Doesn't Understand Economics, Either

John McCain speaking in Jordan reveals that he has no idea what's happening in Iraq:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain's argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

Of course this isn't just an issue of McCain blowing some trivia answer, it seems to call into question whether he's really been paying attention to the Iraq issue over the past couple of years. He's very sure that the surge is working, but doesn't understand the basic contours of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq? Seems strange.

Comments

Matt, you just haven't spent enough time in the STE to really get to know the man. He's such a great guy and we really like him.
signed,
The Press Corps

Posted by Jim M | March 18, 2008 11:09 AM

I am sorry but McCain is just not a very smart or curious guy. He got gentleman's Cs at the Naval Academy and has proven to have no interest in anything as a Senator except red meat and war. We don't need another guy who is neither smart nor curious as President. Guys like that get hijacked by the smart/curious people under them and run rampant, as we have all seen.

Posted by shoj | March 18, 2008 11:10 AM

Geeze, dood, read your comments, I pointed this out yesterday, and told you if McCain was out of whisper range, he'd be more helpless discussing Iraq than Bush on tribal sovereignty.

Posted by Jim | March 18, 2008 11:10 AM

I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that John McCain hasn't been paying attention to information that undermines his sales pitch.

Posted by James F. Elliott | March 18, 2008 11:11 AM

Has anyone asked if McCain's been poaching his wife's pills lately? Does he take it as a point of pride to act stupider than The Decider?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 18, 2008 11:15 AM

Boy, that's really bad.

Posted by Dave | March 18, 2008 11:18 AM

that is hilarious! it will, of course, never be mentioned again by the media.

Posted by howard | March 18, 2008 11:20 AM

All that current malicious gossip about Lindbergh being a Nazi sympathizer deeply troubles McCain also. He'll look into it when "Lucky" gets back from Paris.

Posted by steve duncan | March 18, 2008 11:21 AM

But he cooks a mean burger! And Obama hates America!!!!!

Posted by Monster | March 18, 2008 11:25 AM

Iran's government and majority is Shia. Al Qaeda is a Suni organization. The Suni and Shia are not allied.* This far in, no Congressperson should be unclear about this. I really thought McCain was smarter about what he embraces as his central issue.

*For practical example, see: Iraq.

Posted by Deborah | March 18, 2008 11:29 AM

Extremists. Terrorists. Al Qaeda. Iran. Iraq. The problem is that you're taking these as if they had referents. They're all just different ways to say, "Fear! Enemy! Evil! War! Fear!" It may sound stupid, but it's a strategy, and Americans bought it for a long time, as of course did the media. The only question is whether they no longer will. The question is not whether it makes some kind of factual or strategic sense for the nation. McCain may not be all that sharp or knowledgeable, but that he knows.

Posted by John Haber | March 18, 2008 11:32 AM

Now here's somebody that Senator McCain should be listening to. Dr. Kanazawa has a number of good ideas.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

Posted by SLC | March 18, 2008 11:47 AM

They're all just different ways to say, "Fear! Enemy! Evil! War! Fear!"

Or, per Bored of the Rings, "Awake! Awake! Fear! Foes! Flee!!"

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 18, 2008 11:54 AM

In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

Am I the only one who gets worried when someone's national security argument hinges on how he would answer a phone late at night? Realisitically, our national security will rely more on long-term diplomacy than a split second decision in the middle of the night. The best scenario is to avoid getting that call in the first place, right? Also, when it comes to McCain, the implicit argument seems to be "I'll be the quickest to respond militarily, regardless of the broader implications of such actions." His lack of knowledge and thoughtfulness is actually being portrayed as a virtue. Again, not very comforting.

I realize it's probably futile to address campaign gimmicks like the "3 A.M. phone call," but in McCain's case it seems to emphasize his shoot from the hip approach to national security (in Clinton's case I'm willing to chalk it up to campaign gimmickry though -- she'd certainly be better than him when it comes to diplomacy). Whenever I hear the phone call argument it just sounds like a substitute for making any kind of thoughtful argument about maintaining long-term national security.

Posted by ibid | March 18, 2008 11:59 AM

I just read the link and something else is a little weird. The WaPo journalists twice state that Al-Qaeda is "predominantly" or "mostly" Sunni. Am I missing something, or does it have a small Catholic or Buddhist wing that we haven't heard about?

Posted by Estrien | March 18, 2008 12:00 PM

I just read the link and something else is a little weird. The WaPo journalists twice state that Al-Qaeda is "predominantly" or "mostly" Sunni. Am I missing something, or does it have a small Catholic or Buddhist wing that we haven't heard about?

Posted by Estrien | March 18, 2008 12:03 PM

"I just read the link and something else is a little weird. The WaPo journalists twice state that Al-Qaeda is "predominantly" or "mostly" Sunni. Am I missing something, or does it have a small Catholic or Buddhist wing that we haven't heard about?

Posted by Estrien | March 18, 2008 12:00 PM"

It might mostly be ass-covering on the WaPo's part. Then again, when Hezbollah was fighting Israel in the 1980's, a decent portion of their suicide bombers were Christians and atheist members of communist and socialist parties, so back then Hezbollah was just "predominantly" or "mostly" Shi'ite.

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 12:17 PM

...does it have a small Catholic or Buddhist wing that we haven't heard about?

It sure has a lot of uber infidel Hindus.

Posted by gregor | March 18, 2008 12:19 PM

President McCain in deciding future American policy had Senator Lieberman whispering in his ear. Sounds great for our future.

Yikes.

Posted by Llyonnoc | March 18, 2008 12:30 PM

Now here's somebody that Senator McCain should be listening to. Dr. Kanazawa has a number of good ideas.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

One of the limits of the post-modern sea of culture in which people like myself swim is trying to figure out the meta-levels of facetiousness, if any, in SLC's post. To wit:
1. Whether Dr. Kanazawa actually means any of that batshit crazy stuff about wishing Anne [sic] Coulter was President and nuked essentially the entire Mideast after 9/11 in that blog (A), or whether that was a Swiftian satire of sorts (B).
2. Whether SLC endorses the sentiments of the linked blog (A) or is merely himself being facetious (B).
3. Whether that is actually SLC posting (A), as opposed to someone using reductio ad absurdum on the extreme neo-con mindset (B).

That's eight (2x2x2) different possible interpretations of SLC's post. Only two of those interpretations, (A-A-A) and (A-B-A), deserve to be flamed.

MY HEAD ASPLODE

Posted by Answer Guy | March 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Okay John,
Here's a nice cup of warm milk. You go have a nice snack over there with Joke Line and then you guys can have a comfy nap.

Posted by An Outhouse | March 18, 2008 12:33 PM

Fascinating. Here's how the AP summarized it:

McCain voiced concern that Tehran is bringing militants over the border into Iran for training before sending them back to fight U.S. troops in Iraq, and also blamed Syria for allegedly continuing to "expedite" a flow of foreign fighters.

Posted by Mike T | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM

That late-night phone call into the White House is only the pizza joint around the corner phoning back to say they are out of bacon and would the Pres like something else on his pie?

Posted by Ralph | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM

Fascinating. Here's how the AP summarized it:

McCain voiced concern that Tehran is bringing militants over the border into Iran for training before sending them back to fight U.S. troops in Iraq, and also blamed Syria for allegedly continuing to "expedite" a flow of foreign fighters.

Posted by Mike T | March 18, 2008 12:37 PM

Now here's somebody that Senator McCain should be listening to. Dr. Kanazawa has a number of good ideas.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

One of the limits of the post-modern sea of culture in which people like myself swim is trying to figure out the meta-levels of facetiousness, if any, in SLC's post. To wit:
1. Whether Dr. Kanazawa actually means any of that batshit crazy stuff about wishing Anne [sic] Coulter was President and nuked essentially the entire Mideast after 9/11 in that blog (A), or whether that was a Swiftian satire of sorts (B).
2. Whether SLC endorses the sentiments of the linked blog (A) or is merely himself being facetious (B).
3. Whether that is actually SLC posting (A), as opposed to someone using reductio ad absurdum on the extreme neo-con mindset (B).

That's eight (2x2x2) different possible interpretations of SLC's post. Only two of those interpretations, (A-A-A) and (A-B-A), deserve to be flamed.

MY HEAD ASPLODE

Posted by Answer Guy | March 18, 2008 12:37 PM

Now here's somebody that Senator McCain should be listening to. Dr. Kanazawa has a number of good ideas.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

One of the limits of the post-modern sea of culture in which people like myself swim is trying to figure out the meta-levels of facetiousness, if any, in SLC's post. To wit:
1. Whether Dr. Kanazawa actually means any of that batshit crazy stuff about wishing Anne [sic] Coulter was President and nuked essentially the entire Mideast after 9/11 in that blog (A), or whether that was a Swiftian satire of sorts (B).
2. Whether SLC endorses the sentiments of the linked blog (A) or is merely himself being facetious (B).
3. Whether that is actually SLC posting (A), as opposed to someone using reductio ad absurdum on the extreme neo-con mindset (B).

That's eight (2x2x2) different possible interpretations of SLC's post. Only two of those interpretations, (A-A-A) and (A-B-A), deserve to be flamed.

MY HEAD ASPLODE

Posted by Answer Guy | March 18, 2008 12:46 PM

Now here's somebody that Senator McCain should be listening to. Dr. Kanazawa has a number of good ideas.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

One of the limits of the post-modern sea of culture in which people like myself swim is trying to figure out the meta-levels of facetiousness, if any, in SLC's post. To wit:
1. Whether Dr. Kanazawa actually means any of that crazy stuff about wishing Anne [sic] Coulter was President and nuked essentially the entire Mideast after 9/11 in that blog (A), or whether that was a Swiftian satire of sorts (B).
2. Whether SLC endorses the sentiments of the linked blog (A) or is merely himself being facetious (B).
3. Whether that is actually SLC posting (A), as opposed to someone using reductio ad absurdum on the extreme neo-con mindset (B).

That's eight (2x2x2) different possible interpretations of SLC's post. Only two of those interpretations, (A-A-A) and (A-B-A), deserve to be flamed.

MY HEAD ASPLODE

Posted by Answer Guy | March 18, 2008 12:46 PM

How is this not a "USSR not in Poland" moment that killed Ford?

In fact, this is worse. Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on US soil. I don't think the USSR was responsible for that many deaths on US soil during the entire Cold War.

Posted by afferent input | March 18, 2008 12:53 PM

Now here's somebody that Senator McCain should be listening to. Dr. Kanazawa has a number of good ideas.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

One of the limits of the post-modern sea of culture in which people like myself swim is trying to figure out the meta-levels of facetiousness, if any, in SLC's post. To wit:
1. Whether Dr. Kanazawa actually means any of that crazy stuff about wishing Anne [sic] Coulter was President and nuked essentially the entire Mideast after 9/11 in that blog (A), or whether that was a Swiftian satire of sorts (B).
2. Whether SLC endorses the sentiments of the linked blog (A) or is merely himself being facetious (B).
3. Whether that is actually SLC posting (A), as opposed to someone using reductio ad absurdum on the extreme neo-con mindset (B).

That's eight (2x2x2) different possible interpretations of SLC's post. Only two of those interpretations, (A-A-A) and (A-B-A), deserve to be flamed.

MY HEAD ASPLODE

Posted by Answer Guy | March 18, 2008 12:59 PM

If Obama had made that mistake, the MSM would have used this to show that he's clueless. McCain can get away with it why ?

Posted by MS David | March 18, 2008 2:22 PM

If Obama had made that mistake, the MSM would have used this to show that he's clueless. McCain can get away with it why ?

Posted by MS David | March 18, 2008 2:22 PM

Is Matthew Yglesias or anyone else on this thread familiar with what the 9/11 Commission said about Iran and Al Qaeda? Such as (p.61):

In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives.

And wouldn't it be ever more likely that they'd cooperate now that they have common enemies in Iraq--not just the U.S. but the Sunni tribes currently fighting Al Qaeda?

Posted by Ken Silber | March 18, 2008 3:39 PM

Geez ... if he's clueless now, imagine him at 3 am ...

Posted by eliot | March 18, 2008 3:48 PM

Geez ... if he's clueless now, imagine him at 3 am ...

Posted by eliot | March 18, 2008 3:50 PM

Just in time for the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain made an unannounced visit to Iraq. Unfortunately for him, this week's anniversary highlights that at almost every turn, John McCain has been disastrously wrong about Iraq.

For a catalog of McCain's erroneous statements, see:
"Forever Wrong: Five Years of John McCain on Iraq."

Posted by Raging | March 18, 2008 5:22 PM

& if you promise to behave and call his multi-million dollar ranch a "rustic cabin" just like the rest of us MSM, you can get turkee, and ribs, and chicken! And you only have to whore for him 5 days a week.

Posted by tom | March 18, 2008 5:37 PM

I'm sure that Mr. Williams will want to comment on the attached link, probably not in praise of the next President of the United Dtates, John McCain.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420719293&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | March 18, 2008 8:02 PM

Again, when you're speaking about terrorist movements, there are variations in cooperation.

Iran may well have allowed certain segments of "Al Qaeda" (the 9/11 Commission apparently does not say who, what, when, where and why) into Iran. They may also have allowed at one point or another certain elements of "Al Qaeda" to transit Iran. They may even be doing so currently vis-a-vis Iraq.

On other occasions, they have arrested "Al Qaeda" operatives and even offered them to the US in exchange for other considerations (the US reportedly refused.)

This happens all the time in intelligence and counterintelligence circles. Does anybody forget that the reason the Taliban and Al Qaeda exist in Pakistan is because they were created by the Pakistani intelligence community for its own ends vis-a-vis Afghanistan and India? And with the support of the CIA during the Russian war in Afghanistan?

Back in the 70's, numerous diverse groups operated with varying levels of cooperation: the PLO, the German Red Army Fraction, the Japanese Red Army, the IRA, various anarchist groups. Didn't mean they all agreed on their political principles - it just meant they agreed on knocking down the existing states.

The bottom line: Iran and Al Qaeda are not on the same wave length - which doesn't mean they don't occasionally accommodate each other when somebody one some level of authority decides it's not a bad idea.

None of which justifies McCain's statement. The man is an idiot. He's dumber than Bush if that's possible.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 1:53 AM

Ken Silber--

McCain said it was "common knowledge" that Iran is currently training Al Qaeda. Is this actually common knowledge?

Also, the McCain campaign has already said that he "misspoke."

Posted by blorp | March 19, 2008 2:04 AM

It's not "common knowledge" that Iran is currently training Al Qaeda. But it seems to be a common assumption that nothing like that ever happened or could happen, and that assumption --which underlies the criticism of McCain--is wrong.

Posted by Ken Silber | March 19, 2008 9:46 AM

No wonder we are in Iraq arming the Suni. Our leaders don't even know who's on first and what's on second, that's right Abbot (McCain) and Costello (Bush) are back in the limelight. I wonder if it's as confusing to Ahmedinajad ?
I don't think we can keep this political comedy up. We'll all die laughing before the election gets here.

Posted by Xcalibar | March 21, 2008 10:57 PM