McCain: Ignorance is Strength and Anyone Who Says Otherwise Hates the Troops

Spencer Ackerman has some veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan on the record against the McCain campaign's sleazy new slanders against Barack Obama. It was while over there that I saw this truly stunning post from McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb in which he tries to argue that to point out that McCain doesn't know when the Anbar Awakening happened is per se to attack the troops.

But to be as clear as possible, there were American soldiers serving in Iraq for years long before the surge began. To observe that something or other (say, the Anbar Awakening) couldn't possibly have happened because of the surge (because it happened before the surge) is by no means an effort to "deny American troops credit" for their work. The very Colonel (now General) McFarlane whose work McCain was citing as evidence of the success of the surge really did do good work, as did the men under his command. It's just that their work didn't have anything to do with the surge. Which is what Barack Obama was saying. And it's what John McCain was ignorantly denying.

Now the irony here is that the origins of this whole farce is McCain's efforts to hog credit himself for the adoption of improved counterinsurgency tactics. He "knows how to win wars," remember, and the evidence for that is supposed to be his embrace of the surge. But he can't even get basic facts straight.

Comments

These people are vile inhuman scum. McCain is far worse than Bush, maybe even worse than the Cheney devil. If this nation elects the McCain monster, we will deserve the fate of Carthage.

Posted by voice of reason | July 23, 2008 1:25 PM

For those still following the other crazy right wing lunacy on the Spiegel Maliki interview:

In further confirmation of the clever right wing's insistence upon the unreliability of that fancy gay European socialist publication Der Spiegel and its pro-Obama Pol Pot New York Times fake trascripting dupes, it appears that al-Maliki's office signed off on the transcript.

The reason the magazine scores so many high level interviews is that the editors agree to allow the subjects to "authorize" the interviews before they go to press. It wasn't just a slip of the tongue, in other words: Maliki not only endorsed Obama's plans for withdrawing from Iraq, but his office then explicitly approved the endorsement before it was printed. The denials, then, were doubly facetious. Spiegel couldn't say so, though, without revealing its embarrassing authorization policy.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/22/maliki-s-endorsement-not-lost-in-translation.aspx

Now Der Spiegel offers to play the audiotape for any journalist who requests it, but they say that they haven't been asked!

How do these Communist German fake journalists dare force Good American Patriot Conservative journalists to actually have to pick up the phone and call them? How DARE they?

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2008 1:26 PM

McCain doesn't know anything, but wants all the credit. Everyone who disagrees must just "hate the troops." Simple, right?

No wonder he's a Republican.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 23, 2008 1:28 PM

He "knows how to win wars,"

Isn't it more accurate to say that he knows how to sit in a box? Now that would be a cool slogan.

Posted by Jim W | July 23, 2008 1:33 PM

This is about bundling ALL that is "good" in Iraq (the Awakening movement, the surge, Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to lie low until advantageous, the decline of ethnic partitioning with its peace of the dead, etc.) and lashing McCain to it so he can wave it around like it's his own bloody shirt of virtue (while shouting down all critics of the war with the old Vietnam-era kneejerks).

It is a clinical example of delusional Green Lantern triumph-of-the-will imperial militarist ideology. And it's super-creepy.

Posted by elle loco | July 23, 2008 1:36 PM

Long ago and far away, people were discussing McCain's temperament and how he might hold up during the campaign. I think this week gives us the answer, and it ain't pretty.

"I'm MEEELLLTTING! What a world, what a world"

-- John "Wicked Witch of the Iraq-Pakistan Border" McCain

Posted by LFC | July 23, 2008 1:42 PM

McCain may not be very bright. More a product of a charmed and lucky life.

Admiral's son and grandson; naval aviator; public war hero; re-married very rich younger beauty queen; elected and re-elected without much serious opposition; kind of fell into this nomination when everyone else self-destructed. Anyone know what he's ever actually done except "be himself".

Now he's running a terrible campaign. This may get very ugly before its over.

Posted by s clark | July 23, 2008 1:59 PM

I actually remember Jim Webb during the Petreus hearings pressing him on exactly this point. I think one of his sons was in Anbar and he felt like all of this talk about the surge was belittling the good work that those soldiers had been doing there for some time before the surge started.

Posted by Set6h | July 23, 2008 2:01 PM

Slightly off topic, but have any of you in the DC metro area seen McCain's new energy policy ad? It's priceless.

Posted by Sid | July 23, 2008 2:02 PM

I love this question from Goldfarb:

"Are U.S. troops responsible for the success of the Awakening movement?"

This could only be asked by someone who either doesn't know what "the Anbar Awakening" means, or doesn't care. For people who don't know, the people primarily responsible for the success of the Awakening movement would be the people awakened, namely the Sunni tribes in Anbar. Of course we gave them financial support, but they did the heavy lifting.

So in short, Goldfarb is also arguing that to give credit to the relevant Iraqis for anything good happening in Iraq is to attack the U.S. military.

What a tool.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 2:38 PM

This election needs a ref to stop this fight. The only way McCain should be able to win this election is if it were brought to you by Don King productions.

Posted by Phil | July 23, 2008 2:42 PM

Of course we gave them financial support, but they did the heavy lifting.

More to the point, we armed them. Now that goes against an aim of a stable Iraq which was to disarm (rather than arm) the militias.

I'm not saying arming them wasn't necessary, but it does temper the term "success" a bit. You've taken a group that was openly hostile, and given them all the weapons they need to function as their own battle unit. AQ was their first target. Will that be their only target? Only time will tell, but we created one major danger in order to help rid ourselves of another.

Posted by LFC | July 23, 2008 2:44 PM

If this election were a prize fight, we'd need a ref to call this fight before McCain suffered permanent injury.

Of course, it could be a Don King production, so who knows what'll happen.

Posted by Phil | July 23, 2008 2:46 PM

If this election were a prize fight, we'd need a ref to call this fight before McCain suffered permanent injury.

Of course, it could be a Don King production, so who knows what'll happen.

Posted by Phil | July 23, 2008 2:49 PM

Tiny little quibble: It's MacFarland with a D.

Important for anyone googling the 15page pfd account that's used at the Army Staff College @ Leavenworth that actually explains the whole 'Anbar Awakening'. Apparently that does not include anyone in Our John's campaign.

I'd give the url, but it would take up three lines. Just search for:

Col MacFarland Anbar Awakening

Posted by JohnMcC | July 23, 2008 2:57 PM

When is an Obama supporter, or the campaign realize that even without the surge there were 130,000 troops in Iraq.

McCain is claiming that Obama is giving partial credit to the Iraqis for lowered violence, dishonoring the surge troops. So what about the 130k that were already there?

Also, McCain's new argument is consistent with his idea of us staying in Iraq forever. Iraqis can't do it without us, they don't deserve any credit for any progress. What is the point of this reasoning?

Posted by tomj | July 23, 2008 4:22 PM

McCain was one of the first Republicans to publicly admit that we needed to get rid of Rumsfeld. Since things started to sort of improve after Rumsfeld left, McCain should brag about that.

"I helped get rid of Rumsfeld" should be the McCain slogan. It really is probably the best thing he's done for America.

Posted by Owen | July 23, 2008 9:38 PM

"This may get very ugly before its over."

I'd say the upcoming Iran war - and its effects on the US economy - will clearly be very ugly.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 24, 2008 5:28 AM

Hi, Matt.

Thanks for being part of the effort to cover this clear wiggling by McCain.

I have another tack I have taken on the "surge," basically, based on graphs I made of surge troop levels, clearly show that the surge total didn't the total previously reached... as long as you Don't Forget Poland (and the rest of the coalition.) And even if you don't want to count non-U.S. troops, McCain's original suggestion was to increase the U.S. troop total to 102.5% of its previous maximum. 2.5% increase! And he is trying to take credit for something?

I'd sure appreciate if you'd stop by and check it out. And if I was unclear with my phrasing somewhere, please point it out!

Posted by Josh SN | July 24, 2008 12:13 PM