Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lt_Ripley

McCain making up history and CBS admits

58 posts in this topic

July 23, 2008

McCain doubles down on humiliating surge error

Posted July 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In a dramatic error yesterday, John McCain told Katie Couric that it’s “just a matter of history” that Bush’s “surge” policy “began the Anbar awakening.” That, of course, is backwards.

Today, thanks to some efforts by the Obama campaign, the media started picking up on McCain’s bizarre confusion on his signature national security issue, most notably with coverage from the AP and CNN.

As of this earlier afternoon, the best the McCain campaign could come up with was this: “Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge … but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy.”

Got that? If you think 2006 came before 2007, you’re somehow showing disrespect for the troops.

The McCain campaign then got a little more creative.

“Senator McCain is correct,” McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said today. “As General Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar Awakening was so successful in tearing up al Qaeda.”

This one’s more interesting, so let’s unpack it a bit.

Here’s the new McCain campaign rationale for his obvious screw-up: the surge, for all of you calendar-lovers, may technically have come after the launch of the Anbar Awakening, but it doesn’t matter because were it not for the surge, the Awakening would have failed miserably. The influx of U.S. troops may have come after the Awakening, but it made the success of the Awakening possible. That, in a nutshell, is the new argument.

As spin goes, that’s pretty creative. But that doesn’t make it right.

First, the McCain campaign is making a case that’s supported by practically nothing. The vast majority of the troops involved with the surge went to Baghdad, not Anbar, the latter of which saw one U.S. brigade. Did the presence of this brigade make the surge successful? It can’t be disproven, but it’s hardly the accepted consensus, either.

Second, and more importantly, the latest spin is disconnected to what McCain, you know, actually said. McCain insisted that the surge “began the Anbar awakening.” It didn’t. In fact, to hear McCain tell it, the only Awakening the surge happened — not succeeded, but happened — is the surge, which is clearly false. All the after-the-fact rationalizing won’t change this obvious mistake.

It’s likely reporters would have had a few more questions for McCain about his latest confusion at his press conference this afternoon, but around the time the AP story about McCain’s error hit the wires, the campaign cancelled the press conference. Was the cancellation connected to the desire to avoid questions about this? Your guess is as good as mine.

And what about CBS News, which conveniently helped cover up McCain’s mistake? The network issued a statement this afternoon:

“As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night’s Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates’ major differences. The full transcript and video were and still are available at cbsnews.com.”

This isn’t especially helpful. McCain’s confusion wasn’t especially lengthy; there was plenty of time to air it. Considering it was arguably the most important mistake either candidate has made all year — which, of course, makes it newsworthy — you’d think CBS would choose to make time for it.

For that matter, the statement doesn’t explain why CBS aired Couric’s question in full, but spliced the interview together to air a different, less-embarrassing answer to a different question.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16300.html

If Obama had it his way we wouldn't have been in Iraq.

great video out there ! soon to come !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa. As long as they let the democrats stay in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa. As long as they let the democrats stay in power.

*pats head

That's right. Anyone who doesn't believe just like you is a big stupid-head. And probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

...I'd be willing to bet, though, at least most Democrats could /spell/ al-Qaeda right in at least one of its forms.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa. As long as they let the democrats stay in power.

Thats funny, the democrats have had about 9 years in power since the threat began vs 20 years for the republicans, and the most severe terrorist attack on the US occured during republican rule. I don't think Al Qaeda wants to rule the USA, they'd rather destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

note -

CBS Covers Up Major McCain Error

During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the "surge" strategy in Iraq. In an interview with anchor Katie Couric, the Arizona Republican said, inaccurately, that the surge strategy was responsible for the much-touted "Anbar Awakening," in which Sunni sheiks turned against Al Qaeda, helping in turn to reduce violence in the country.

Yet McCain's error was not seen by any CBS Evening News viewers. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted, "CBS curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric's question, but in response, it aired part of McCain's answer to the other question instead." (Ironically, this edit came on the same day that McCain's campaign released a video mocking the media's "love affair" with Obama.)

Watch video of Olbermann exposing McCain and CBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did work together though for the huge decrease in violence in Iraq today.

Even Obama is on the spot to praise the surge just not in so many words... He just credits the soldiers doing their job that they're good at by just not saying what the job is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Obama had it his way we wouldn't have been in Iraq.

Which year are you talking about?

Obama was against a withdrawel from 2004 to november 2006, going so far to say his stance was basically the same as Bush's...

In November 2006 he changed his mind, calling for the start of a withdrawel, basically saying that Iraq had failed and the US had to get out (with the clause that you guys would go right back in should the sectarian violence flare up again lol)

to be honest, the more I read about Obama's stance on Iraq, and his opinions on how things should be conducted over there, the less it makes sense.

and for what its worth, when the Anbar awakening occured, 2200 extra troops were sent to Anbar in November 06

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which year are you talking about?

Obama was against a withdrawel from 2004 to november 2006, going so far to say his stance was basically the same as Bush's...

In November 2006 he changed his mind, calling for the start of a withdrawel, basically saying that Iraq had failed and the US had to get out (with the clause that you guys would go right back in should the sectarian violence flare up again lol)

to be honest, the more I read about Obama's stance on Iraq, and his opinions on how things should be conducted over there, the less it makes sense.

Obama voted against the war. remember ?

he was never against withdrawal.

Now it also has to be stated that with the Uprising of Sunnis ( 10 months before the surge) and what troops that were there and the addition of Iraq guards/MP's the surge just may have been unnecessary. We won't know that now. But violence did start dropping before the surge because of the above.

If what your reading on Obama's stance on Iraq is filtered via McCain and cons . of course it isn't going to make sense. that's called spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok youtube for youtube, tit for for tat lol

I like Macains last statement. "I would rather lose the election than lose the war." The war is lost, hence the enemy can't be found and singled out and that the Iraqi gov is on Obama's side. The war is lost, plain and simple. The U.S. should pull out and soon, and let the card's fall were they may. The war is over and and the false victory over terrorisim is a sham. End the occupation and gaurd the borders of the u.s like a zip lock vapour bag, cause what this war has done is nothing more than guaranteed furthure attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Clearly that is CGI technology and voice programming. :P

Ok youtube for youtube, tit for for tat lol

I like Macains last statement. "I would rather lose the election than lose the war." The war is lost, hence the enemy can't be found and singled out and that the Iraqi gov is on Obama's side. The war is lost, plain and simple. The U.S. should pull out and soon, and let the card's fall were they may. The war is over and and the false victory over terrorisim is a sham. End the occupation and gaurd the borders of the u.s like a zip lock vapour bag, cause what this war has done is nothing more than guaranteed furthure attacks.

Having a stable Iraq is winning. Even Obama sees now that the ground situation cannot be ignored and that it must be kept on the right path.

Attacks and violence are now at much much lower numbers then they were thanks to the Awakening, the surge and the on going effort of the Iraqis.

We want out of Iraq but we also have the responsibility to fix what we bombed to hell and broke for the security of both Iraq and the US with tens of millions of lives in the middle.

Edited by __Kratos__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly that is CGI technology and voice programming. :P

Having a stable Iraq is winning. Even Obama sees now that the ground situation cannot be ignored and that it must be kept on the right path.

Attacks and violence are now at much much lower numbers then they were thanks to the Awakening, the surge and the on going effort of the Iraqis.

We want out of Iraq but we also have the responsibility to fix what we bombed to hell and broke for the security of both Iraq and the US with tens of millions of lives in the middle.

It has been mostly a ground situation! The question is how much longer and to what ends. A permanent u.s. presence will be required if stability is to be kept. How long is the question. The Iraqi's want the u.s. out and so do most Americans. It's been to long already and another 4 years is for what? IMO as soon as the U.S. leaves give it 4 yrs or 10 yrs the Iraqi's will have there cival war ten fold to what it is now. This war on terror is a joke, it has done nothing. It's like fighting a ghost, as you said many times, until "these people start to live in the 21st century" whats the war about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been mostly a ground situation! The question is how much longer and to what ends. A permanent u.s. presence will be required if stability is to be kept. How long is the question. The Iraqi's want the u.s. out and so do most Americans. It's been to long already and another 4 years is for what? IMO as soon as the U.S. leaves give it 4 yrs or 10 yrs the Iraqi's will have there cival war ten fold to what it is now. This war on terror is a joke, it has done nothing. It's like fighting a ghost, as you said many times, until "these people start to live in the 21st century" whats the war about?

Till we push the goals of Iraq into place. 15 of 18 goals have already been reached by the Iraqis. A fact commonly ignored. The Iraqi army is a growing force with each day. They're the ones right now that control the majority of Iraq with the Iraqi police. Another fact ignored quite a bit.

Everybody wants the US out of Iraq. That's the goal. Though many Iraqis feel that if the US leaves now or too soon it will push their country backwards. I posted a thread about it just a few days ago that was ignored for whatever reasons.

Well the 21th century for them would be a nice goal but it's unrealistic. Right now stabilizing Iraq is a goal so it can work completely on it's own and pushing the Taliban hard in Afghanistan with NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They did work together though for the huge decrease in violence in Iraq today.

Even Obama is on the spot to praise the surge just not in so many words... He just credits the soldiers doing their job that they're good at by just not saying what the job is.

What worked is what Dubya and his gang did not want to do: getting the Sheiks in the boat by giving them enough millions to amply their harems (or whatever they have nowadays). Instead they opted for the surge. When the surge was evidently going down the tubes they opted for the cheaper version, bribing Sheiks. Those are the facts.

If they'd done that before the war there would have been no need to risk Allied lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are the facts.

lol where are you getting those facts from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What ? CBS news is involved in fraudulant news reporting ?

They must have hired back Dan Rather.

But it really is time for us to leave Iraq. We've accomplished the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol where are you getting those facts from?

Are you disputing them? All you have to do is read the news from the time of the surge to the time of the "bribing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What worked is what Dubya and his gang did not want to do: getting the Sheiks in the boat by giving them enough millions to amply their harems (or whatever they have nowadays). Instead they opted for the surge. When the surge was evidently going down the tubes they opted for the cheaper version, bribing Sheiks. Those are the facts.

If they'd done that before the war there would have been no need to risk Allied lives.

We were giving them support long before the surge.

Sadly, we don't have a time machine. We only have the present and future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If Obama had it his way we wouldn't have been in Iraq.

If Obama had it his way, the UN would still be warning the world about Saddam's WMD, Hans Blix would still be going in circles around Iraq looking for WMD, we would be now on UN Resolution 30 warning Saddam for the 30th time and doing nothing, Oil for Food corruption well concealed and Kofi's son making millions out of it while continuing the cash flow to support Saddams regime, The embargoes continues on and sanctions and no fly zone while the world wonders on and who knows how many new mass graves would there have been.

That is the Obama's way, continue on doing what was deterioating.

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they would still be contained mostly and tens of thousands of people would still be alive and in one piece...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thats funny, the democrats have had about 9 years in power since the threat began vs 20 years for the republicans, and the most severe terrorist attack on the US occured during republican rule. I don't think Al Qaeda wants to rule the USA, they'd rather destroy it.

It is good that the most severe attack happend under a Republican Administration. Imagine had it been under a Democrat, we would have apologized and tell the terrorist it's our fault, appease them to make sure they don't get angry and create more terrorist, keep our hands off at any part of the world that the terrorist thinks we are imperialist and make sure our security are well suited and adjusted to what the UCLA or human right activist think is approriate.

And if we get hit again, the Republicans will be blamed for approving only 9 billion instead of the 10 billion that the Democrtas wants to increase our border security, at the same time help and reward the illegal immigrants who makes it across the border illegally :blink:

Edited by AROCES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But they would still be contained mostly and tens of thousands of people would still be alive and in one piece...

You call that being contained?

10 years of containment and Saddam was able to buy the UN itself, you are in denial here.

I thought you folks are very concernaabout human life, and we found mass graves after mass graves. I guess you only are concern about the ones that can help you with your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you disputing them? All you have to do is read the news from the time of the surge to the time of the "bribing".

I think the way you are portraying how things happened is wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the way you are portraying how things happened is wrong

Good, show me any pre-surge evidence of support in the Sunni triangle.... there was none, cause it was deemed unimportant...no oil you know. And where could al-Qaeda build comfortable nests? right...

Now, yes there was support in Baghdad and the major oil areas ... but that is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, the 900 US deaths in that area suggest otherwise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.