Not a Gaffe

Max Bergmann says of John McCain's al-Qaeda/Iran mix-up:

That is not a gaffe. That is called believing something that isn't true. It is called being confused. And being confused about the differences between Shia and Sunni when claiming that you should be elected president of the United States on your foreign policy knowledge and experience, is simply not okay. This is a big deal.

Yes, it is a big deal, especially because, as Ezra Klein notes, "McCain has a fairly aggressive policy take on Iran and the long-time belief that they were an al Qaeda safeground may have contributed to his thinking." Quite so. Certainly the Iranian nuclear issue would look very different if I thought the Iranian government were training al-Qaeda operatives on a regular basis and working hand-in-glove with them in Iraq.

Comments

One time may be a gaffe, although a gaffe someone running for President shouldn't make. Three times is either a display of ignorance about a subject where knowledge and understanding is a paramount necessity or a deliberate attempt to conflate two very disparate things in the minds of the voter.

Of course one would have to think of why someone would want to do the latter. I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

Posted by john m | March 19, 2008 10:22 AM

Well maybe its' more a reflection of his age than his intentions (i.e., his mind is not in mint condition). But that might be even worse.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | March 19, 2008 10:26 AM

Well, maybe the Iranians ARE really behind Al-Q.

After all, didn't they chop up all those poor Luos and Kikuyus with machetes in Kenya a couple of months ago. People who would do that, would do anything...

Posted by RKU | March 19, 2008 10:29 AM

Well maybe its' more a reflection of his age than his intentions (i.e., his mind is not in mint condition). But that might be even worse.

Once we bomb Iran, they'll stay off his lawn.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2008 10:29 AM

Please keep noting that Iraq is McCain's perceived strength. Thanks.

And I don't want to sound greedy, but why couldn't this gross revelation of ignorance have happened on a day when Obama didn't give a historic speech?

Posted by ed | March 19, 2008 10:32 AM

So you're saying that Iran would never aid Sunni extremist groups?

Major General William B. Caldwell disagrees: "We have, in fact, found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups some support."

But, of course, people like Matthew and Ezra and Max Bergmann know much better than the US military spokesman what's acutally going on in Iraq!

Reality Based!

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 10:36 AM

ah yes, because Sunni extremist groups = al-Qaeda! Yes, and next we should invade Spain to root out those terrorists in Basque country! To war!

Posted by freddiemac | March 19, 2008 10:44 AM

Why is the press giving McCain a pass on this?

Posted by Moli | March 19, 2008 10:45 AM

Al:

But, of course, people like Matthew and Ezra and Max Bergmann know much better than the US military spokesman what's acutally going on in Iraq!

Well, I don't recall Four-Star Admiral William Fallon ever saying that sort of thing.

And he's now been fired...interesting coincidence...

Posted by RKU | March 19, 2008 10:46 AM

Re Al's comment "Major General William B. Caldwell disagrees"
------------------
Here's the part Al left out:

"It was unclear what motivation Iran, a Shiite theocracy, would have for backing Sunni insurgents, many of whom are staunchly anti-Iranian and fear the rise of Shiite power in the region. Critics have dismissed the U.S. assertions, saying that evidence provided so far gives no solid proof that Iran has supplied weapons to Iraqi militants."
----------
So, Al, found Saddam's nukes yet?? His "Weapons of Mass Destruction"???

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 10:47 AM

If there was not a bought-and-paid-for 3rd estate, something might have been made of this in the media.

Imagine, for a moment, if either Obama or Clinton had said this. You know any number of media outlets would be all over this, as evidence of lack of knowledge and/or command of the most basic issues of the day.

But St. McCain's a 'straight shooter,' don't you know, and must be given every benefit due to his service and captivity.

Posted by terraformer | March 19, 2008 10:49 AM

OK, OK, so I got 'em a little mixed up, all them A-rabs start to look alike to me ... huh, what's that?... Iranians aren't A-rabs? ... You're shitting me... Oh well, they're all Moslems, I know that, so ... now what? ... Iran and Al-Qaeda belong to two different branches? Who hate each other's guts? ... well, uh, uh, fuck you, then, you're not gettin' an invite to the next barbeque. Which will be on my lawn. Which you should get off of now.

Posted by Straight Talkin' Maverick | March 19, 2008 10:50 AM

It is not just the Middle East that President McCain will mishandle. We also have potential conflicts with Russia and China that his mindless, ignorant belligerence will inflame. We need to go beyond his simple-minded, us-against-them, black-and-white mentality that is so reminiscent of Bush.

Posted by bob h | March 19, 2008 10:51 AM

Al, even if it turns out that Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda, McCain correcting his "misstatement" as soon as Lieberman whispered in his ear obviously demonstrates that he has no factual basis for making such a claim.

I realize that it's pretty inconvenient for the GOP when a candidate who is justifying his entire campaign based on his supposedly deep understanding of Iraq turns out to be ignorant on the subject. But, if that kind of weaseling is the best defense you can offer, you probably shouldn't even bother trying.

Posted by N | March 19, 2008 10:52 AM

Major General William B. Caldwell disagrees: "We have, in fact, found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups some support."

And if McCain had cited that, and given a nuanced policy analysis of the ways in which former enemies were uniting against the US, it'd be a very different discussion.

Instead, after insisting he was right, he talked to his people, and realised he was wrong, thus effectively telling his Jordanian audience: "You're all just Muslims to me."

Smooth.

Is that really who you want chatting to the rest of the world for you?

Posted by Pete | March 19, 2008 10:53 AM

Al, we actually agreed on some non-sports matter the other day; this doesn't make us allies.

"some" is one of our slipperiest words.

but i intended to comment on another aspect of this: it is such an article of faith to right-wingers that AQ is everywhere that it has become a proxy for "middle eastern bad guys." it's become a standard response (rather like "tax cutting" as the response to all economic issues or rote recitations, like that of bush on friday, about how we can't have government interfering in markets even as his government was interfering in markets).

the right wing, having long devoted itself to sloganeering uber alles, no longer cares whether the slogans have any basis in reality: it apparently feels good to the right wing mind to make belligerent assertions, which demonstrate your tough-minded character, intelligence not, in right-wing circles, being an aspect of character.

Posted by howard | March 19, 2008 10:54 AM

ah yes, because Sunni extremist groups = al-Qaeda

Didn't say that.

But Bergmann's statement about "being confused about the differences between Shia and Sunni" is just completely ignorant.

Shia Iran is perfectly happy to work with extremist Sunnis in Iraq. Just as Shia Iran was perfectly willing to have deep ties with al Qaeda, as the 9/11 Commission confirmed.

It's just that people like Max Bergmann are too stupid to understand that Shia and Sunnis are willing to work together.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 10:54 AM

1) John McCain lived through the GREAT DEPRESSION.

Expecting his mind to focus clearly on complex subjects is even more unrealistic than expecting a moron like George W Bush to understand "fuzzy math" enough to not run up almost $5 TRILLION in debt.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 10:56 AM

Major General William B. Caldwell disagrees: "We have, in fact, found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups some support."

And if McCain had cited that, and given a nuanced policy analysis of the ways in which former enemies were uniting against the US, it'd be a very different discussion.

Instead, after insisting he was right, he talked to his people, and realised he was wrong, thus effectively telling his Jordanian audience: "You're all just Muslims to me."

Smooth.

Is that really who you want chatting to the rest of the world for you?

Posted by Pete | March 19, 2008 10:56 AM

And if McCain had cited that, and given a nuanced policy analysis of the ways in which former enemies were uniting against the US, it'd be a very different discussion.

Well, of course. That's why he amended his statement - his statement wasn't quite correct.

But the likes of Max Bergmann are saying that this proves that McCain doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni - as if Iran would never, ever help Sunnis because Iran is Shia. Which, as I've shown, is just plain wrong.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2008 11:01 AM

"Shia Iran is perfectly happy to work with extremist Sunnis in Iraq. Just as Shia Iran was perfectly willing to have deep ties with al Qaeda, as the 9/11 Commission confirmed."

Click the link. Always click the link:

"Second of all, my understanding of the larger relationship between Iran and al Qaeda suggests that while there were plenty of contacts, many more than there were with Iraq, it was never clear they developed a serious cooperative relationship."

Posted by Joel | March 19, 2008 11:03 AM

Take it easy on Al. Presumably he's paid to write that stuff.

Posted by ed | March 19, 2008 11:05 AM

There's long been a rightwing deadhead folktale floating around that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I believe Michael Gordon, the NYT stenographer for the White House, even reported it as a fact once. Of course, that Iran actively tried to organize the overthrow of the Taliban in the 90s, because the Taliban - surprise! - was massacring Shiites in Afghanistan is given the heave ho into the amnesia hole.

One of the reasons that the U.S. should never, ever maintain troops for long in the Middle East or in Central Asia is that these are areas in which you actually do need to know something about the culture to have a chance at playing "marshal". At the highest levels, the U.S. decision makers know pretty much nada. Of course, the people in the oil industry know things on a dealmaking level, and the American military invariably knows the finest death squad leaders.

Interestingly, the NYT's article about the cost of the Iraq war includes, as a casual thing, that we might be just halfway through the cost of simply the operations of the war itself. In other words, to carry out the fantasies of the warmongers, we probably will have to spend another 600 trillion dollars in Iraq. So sweet! Roll out 400 billion to lend to failing hedge funders and mortgage security predators, 600 billion for a pointless exercise in American overshoot, and remember - shrink the government too!

The right has become a fantasy land of such nutty ideas. Which is why I'm pretty confident that the Dems are going to sweep in November.

Posted by roger | March 19, 2008 11:12 AM

But the likes of Max Bergmann are saying that this proves that McCain doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni - as if Iran would never, ever help Sunnis because Iran is Shia. Which, as I've shown, is just plain wrong.

No that's exactly what it proves:

McCain: "It's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda has been going into Iran and are receiving training and are coming back into Iraq."

vs.

Caldwell: "We have, in fact, found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups some support," Caldwell told reporters, adding that he was aware of only Shiite extremists being trained inside Iran.

So, he said that Al Qaeda were going into Iran, receiving training and coming back. That's true of Sunni groups, but not Shia groups. It's as clear-cut a case of not being able to tell the difference as you're likely to find.

Posted by Pete | March 19, 2008 11:21 AM

and this is where a lot of wingnut anger which gets directed at people who vocalize oppostion to the war or its policies comes from too. this weird mash of conflations that stews around in their heads, who is allied with who, underlined by a general theme of 'they're all the same anyways'. Iran training Al Qaeda? sure! why not? you don't want to attack Iran to stop them from training Al Qaeda so that they can take over Iraq? what's wrong with you! and they just lash out with no idea that they are literally talking crazy talk with no basis in reality whatsoever.

Posted by onceler | March 19, 2008 11:33 AM

roger, I wish I shared your optimism, but I've learned over the past eight years that there are plenty of Americans who are ready to conflate all of the Middle East together and declare war. They're ALL responsible for 9/11!!! And they hate Jesus!!!!

Posted by Monster | March 19, 2008 11:40 AM

You say al-Qaeda, I say Mahmoud Ahmadajabadazad.
Let's call the whole thing off.

Posted by aleks | March 19, 2008 11:53 AM

I've tried and failed to assess the significance of the fact that it was Lieberman who corrected McCain on his al-Qaida training in Iran blunder. Anyone else up to this?

Posted by Gene | March 19, 2008 12:12 PM

Here's the entire paragraph of the quote cited by Al:

"We have, in fact, found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence services have provided to some Sunni insurgent groups some support," Caldwell told reporters, adding that he was aware of only Shiite extremists being trained inside Iran. Caldwell cited a collection of munitions on a nearby table that he said were made in Iran and found two days ago in a majority-Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad.

Let's look at the logical leaps Al is forced to take to justify McCain's statements as true:

- Iranian-made munitions were found in a majority-Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad.

- Therefore, the Iranians provided those munitions to Sunnis (while simultaneously arming rival Shiite militias)

- Therefore, the Iranians must be also providing munitions to al Qaeda

- Therefore, the Iranians must also be providing training, in Iran, to al Qaeda

- Therefore, "It's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda has been going into Iran and are receiving training and are coming back into Iraq."

Posted by Tractarian | March 19, 2008 12:14 PM

I've tried and failed to assess the significance of the fact that it was Lieberman who corrected McCain on his al-Qaida training in Iran blunder. Anyone else up to this?

Posted by Gene | March 19, 2008 12:15 PM

Maybe McMaverick is off his meds. Or taking them with rum and tequila (it does a body good!).

Straight from the strategic mind that thought up telling the Sunnis and Shi'ites to cut that shit out.

Posted by Reality Man | March 19, 2008 12:17 PM

Hey, Al, remember when you said this?

If Iran acted like the US or the UK or France, we'd have much less of a problem with them getting nuclear weapons.

It was such a hilariously stupid thing to say that I assume it's slipped your mind. But maybe I'm wrong!

Posted by 23456 | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM

Remember, sometimes "Maverick" is just another word for "doesn't know crap about what he's talking about."

Also, in the credit where credit's due department, god job Lieberman and pointing this out to him.

Posted by Adam Villani | March 19, 2008 1:22 PM

Take it easy on Al. Presumably he's paid to write that stuff.

You got it all backwards, since he's getting paid for it (and let's face it, either he is getting paid for it or he's the saddest sadsack on the face of this earth) the least we can expect of him is some quality trolling.

Posted by novakant | March 19, 2008 2:27 PM

Yup, off his meds
*************************************************
It was the 12th attack this year inside Kurdish Iraq by Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda-linked radical group that the U.S. military routed four years ago in the first days of the war. The Kurds say the late-March attack was another sign that Iran is supporting the militants and feeding the war in Iraq. An attack in July, also blamed on Ansar, killed a Kurdish border policeman.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100507dnintansar.3565e42.html

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 2:33 PM

Everyone knows Shia and Sunni never speak to each other
*************************************************

On Iran, by contrast, the report concludes that al Qaeda's relationship with Tehran and its client, the Hezbollah militant group, was long-standing and included cooperation on operations, the officials said. It also details previously unknown links between the two, including the revelation that as many as 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers may have passed through Iran in late 2000 and early 2001 because Iranian border guards were instructed to let al Qaeda associates travel freely, sources familiar with the report have said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4191-2004Jul21.html

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 2:41 PM

Hell, even the darn Clinton Justice Department can't keep those Sunnis and Shiites straight. How could anyone have voted for a president who can't tell the difference? Maybe Clinton and Reno belived that " rightwing deadhead folktale floating around that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda and the Taliban"
***********************************************

USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, and al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hizballah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 2:50 PM

Hell, even the darn Clinton Justice Department can't keep those Sunnis and Shiites straight. How could anyone have voted for a president who can't tell the difference? Maybe Clinton and Reno belived that " rightwing deadhead folktale floating around that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda and the Taliban"
***********************************************

USAMA BIN LADEN, the defendant, and al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with representatives of the government of Iran, and its associated terrorist group Hizballah, for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 2:54 PM

Everyone is so confused
**********************************************

In a separate raid in Khanaqin, Coalition Forces captured a suspected liaison to al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leaders, who assists in the movement of information and documents from al-Qaeda in Iraq leadership in Baghdad to al-Qaeda senior leaders in Iran.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12098&Itemid=21

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 2:58 PM

Sorry - don't know why that came up twice

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 3:15 PM

Campesino, I like your faith. Were the hijackers wearing badges, I wonder? Did they call themselves the 9/11 Group? Did they stop off in Mali on the way over, shopping for yellowcake for you know who? I do believe there is a report they spoke at the future Attack on America con held in Teheran in 2000. Ann Coulter was invited to give her ideas on targeting the New York Times building, but alas, had a previous committment.

You know, when White House stooges decide to float idiotic rumors among their stenographers in the press, they really should try not to tell tales this unlikely.

Posted by roger | March 19, 2008 7:41 PM

You know, when White House stooges decide to float idiotic rumors among their stenographers in the press, they really should try not to tell tales this unlikely.

Posted by roger | March 19, 2008 7:41 PM

**********************************************

So you're telling me Janet Reno and Bill Clinton are floating idiotic rumors in Justice Department indictments? And here I had such faith in both of them

Posted by Campesino | March 19, 2008 9:21 PM

As I've repeated here before, there may be occasions where Iranian intelligence has allowed Al Qaeda transit across Iran if they were targeting the US or Israel.

That doesn't mean there is any significant links between Iran and Al Qaeda.

Iran has also frequently arrested and even offered to trade Al Qaeda prisoners to the US. The US refused the offer.

Al and Campesino are full of shit as usual. At least Campesino offers links. Unfortunately, his links do not provide definitive evidence, as most of them refer to "suspected" this or that.

Not to mention that the notion that Al Qaeda and Hizballah are cooperating is even less likely. It was the US - specifically President Bush - who authorized the CIA to explicitly start supporting radical Sunni groups in Lebanon to try to counter Hizballah. This ended up with the blowup in Lebanon in the camps with the Lebanese Army having to take some Sunni militants down.

The reality is that Iran does not support "terrorist groups" to any significant degree. Hizballah is not a "terrorist group" in the same sense as Al Qaeda. Neither is Hamas. They are nationalist resistance groups mostly focused on their own countries and against Israel. While Hizballah has an international component which can launch strikes against Israelis or Jews anywhere in the world, Hamas is mostly limited to the Palestinian territories. Neither of them target US assets in the US or elsewhere outside of Lebanon.

Conflating Iran with Al Qaeda is just bullshit to justify another stupid Middle East war. It's the same lies that Bush and Cheney used - Cheney just the other day - conflating Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Even if it were true, it still wouldn't justify either the Iraq war or an Iran war, just as it was stupid to use the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to justify overthrowing the Taliban and screwing up yet another country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 9:51 PM

A political "gaffe" is when you say out loud something that you aren't supposed to say because everybody knows it's true -- e.g., Larry Summers or James Watson. Saying something false is the opposite of a Kinsleyan gaffe.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 19, 2008 10:40 PM

Steve Sailer:

A gaffe, political or otherwise, is a faux pas.

Michael Kinsley was the man who was quoted as saying "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth."

Thus...a Kinsleyan gaffe.

Posted by AKBY | March 19, 2008 11:01 PM