Anbar before most of the surge troops arrived; his success in the region came
between June 2006 and February 2007.Especially notable is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the Awakening, and whether or not it was caused by the surge. Fresh off one of his much-touted trips to Iraq, McCain delivered remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007. Alongside fellow Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain specifically advocated for the newly proposed surge, and cited the already-in-progress turning of Sunni sheiks as a reason to send more troops. (HuffPost; emphasis added)
Elrod at TMV contends that McCain is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
[T]he 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….
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…..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.
Here are a couple of others who commented on his distortion, lapse of memory, or indifference to facts.
Spencer Ackerman also promptly called out McCain in re: the chronology and McFarland’s statements about the Anbar Awakening:
Here [McFarland] is explaining what was going on to Pam Hess, then of UPI, on September 29, 2006, at least two months before Bush decided upon the surge, and about three before he announced it to the public:
‘[T]he tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it’s had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they’re finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.[quote from article]’ (Attackerman)
Matt Yglesias writes:
[H]ere’s an article
McFarland co-wrote which makes it clear that not only did the events he was involved with predate the surge, but he was out of Anbar by February 2007 — just as the first surge forces were arriving. The term "surge" doesn’t so much as appear in his account. Seth Colter Walls notes that McCain himself understood the chronology correctly at one point….
Is it better or worse if McCain is simply lying, as opposed to unable to muster the facts or simply indifferent to them? McCain supporters will have to decide which they prefer. Fortunately, I don’t have to make that choice.
RECENT POSTINGS
Oil Executives Approve McCain's Awesome Drilling Plans
Obama: Currently Winning the Iraq Argument
John McCain: He's So Well Seasoned!
Hillary: Bush Adm'n to Undermine Women on Contraception Issues
Comments