Think Progress notes yet another instance of John McCain's fuzzy thinking on Iraq. In an April 1 CNN interview, McCain says "I said he was still major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated" thus establishing the prescience for which he's well known. But in mid-march he told CNN that "His [Sadr’s] influence has been on the wane for a long time." Basically, McCain has no idea. Because this is what when you're getting briefed by campaign staff you hired away from the know-nothings at the Project for a New American Century. Someday we may look back with nostalgia on the Steven Hadley Era.
« Straight Outta Sesame Street | Main | Muqtada's Triumph »
Confused on Sadr
02 Apr 2008 09:23 am
Comments (21)
Huh? McCain is correct in both instances. Sadr's power has been diminishing for a while now, but he is still powerful and we need to continue to reduce that power. How difficult is that for Matthew to understand?
Matthew isn't trying to understand anything. He's just trying to do to McCain what he tried to do to Petraeus last August: keep throwing shit against the wall to attack his credibility and hope something sticks.
Wow, Matt, I didn't know that McCain's starry-eyed acolytes frequented your site. Interesting.
Based on some of the information that has come out in the past few days regarding the recent Iraq troubles, McCain is probably just repeating what he was told in Iraq by high-ranking US military and diplomatic officials.
Petraeus and company apparently interpreted Sadr's truce and restraint as evidence of weakness and declining authority. Instead, it appears the Sadr movement has been using the period of the truce to get better organized, get better training, acquire more weapons and set up more efficient networks for the distribution of cash, arms and information.
Instead, it appears the Sadr movement has been using the period of the truce to get better organized, get better training, acquire more weapons and set up more efficient networks for the distribution of cash, arms and information.
Paradoxically, the Sadr movement has been waning the entire time it was doing these things.
McCain's statements are fairly standard right wing Iraq boilerplate. We're perpetually "winning" against this week's villain, an ever-shifting entity. But it will take some time to actually "win."
It may take 100 years of fighting. As long as Americans aren't getting hurt or killed. Much like South Korea or Japan.
Sadr and his Mahdi Army are pretty smart: Instead of running around with "Shoot Me!" signs in Baghdad after the escalation started, they laid low, completed the ethnic cleaning of Baghdad (now 75% Shiite w/ extra vitamins!), and built popular support among ordinary Iraqis as the guys to whom you could look for social services instead of a corrupt and ineffective government. Maliki's abortive attempt, aided by us, to deal with that just makes Sadr look stronger and less of a stooge for the Americans than Maliki is. Good times!
You stupid idiot Matt... have you never heard of waxing and waning?
When something wanes there is a good chance that it also waxes.
I believe that it was clear that he was being rather poetic in comparing Sadr to the sea... mysterious, dangerous, salty.
Lay off John or I am totally gonna vote for him to teach you a lesson.
I just hope Al doesn't burst into tears. Every day seems to bring him closer to some sort of weepy breakdown.
Al is right; McCain's statements are neither incorrect nor mutually exclusive. This is just the latest iteration in MY's increasingly lame attempts to go after McCain on foreign policy...
from swimming freestyle:
"John McCain has admitted he's clueless when it comes to the economy. (Fear not - he's checked out Alan Greenspan's book from the library). He's made it pretty clear he intends to run on his military record and gung ho, never mind the facts, position on Iraq. That might be OK if he could just get the details right...
http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
McCain's statements are neither incorrect nor mutually exclusive.
His confusion on Iraq has deep roots. Walking through a Baghdad market 2 hours after a sweep, in a flak jacket, accompanied by 100 heavily armed troops, with 5 helicopters providing air cover, and then proclaiming it "safe" is pretty clueless.
Continuing to hold that position when over 20 people at the market were murdered in reprisal killings the very next day is delusional.
And that doesn't even get into his early statements about the war and his agreement with Rummy that we would be greeted as liberators.
He's just remaining consistent ... consistently clueless.
"I said he was still major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated" - John McCain
Eliminated how? By goading Maliki to attack his own people using US and British support? al Sadr is the only leader in Iraq who has grassroots support throughout Baghdad and the south. The other leaders such as Maliki have support mainly in the greenzone.
Why is it in the US interest to eliminate al Sadr's influence? This is why we are in Iraq?
al Sadr's influence is entrenched and not on the wane. He demonstrated that he is who is in charge in Iraq. THe bogus security gains that were claimed to be a result of the surge was eliminated in a few days by the word of al Sadr. His following seems to be very much like the Hezbollah in lebanon, where it is a social movement with political influence and it cannot be marginalized as we had learned from the recent Israeli adventure there.
That McCain does not understand this is very serious. He lacks the understsnding and judgement to be the President.
How difficult is that for Matthew to understand?
Well, I suspect he's not fluent in Complete Fucking Hack.
But please, do apply your sublime exegetical skills across the board.
"I said he was still major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated" - John McCain
Eliminated how? By goading Maliki to attack his own people using US and British support? al Sadr is the only leader in Iraq who has grassroots support throughout Baghdad and the south. The other leaders such as Maliki have support mainly in the greenzone.
Why is it in the US interest to eliminate al Sadr's influence? This is why we are in Iraq?
al Sadr's influence is entrenched and not on the wane. He demonstrated that he is who is in charge in Iraq. THe bogus security gains that were claimed to be a result of the surge was eliminated in a few days by the word of al Sadr. His following seems to be very much like the Hezbollah in lebanon, where it is a social movement with political influence and it cannot be marginalized as we had learned from the recent Israeli adventure there.
That McCain does not understand this is very serious. He lacks the understsnding and judgement to be the President.
McCain should keep his mouth shut. He probably knows as much about Sadr as the "experts" commenting here and in the media generally, to say the least. Unless he's intentionally spreading disinformation, he can only compromise intelligence sources if he stays on this track.
Interestingly, no one seems to think it important to check with Barack and Hillary about Sadr. But we've got his latest favorable ratings in the polls. No one has data from Iraq, only rumor and gossip, but he's way up in Hollywood and on the Upper West Side, so maybe now would be the time for the Dem's to start secret negotiations with Sadr like Nixon's with North Vietnam in '68.
Yeah, Powell's got a point. Why don't you all just shut up? What do you think this is, some sort of a 'blog' or something? There are qualifications for this sort of enterprise, you know. Ya Quisling, treason-y bastards.
This is Powell's usual pathetic take when shit in Iraq hits the fan - he falls back on, "well, we don't know, it's all rumor".
Except of course when the "rumor" is that something has gone well (or can be spun to be so) - then it's "solid evidence that everything is absolutely wonderful" and anybody who doesn't believe it is a "cut and run loser" with "no sense of history" and blah, blah, blah.
Powell makes knee jerk clowns like Al and Fred look like honest people.
Sadr's power has been diminishing for a while now, but he is still powerful and we need to continue to reduce that power.
Uh, the first part is not true. Sadr has been gaining power, influence, and a large number of followers since 2003.
A lot of people here rely on gossip and rumor. Then you've got your real delusionaires like The Amazing Hack, who can read the minds of important people around the world and make Nostradamus-like predictions about the future.
When are those strikes on Teheran going in now Richard? Any minute, right? We're still waiting, and I expect we will continue to do so long after you've lost access to the halfway house computer.
A word of advice--try to get a real job.
Comments closed April 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Keep it coming, Matt. The more we can frame McCain as the Uncle Doofus that he is, the better. I read on Juan Cole this morning that reports from Arab newspapers are saying that hundreds or even thousands of Iraqi troops essentially mutinied when ordered into action against Sadr and that Maliki is inducting his Dawa party stooges into the Army to make up the shortfall. I'm sure Saint John will tell us that it's an encouraging sign of certain victory!
Posted by scottreads | April 2, 2008 9:35 AM