McCain's Mixed-Up Timeline

To repeat something mentioned below, John McCain told Katie Couric that the surge caused the Anbar Awakening:

Colonel McFarland 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.

And yet here'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.

Meanwhile, as Keith Olbermann apparently noted in tonight's broadcast, CBS (part of the vast media conspiracy that McCain believes is arrayed against him) handled McCain's blunder by using misleading editing to cover it up: "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." Sometimes things have to end up on the cutting room floor in television, but it seems to me that if you show video of a question being asked, you ought to cut to the interviewee answering that question not just show some other film. Certainly when you've got a candidate who's made the idea that he's super-knowledgeable about national security policy misstating the basic facts of the issue that seems noteworthy.

Comments

Make John McCain responsible for his own words:

He is lying through his teeth when he says he has been consistently critical of Bush's handling of the war. He cant keep anything straight.

Check out this youtube mash up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=4798&id=1150274763&saved

oh and if you want to see what an awful relationship he has with the press watch this . . . it might make you vomit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0iHOk0mEQ&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=4798&id=1150274763&saved

Posted by JPS | July 23, 2008 12:15 AM

Jed's got video of the CBS editing job.

Posted by southpaw | July 23, 2008 12:19 AM

I am definitely sensing that, slowly but surely, John McCain's MSM "base" is finally turning on him. CBS's interview editing shenanigans notwithstanding, you're starting to see normally McCain-loving pundits start to speak ill of him, calling him out on his flip-flops and seemingly endless stream of gaffes.

I hope the trend continues, because if they shift even a few clicks towards sanity in their coverage, McCain could be a dead man walking. (Electorally speaking...)

Posted by Tony | July 23, 2008 12:19 AM

McCain's whole campaign now is running off hyrdrocarbons from his brain farts.

They're learning to ignite it with pure irrational hatred invovling how Obama wants the US to fail in every endeavor (after all, Rove is involved), but the fuel is McCain's mental methane.

It will only get worse, even if the media assists him as CBS did, intentionally or unintentionally.

Posted by riffle | July 23, 2008 12:20 AM

It appears that you can catch the original video http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4284432n" rel="nofollow">here. Couric's question and McCain's contemptuous, and therefore hilariously wrong, answer start at around 3:00.

Posted by Jeff | July 23, 2008 12:23 AM

Let me try that again. Here's the link to video of the original Q+A

Posted by Jeff | July 23, 2008 12:29 AM

Hell, the ever courtier-like Joke Line has realized suddenly that McBush is a fucktard.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | July 23, 2008 12:29 AM

He is lying through his teeth when he says he has been consistently critical of Bush's handling of the war. He cant keep anything straight.

Check out this youtube mash up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA

Posted by JPS | July 23, 2008 12:34 AM

You lying motherfuckers.

McCain said because of the surge we were able to protect the sheik and others.

He was saying the surge happened after the sunni awakening.

That first statement by McCain makes that clear.

He said the surge began the success of the awakening.

You twist every god damn word and take every god damn word out of context.

You liberal motherfuckers.

You control 85 percent of the media.

The backlash is begginning.

Obama is down by 10 points to McCain.

McCain's 19 year old son served in anbar province. He knows the area and has visited the area.

You take every god damn word he says and twist it out of context.

He clearly said they went there to protect the awakening.

And by the way there were extra forces sent to Anbar Province long before it was officially announced.

My brother served in anbar province and extra marine brigades were sent there BEFORE THE AWAKENING.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 12:42 AM

Let him off.

He's a very, very old man.
-

Posted by QuentinCompson | July 23, 2008 12:43 AM

Obama called Maliki the president of Iraq.

No breaking news on Olbermann.

Obama called the leader of Canada the president of Canada. Canada doesn't have a president.

Obama said 57 states.

Obama said 100 million died in burma.

Obama said 10,000 died in a tornado in kansas.

Obama said he could be president for 10 years.

Obama said sunshine florida instead of sunrise florida.

Obama said one bomb dropped on pearl harbor.

Obama said Israel's will always be friends with Israel.

McCain might be old but Obama is only where he is because of affirmative action.

So Obama is the affirmative action candidate who if it wasn't for his skin color would be selling insurance somewhere.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 12:47 AM

Latest Rasmussen poll from Ohio.

McCain 52 Obama 42

And Obama does far worse in the voting booth than in exit polls and in public polls.

Obama during the primaries lead a zogby poll 59-33 against Hillary and she still got more votes.

You people that love to bash McCain get ready to call him President McCain.

Posted by Jeff | July 23, 2008 12:51 AM

McCain has sent the second string in here to troll Matt's blog. Does "Al" only work days?

That's bad. Unless it's McCain himself who is gibbering as "dan" above is. That would be impressive.

Keep it up, McCain/Dan. You're a wonder.

Posted by riffle | July 23, 2008 12:52 AM

Keep it up riffle.

Heck of a job your candidate Obama is.

Economy is in the tank, we are in two wars, you make fun of how old McCain is and a new poll from Ohio:

52-42

You couldn't have nominated a weaker candidate than if you tried.

Rasmussen did a poll that had Hillary polling more than 10 percent better than McCain than Obama does.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 12:55 AM

Just for the record:

MCCAIN: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane 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.

Better trolls, please.

Posted by southpaw | July 23, 2008 12:57 AM

Bush job approval is at 23 percent in the LA times and there is a poll out that has Obama down by 10 in Ohio.

Any other politician biden, dodd, clinton, anyone would be crushing McCain.

This shows how weak Obama is as a candidate and a great resistance to his candidancy out there in middle america away from the blogs.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 12:59 AM

You dumb fucks.

That Ohio poll 52-42 you would think would be a wakeup call to you fools.

No one in Ohio cares about the timeline for the sunni awakening.

I gaurantee you if you went door to door to every household in ohio you couldn't find one person that would care about the timeline of the sunni awakening.

Keep obsessing over such nonsense. I like it keep talking about this instead of the housing crisis. Keep talking about this nonsense.

You fools will never learn.

You fools laugh at McCain. You fools have lost the last two elections because of the same stupid tactics you are using now.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 1:03 AM

Dan, yes McCain will win. Especially when Hi Def TV shows his genius.

I presume McCain is employing an advance staff. Do they get paid for drinking coffee and looking glum?

Posted by riffle | July 23, 2008 1:05 AM

We were able to go out and protect the sheiks and others.

The awakening had already started he said we went out and protected the others.

The awakening started and then the extra troops allowed it to begin in substance.

It couldn't begin in substance until the troops were there to protect them.

Just announcing that it began doesn't mean anything until they could be protected and execute it.

This is what is wrong with the HUFFINGTONIZATION AND OLBERMANNIZATION OF POLITICS.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 1:09 AM

Dan, I really like your lack of paragraphs, use of capital letters, and profane ad hominems!

It's like friggin' Cicero's in da house!

Posted by Daniel Shays | July 23, 2008 1:20 AM

Um, Dan? The Sheik in question was assassinated in September 2007. Put down the meth pipe and go to sleep.

Posted by wisco | July 23, 2008 1:29 AM

Dan,

"Olbermanization" only has one "N." Please get it straight next time.

Posted by Gilead | July 23, 2008 1:30 AM

Um, Dan? The Sheik in question was assassinated in September 2007. Put down the meth pipe and go to sleep.

Posted by wisco | July 23, 2008 1:30 AM

Here's Dan!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 23, 2008 1:37 AM

It seems to me that if you show video of a question being asked, you ought to cut to the interviewee answering that question.

Heh.

Posted by Douglas Watts | July 23, 2008 1:48 AM

It seems to me that if you show video of a question being asked, you ought to cut to the interviewee answering that question.

Heh.

Posted by Douglas Watts | July 23, 2008 1:52 AM

Establish a foothold in Anbar’s capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the “awakening” began to accelerate very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. Before the surge, Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq; now it is possible for Americans to walk through its market with limited security details and without body armor. David Kilcullen describes the relationship between the surge and the movement very well in his Small Wars Journal posting, and I have also addressed the issue in detail in a recent Weekly Standard article . The fact is that neither the surge nor the turn of the tribal leaders would in itself have been enough to turn Anbar around — both were necessary, and will remain so for some time.

This was by Fred Kagen in a piece in the national review:

There were almost no sunnis taking part in the awakening in early 2007 but by summer of 2007 there were 14,000.

The Nutroots don't care about facts. They care about lies.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 1:54 AM

Nice try, Dan. McCain clearly said that the Anbar Awakening BEGAN after the surge had begun to protect that sheikh.

He is a complete liar and so are you. He knew when things happened and he tried to slip a fast one in so that he could claim ALL the credit for the drop in violence. McCain is a desperate old man and you are a desperate follower of him.

As for that Rasmussen poll, I suppose you'll just ignore the PPP poll the day before showing Obama up by 8 points in Ohio.

Of course, the PPP poll actually surveyed voters over 3 nights, made call-backs, and got over 1,000 participants. You know, a scientific poll.

The Rasmussen poll was conducted in ONE night, with no call-backs, and had 500 participants.

I don't know if either is right. But I would guess it's in the middle.

Posted by Elrod | July 23, 2008 1:58 AM

Matt, your first link is broken (the pdf of the McFarland article). You're just missing the "h" in "http."

Posted by jukeboxgrad | July 23, 2008 2:02 AM

To Elrod it did begin after the surge.

It was in name only.

There were almost no sunnis taking part in the awakening before the surge.

Once the surge happened the number grew to 14,000.

If someone was attacking a dem with these facts the NUTROOTS would be backing up the dem with these facts.

I have never seen such liars as the left blogosphere.

They love to lie and they lie constantly.

Facts be damned with the Nutroots.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 2:17 AM

Wow, "Al" takes the night off and they send the C team trolls.

Posted by eric k | July 23, 2008 2:22 AM

they love to lie; they do it constantly. they think people don't notice but i do, because I'M DAN-MAN.

Posted by fucking liberal | July 23, 2008 2:22 AM

Good grief...may we please try to express our opinions like adults and knock off the cussing? It adds nothing and risks us losing our comment section altogether.

Posted by G Davis | July 23, 2008 2:28 AM

Colonel Sean MacFarland, US Army:

The "Anbar Awakening" of Sunni tribal leaders and their supporters that began in September 2006 near Ramadi seemed to come out of nowhere.

George W. Bush:

In Anbar, Sunni tribal leaders had grown tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising, called the "Anbar Awakening." To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province.

Posted by southpaw | July 23, 2008 2:51 AM

McCain would be less confused about the timing if he checked with Bush. In the SOTU Bush delivered on 1/28/08, he said this:

In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising called "The Anbar Awakening."

Bush announced the surge in a speech on 1/10/07.

Posted by jukeboxgrad | July 23, 2008 2:53 AM

Max Boot as quoted in Weekly Standard:

Anybody who has been to Iraq knows that the Al Anbar awakening began in September of 2006

Posted by jukeboxgrad | July 23, 2008 3:02 AM

Jesus wept.

So because the additional 4,000 Marines sent to support the Anbar Awakening predated the official announcement of the surge they somehow don't count. Is that it?

If semantic nitpicking is the best you Obama wingnuts can come up with, McCain must be in better shape than I thought.

Posted by fmo | July 23, 2008 3:10 AM

Just to step back a second from the bare facts, think about what CBS did tonight.

John McCain was asked a question about a crucial issue in our national politics, and he gave an answer that was--as we've seen--factually inaccurate and embarrassing even to right wing trolls. CBS suppressed that answer. They played the question being asked and then substituted something else entirely, rather than what McCain actually said in response.

That's really astonishing conduct for a news organization. I'm not sure I can recall anything like that ever happening before.

There's really no excuse for it. If they thought it was a trivial exchange or outweighed by other parts of the interview, then the natural thing to do is to cut out the question and the answer. To present something else as the answer to that question is to seriously mislead the viewer and present McCain in a false light. It's awfully hard for me--at this late hour--to think of a reason they'd do that other than to spare McCain the embarrassment of his false and damaging statements.

Posted by southpaw | July 23, 2008 3:11 AM

So because the additional 4,000 Marines sent to support the Anbar Awakening predated the official announcement of the surge they somehow don't count. Is that it?

Well, when something has nothing to do with the surge, when it happened before anyone was talking about or proposing or voting on or appropriating money for the surge, when it happened in a different year than the surge . . . then, yes, I have a problem with John McCain claiming that the surge made it possible.

The Marines count plenty, but they were involved in operations that had nothing to do with--and occurred well before--the surge or John McCain's support for it.

Posted by southpaw | July 23, 2008 3:20 AM

Another Dan here to point out, for the sake of formality, that regardless of when the Anbar Awakening began, the armed forcs of the surge have (bravely, valorously and against reasonable expectation) succeeded in walking Iraq back from Hell on Earth to merely the Most Violent Place on Earth.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 4:21 AM

And, again, merely for the record:

It was, shockingly, unpresidential.

This is the way that Joe Klein describes this remark of John McCain's:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

The commas imply that it is a surprise that McCain could be unpresidential. Without the commas the phrase has the meaning that I believe Klein was actually aiming for: that McCain was unpresidential to a shocking degree.

It was shockingly unpresidential.

Posted by Dan | July 23, 2008 4:34 AM

Funny, I seem to recall the administration pushing back the alleged start date of the surge throughout the first half of 2007. Didn't they finally settle on June 2007?

Posted by Steve V | July 23, 2008 5:26 AM

One simple issue: It is not so much if the semantics are correct but the deletion of a direct answer to a direct question. This seems like "journalistic malpractice."

Posted by doc4nuts | July 23, 2008 5:29 AM

One simple issue: It is not so much if the semantics are correct but the deletion of a direct answer to a direct question. This seems like "journalistic malpractice."

Posted by doc4nuts | July 23, 2008 5:29 AM

One simple issue: It is not so much if the semantics are correct but the deletion of a direct answer to a direct question. This seems like "journalistic malpractice."

Posted by doc4nuts | July 23, 2008 5:29 AM

While this was probably edited to protect McCain. It might have also been cut that way, at least in part, for Couric's benefit. A Presidential candidate makes an obviously false statement during an interview and she isn't sharp enough to catch it. Doesn't reflect well on Couric at a time when her job is already in jeopardy. So, maybe they were covering up for their anchor's mistake, not McCain's.

Then again I'm not sure the press is concerned enough about those kinds of errors to even bother covering them up.

Posted by Jess | July 23, 2008 5:32 AM

Funny, I seem to recall the administration pushing back the alleged start date of the surge throughout the first half of 2007. Didn't they finally settle on June 2007?

Well, the Kagan Klub and their bloggy helpers said May/June 2007. Bush said "the full surge has begun" in his June 30 address.

But as Spencer Ackerman has said, invoking the Surge™ is just a way to do revisionist history on the entire war.

"When people say the surge has succeeded, they're trying to say the war has succeeded. But no one can stand up and say that. So you get this odd argument wherein the success of the surge is supposed to have alchemically balanced out the failure of the war."

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 23, 2008 6:11 AM

four thoughts:
1. McCain's answer to the direct question was wrong, as usual. The old man is brain dead.
2.Katie missing the mistake, not calling him on it...well, typical.
3. CBS' edit addition of a different answer, also not unusual.
4.The key is the NEW answer. It was the McCain attack on Barack's patriotism/judgement/cajones. the Katie Q was just a prop, nothing more, a mere prop set-up to the real need of MSM journalism...the sound bite attack. Katie's wrong Q was the lead in to McCain's sound bite attack on Barack, the new "lose the election, lose the war" sound bite.

See, McCain the idiot is not news. McCain's Barack-the-traitor-sound-bite-attack IS news. Ya jus' gots to recognize da formula.

Posted by daver9 | July 23, 2008 7:07 AM

four thoughts:
1. McCain's answer to the direct question was wrong, as usual. The old man is brain dead.
2.Katie missing the mistake, not calling him on it...well, typical.
3. CBS' edit addition of a different answer, also not unusual.
4.The key is the NEW answer. It was the McCain attack on Barack's patriotism/judgement/cajones. the Katie Q was just a prop, nothing more, a mere prop set-up to the real need of MSM journalism...the sound bite attack. Katie's wrong Q was the lead in to McCain's sound bite attack on Barack, the new "lose the election, lose the war" sound bite.

See, McCain the idiot is not news. McCain's Barack-the-traitor-sound-bite-attack IS news. Ya jus' gots to recognize da formula.

Posted by daver9 | July 23, 2008 7:08 AM

four thoughts:
1. McCain's answer to the direct question was wrong, as usual. The old man is brain dead.
2.Katie missing the mistake, not calling him on it...well, typical.
3. CBS' edit addition of a different answer, also not unusual.
4.The key is the NEW answer. It was the McCain attack on Barack's patriotism/judgement/cajones. the Katie Q was just a prop, nothing more, a mere prop set-up to the real need of MSM journalism...the sound bite attack. Katie's wrong Q was the lead in to McCain's sound bite attack on Barack, the new "lose the election, lose the war" sound bite.

See, McCain the idiot is not news. McCain's Barack-the-traitor-sound-bite-attack IS news. Ya jus' gots to recognize da formula.

Posted by daver9 | July 23, 2008 7:09 AM

Editing this major gaffe out of the interview is just mind boggling. This gives us insight into McCain's inability to see beyond his beloved surge in Iraq. He's the candidate not accepting either "historical fact" or the ground situation.

They'd have been playing the clip non-stop if it were Obama...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 23, 2008 7:56 AM

An equally dismal part of the same Couric interview was he continuing to pretend that the violence in Iraq is primarily Al-Qaeda which it is not. It's dishonest and he should be called for it.

Posted by Ohmy | July 23, 2008 7:58 AM

"Dan" = Dan Senor

Posted by cha cha cha | July 23, 2008 8:10 AM

The commas imply that it is a surprise that McCain could be unpresidential. Without the commas the phrase has the meaning that I believe Klein was actually aiming for: that McCain was unpresidential to a shocking degree

Wingnut Dan, if you read anything other than the terminally imbecilic National Review, you'd know that Joe Klein, "liberal" such as he is, is one of John McCain's most fawning fanbois. Klein wouldn't be surprised if George W. Bush went there (nor would anyone). But McCain has a stature among squishy liberals as a different kind of Republican. Hence Klein's surprise (though obviously not mine or anyone who's been paying attention this campaign season).

Posted by kth | July 23, 2008 8:20 AM

By editing out the gaffe they draw attention to it. Now the gaffe is all over the blogs and the media can repeat it every five minutes as the story of the day. So they're all rooting for Obama.

:) :) :)

Posted by Arun | July 23, 2008 8:22 AM

I agree with Jess that the editing is probably to protect Couric as much as McCain. Esp. since they also made the unedited interview available.

On AC360, Joe Klein and David Gergen called McC on all the BS -- the timeline, the exaggerated emphasis on AQI, the "scurrilous" accusation that Barack is willing to a lose a war in order to win an election.

Of course, by the time AC360 airs, most undecided voters are asleep after a hard night of bingo. But I do sense that the kid gloves are going to come off if the McCain campaign keeps repeating the BS.

All in all, a crappy couple of days for McCain. Barack's punch connects. McCain's counter-punch turns into a gaffe.

Posted by Ted | July 23, 2008 8:33 AM

You liberals should get a life and know that the SURGE can just flip out and travel through time to slay its enemies. If you don't believe that the SURGE has REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or it will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Posted by Njorl | July 23, 2008 8:50 AM

Perhaps I wasn't paying too much attention, but in 2004, did we have Republican trolls repeatedly spamming weblogs about how Kerry called Lambeau Field by the name "Lambert Field"?

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2008 8:55 AM

To Wingnut Dan, here's what you posted above:

This was by Fred Kagen in a piece in the national review:

There were almost no sunnis taking part in the awakening in early 2007 but by summer of 2007 there were 14,000.

First, you don’t know how to quote someone properly. What Kagan actually said was this:

At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000

Unfortunately, that’s not quite correct. Now I give you Col. Sean McFarland, commander of Ready First BCT, Al Anbar Province (2006-2007) in his article of Military Review:

This technique resulted in a steadily growing influx of new recruits. Over the six-month period from June to December 2006, nearly 4,000 police joined without incident.

I don’t know about you, but I’d say 4,000 local tribesmen is a little more than a handful. Your first mistake was quoting anything from Herr Professor Doktor Kagan. He’s an idiot.

By the way, Matt, I see the Weekly Standard blog is flogging you over your remarks at

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/mccain_on_the_surge.asp

Maybe you could point out the error of quoting Herr Professor Doktor Kagan.

Posted by tbone | July 23, 2008 9:55 AM

Watch out for what you ask for...

Yesterday, McCain complained that the press was ignoring him.

This morning, McCain misstates the timing of the Surge.

This afternoon, McCain cancels his press availability.

Posted by Cornfields | July 23, 2008 10:16 AM

the truth sez to mccain:
"i'm in ur base, killing ur doods."

Posted by cha cha cha | July 23, 2008 10:20 AM

Dan wrote: You couldn't have nominated a weaker candidate than if you tried.

Hey, McCain was already spoken for.

On a more serious note, it'd be bad enough if CBS simply dropped McSame's gaffe from the interview, but the deceptive editing is journalistic malpractice of the first order. People -- including but not limited to Couric -- need to be fired for it.

Posted by Gregory | July 23, 2008 10:32 AM

Unbelievable. Why is this lighting up the corners of the blog world but getting ignored by the front pages of web sites, or even their political page? This isn't saying "Iraq-Afghanistan border" when he meant "Pakistan-Afghanistan border." (Though since that border is the state of Iran, it was pretty funny.) He's arguing causation--we're far, far from slip-of-the-tongue errors.

You'd think the media could at least report on CBS changing the actual event--don't they love reporting on themselves?

Posted by Deborah | July 23, 2008 10:32 AM

Hey Dan. I guess you didn't figure out that the Anbar Awakening was able to occur because we armed the militias. Since I don't expect you to be able to figure out what that means, I'll spell it out for you:

a) We did exactly the opposite of what we said we needed to do (DISarm the militias) for a stable Iraq.

b) No extra troops were needed to arm and bribe the Sunnis into not attacking us.

Dan said... McCain might be old but Obama is only where he is because of affirmative action.

Aaaaaand the bigotry sneaks out. Dan hates black people, or at least successful, hard-working, uppity black people that don't know their place.

"You call them racist, ignorant, bigoted a**holes, I call them my base." -- John "Confused" McCain

Posted by LFC | July 23, 2008 10:32 AM

Because the media keep reporting that McCain was right about the surge. McCain wanted more troops.

He is not the architect of the changed tactics and strategy.

Why do the media let him take credit?

Posted by Ohmy | July 23, 2008 10:44 AM

CBS suppressed that answer. They played the question being asked and then substituted something else entirely, rather than what McCain actually said in response.
That's really astonishing conduct for a news organization. I'm not sure I can recall anything like that ever happening before.

Yeah, I can't remember such a blatant lapse of journalistic integrity before either. I don't understand how this is not bigger news.

Dan Rather lost his job for less than this. How can this be so blatantly glossed over?

Posted by Joe | July 23, 2008 12:31 PM

Yesterday, acting contrary to my usual skeptical approach to Katie Couric’s often questionably journalistic interviews, I watched the Couric interview of John McCain, and I noticed McCain’s response to Couric’s “Obama crediting Iraqis and US forces for a successful surge” question appeared non sequitur. But I dismissed the event; it simply never crossed my mind that McCain’s actual erroneous response regarding what McCain calls “history” would or could be redacted by CBS or Couric.

After all, John McCain’s fact based errors in the face of his attacking other candidates for the republican nomination as well as the presidency are a window onto his future performance as a leader, are they not? So what’s going on?

Well, Katie Couric’s motivations not withstanding, I cannot conclude that CBS is partisan toward McCain, nor any other candidate; not considering CBS’s longstanding media apparent journalistic integrity. So how should I explain this lapse in objectivity that is apparent from the “touching up” of the McCain interview? I guess the answer can only be ratings, which translates to money, or greed. Is that who you are now CBS?

Posted by dmd | July 23, 2008 1:28 PM

So how should I explain this lapse in objectivity that is apparent from the “touching up” of the McCain interview? I guess the answer can only be ratings, which translates to money, or greed. Is that who you are now CBS?
How does trashing their reputation and integrity, as well as the image of their trophy anchorperson, boost ratings? Or provide to the bottom line?

I just don't see how this benefits CBS.

Posted by Joe | July 23, 2008 1:49 PM

So how should I explain this lapse in objectivity that is apparent from the “touching up” of the McCain interview? I guess the answer can only be ratings, which translates to money, or greed. Is that who you are now CBS?
How does trashing their reputation and integrity, as well as the image of their trophy anchorperson, boost ratings? Or provide to the bottom line?

I just don't see how this benefits CBS.

Posted by Joe | July 23, 2008 1:52 PM

McCain was referring to the surge strategy, which we implemented in specific areas in Iraq before the broader, congressionally authorized surge began in early 2007. Among other factors, our success with the surge strategy in Anbar in 2006, which led to the Anbar Awakening, convinced McCain that the surge would be effective. It is a good thing that he was paying attention.

As the founder of the Anbar Awakening, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, said, “[B]uilding an alliance with the Americans was the only solution."

Posted by anon | July 23, 2008 1:53 PM

McCain was referring to the surge strategy, which we implemented in specific areas in Iraq before the broader, congressionally authorized surge began in early 2007. Among other factors, our success with the surge strategy in Anbar in 2006, which led to the Anbar Awakening, convinced McCain that the surge would be effective. It is a good thing that he was paying attention.

As the founder of the Anbar Awakening, Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, said, “[B]uilding an alliance with the Americans was the only solution."

Posted by anon | July 23, 2008 1:56 PM

He does this type of ish almost everyday, he still thinks Czechoslovakia is a country (it's the Czech Republic now) and he said Iraq/Pakistan share a border (it's afghanistan/pakistan) (google it if you don't believe me)

And yet he has the audacity to say Obama doesn't know about foreign policy?

On a side note:
Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, Mccain admitted himself he graduated about 5th from worst in his class.

OH and another thing:
Mccain can't even use the INTERNET!

Let's vote another dumbass into the white house and see how it works out for us.

Posted by PhiLLy in DaLLaS | July 23, 2008 3:15 PM

He does this type of ish almost everyday, he still thinks Czechoslovakia is a country (it's the Czech Republic now) and he said Iraq/Pakistan share a border (it's afghanistan/pakistan) (google it if you don't believe me)

And yet he has the audacity to say Obama doesn't know about foreign policy?

On a side note:
Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, Mccain admitted himself he graduated about 5th from worst in his class.

OH and another thing:
Mccain can't even use the INTERNET!

Let's vote another dumbass into the white house and see how it works out for us.

Posted by PhiLLy in DaLLaS | July 23, 2008 3:18 PM

Wow--- he really IS like bush.

Posted by troupe | July 23, 2008 5:54 PM

Wow--- he really IS like bush.

Posted by troupe | July 23, 2008 5:57 PM

I read that San francisco is considering naming
a sewage treatment plant after george bush.
Like Reagan national airport.
I think every one of our politicians should have
a sewage treatment plant or city dump named after them.
John Mccain Metropolitan Sewer System
How does that sound?

Posted by Phil | July 23, 2008 11:28 PM

Mcain obviously has mental problems.
He claims a doctor told him his years as a POW did
not do any mental damage.
The doctor should lose his liscense.
Mccain should get a second opinion.

Posted by Phil | July 23, 2008 11:35 PM

Because the media keep reporting that McCain was right about the surge. McCain wanted more troops.

He is not the architect of the changed tactics and strategy.

Why do the media let him take credit?

Posted by Ohmy | July 24, 2008 4:23 AM

he still thinks Czechoslovakia is a country (it's the Czech Republic now) and he said Iraq/Pakistan share a border (it's afghanistan/pakistan) (google it if you don't believe me)

I still call the Russians the Soviets. I sometimes call the Czech Republic Czeckoslovakia But I NEVER Say America has 57 States. Obama also thinks all the Arabic Translators needed for Afganistan are in Iraq. The moron doesn't realize they SPEAK Pashtun in Afghanistan.

Posted by Dennis D | July 24, 2008 5:06 PM

he still thinks Czechoslovakia is a country (it's the Czech Republic now) and he said Iraq/Pakistan share a border (it's afghanistan/pakistan) (google it if you don't believe me)

I still call the Russians the Soviets. I sometimes call the Czech Republic Czeckoslovakia But I NEVER Say America has 57 States. Obama also thinks all the Arabic Translators needed for Afganistan are in Iraq. The moron doesn't realize they SPEAK Pashtun in Afghanistan.

Posted by Dennis D | July 24, 2008 5:06 PM

he still thinks Czechoslovakia is a country (it's the Czech Republic now) and he said Iraq/Pakistan share a border (it's afghanistan/pakistan) (google it if you don't believe me)

I still call the Russians the Soviets. I sometimes call the Czech Republic Czeckoslovakia But I NEVER Say America has 57 States. Obama also thinks all the Arabic Translators needed for Afganistan are in Iraq. The moron doesn't realize they SPEAK Pashtun in Afghanistan.

Posted by Dennis D | July 24, 2008 5:07 PM

I am a liberal and I am not a big fan of Mcain but this little slip up does not really matter at all in the big picture. People will probably have some new stupid mistake by one candidate or another to bicker about in a day or two. When election time finally comes around no one will even remember this.

Posted by Petrie | July 25, 2008 12:18 AM

I am a liberal and I am not a big fan of Mcain but this little slip up does not really matter at all in the big picture. People will probably have some new stupid mistake by one candidate or another to bicker about in a day or two. When election time finally comes around no one will even remember this.

Mcain still does not have the complete support of the conservative base and the maverick's formerly strong independent base is being eaten away by Obama. How can Mcain expect to win if his own party doesn't support him?

Posted by Petrie | July 25, 2008 12:22 AM

I am a liberal and I am not a big fan of Mcain but this little slip up does not really matter at all in the big picture. People will probably have some new stupid mistake by one candidate or another to bicker about in a day or two. When election time finally comes around no one will even remember this. The press just makes stuff like this into a big deal so that they have something to talk about.

Mcain still does not have the complete support of the conservative base and the maverick's formerly strong independent base is being eaten away by Obama. How can Mcain expect to win if his own party doesn't support him?

Posted by Petrie | July 25, 2008 12:23 AM

Is this really all you have on McCain. Obama's screwups could fill a book. The real issue is that after $250 M and the press following Obama around like a puppy, he's tied with McCain. When they find out more about him, he's done. It must hurt...you know he's toast!

Posted by Michael | July 25, 2008 4:39 PM

Is this really all you have on McCain. Obama's screwups could fill a book. The real issue is that after $250 M and the press following Obama around like a puppy, he's tied with McCain. When they find out more about him, he's done. It must hurt...you know he's toast!

Posted by Michael | July 25, 2008 4:42 PM

Is this really all you have on McCain. Obama's screwups could fill a book. The real issue is that after $250 M and the press following Obama around like a puppy, he's tied with McCain. When they find out more about him, he's done. It must hurt...you know he's toast!

Posted by Michael | July 25, 2008 4:50 PM