McCain's Sunni Shi'ites

How could you think it was just a slip of the tongue when McCain made the comment three times in three seperate venues, Joe? That completely shows that the media's first instinct with McCain is to give him a pass, even when McCain shows himself to be frightenly out of touch as he did with his Al Qaeda/Iran comments. Foreign policy experience, my foot.

How many untruths will McCain spout before his Straight Talk mantle goes?
Will he, CAN he?, lose his reputation as an honest man with the media.
I ask that question seriously.

Wow.

What a bunch of morons.

Thanks for posting this- pretty hard to walk back one of those campaign statements.

Joe, you're about as well-informed as any MSM commentator on Iraq these days. Thanks for dismantling this nonsensical, "bloody-shirt-waving" spin from McCain. All he has to offer is fear itself. Certainly no knowledge, perspective, or solutions to anything.

FYI, McCain had the same "al Qaeda gets training in Iran slip of the tongue" the previous day on the Hugh Hewitt show.

I'm growing less interested in knowing whether McCain's penchant for falsehoods is due to detachment from reality or deliberate deception-- all that matters is that it's dangerous.

His "plan" to remove a brigade or two a month, and get it all done in 16 months, is a joke ... It won't be as easy as that and Obama said as much in his speech today. But, even taking into account the feckless expediency of his "get out now" rhetoric,

Good gracious. You just contradicted that "feckless" and "out now" stuff in your previous sentence! And the whole point of your post is that Obama has a mature approach to the situation that McCain lacks. You don't need to toss in an accusation of weakness against a Democrat after every critique of the false statements of a Republican.

You can leave behind the centrist, pox-on-both-your-houses cult! We believe in you!

President Ford "knew" that Soviet troops occupied Poland, but the media at that time lambasted him for it. Why should the media (and Mr. Klein) forgive the similar (three-time stated) gaffe by Senator McCain? Routine and habitual fluffing comes to mind...

The reason McCain gets away with it is because, for nearly a year now, the entire Bush administration has been lying about AQI - blaming everything on them; even though they make up only roughly 5% of the Iraqi violent extremism. And the reason for this is because the real Al Qaeda bombed the WTC and the Pentagon - and Americans didn't like that. So, even though AQ and AQI are not the same, we've been inundated for months and months and months with the lying purposeful conflating (for partisan political purposes).

And the media just shut up about it!! Acceptance of the lying neocon meme by acquiescence.

So now, Mr. Klein feels that he can take issue with the aide - but not the principal. Fluffing, fluffing, fluffing. McCain made the gaffe, and is apparently going to get away with it scot-free...

Thanks for commenting on this, Joe. And, as per EE, the 'feckless' comment was worse than superfluous.

Translation:

McCain has no idea what he is talking about, and it is now so grossly evident, that Chutzpah Joe is switching to the winning side.

"I was going to give John McCain a break on his Al Qaeda-Iran gaffe yesterday. After all, it wasn't a Kinsleyian gaffe--the inadvertant blurting of an unacceptable truth--it was just a plain old slip of the tongue, a brain fart. Surely, McCain knows that Iran is Shi'ite and Al Qaeda is Sunni"

"I have my problems with Obama on Iraq. His "plan" to remove a brigade or two a month, and get it all done in 16 months, is a joke...or, as Samantha Power put it more delicately, "a best case scenario."

So McCain gets a pass and Obama doesn't? Why is that Joe? Surely, Obama knows his plan is a 'best case scenario', but for what reason does he not warrant the same kid gloves treatment you give to Maverick? Why no 'pass'?

Take a good look at Maverick' face when Bloody Joe clues him in...it's not an 'Oopsie! I said the wrong word!' expression on his face at all, it's more of a 'Oh, is that right?' expression. Did AMC tell you all about the all expenses paid resort weekends? Looking for an invite?

Elvis, indeed, the "feckless" cheapshot was uncalled for. Mr. Klein has no position on withdrawal other than it shouldn't be "precipitous." Senator Obama's position - 16 months or as soon thereafter as possible - is a real position, plainly understood by most sentient beings.

Personally, I think Mr. Klein should read up on Burke and Churchill before he comments again on sonething on which he has been proven wrong.

All war all the time. What will Pops McCain do if he can't blow something up?

McCain's gaffe is totally inexcusable. When you're a conservative (or at least trying to pretend you're a conservative) running purely as a foreign policy candidate you need to get these things right. If he even attempted to talk about social conservatism or economic conservatism maybe you could overlook a perceived weakness in foreign policy. But since the McCain campaign has so wisely deflated the entire conservative platform to "Al-Qaeda is bad" he has to make sure he knows who Iran is supporting and who Al-Qaeda is receiving support from - otherwise, what does he have to offer conservatives, let alone the rest of the country?

I was going to give John McCain a break on his Al Qaeda-Iran gaffe yesterday. After all, it wasn't a Kinsleyian gaffe--the [inadvertent] blurting of an unacceptable truth--it was just a plain old slip of the tongue, a brain fart.

Nice try, Joe, but he's made the same gaffe four times. If that was a brain fart, he's sure being eating a lot of brain beans. Or something.

You sound like those financial journalists who confidently say that McCain didn't really mean to say that he thinks raising taxes increases revenues, despite the fact he keeps on saying it.

So what's your plan, Joe, that doesn't need to account for best case scenarios and worst case scenarios?
Would you prefer Obama to pull a White House and say, "No, this will work great! I can't imagine anything going wrong! There's no need to adapt to any new requirements!"
How about stabilizing Afghanistan? Critical, don't you agree? Where will we get the troops to do that (since for some reason Europe doesn't want to clean up our Charlie Foxtrots).

Snark aside, is there a good summation of HRC's plans for Iraq?

I was going to give John McCain a break on his Al Qaeda-Iran gaffe yesterday.

This is a Five Year Gaffe.

"Iran isn't training Al Qaeda, but it is, uh, arming...Sunnis. This is true, but they're not Iraqi Sunnis."

How does that statement square with this (http://www.meforum.org/article/670) from the 9/11 Commission Report: "The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations."?

Or this (http://www.nysun.com/article/46032) from the New York Sun: "Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq."?

C/P'ed from AMC's thread....

when al Qaeda is defeated

I wish that there was somebody other than me who when encountering this phrase in a press release would provide background in the form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is a term to describe the group which is playing an active role in the Iraqi insurgency. The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to the Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004

In other words when McCain refers to Al Qaeda, he is describing an Iraqi group that didn't even exist as an entity until 10-04 which for those keeping score is 19 months after the invasion.

Estimates for AQI numbers range from 850 – about 3 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency – to several thousand.

In other words, we have a battle force of 150,000 troops in order to counter the threat represented by less than 3000 enemy.

I appreciate the fact that Joe seems to pick this up eventually and he clearly knows better than McCain what the situation on the ground is, but it remains that there's no excuse for the fact that McCain and others routinely get away with lying to the American people as to who our enemies are.

It's the sort of question that seems pretty damned important to me!

Joe Klein sure likes to make withdrawal look more complicated than it is.

His "plan" to remove a brigade or two a month, and get it all done in 16 months, is a joke

Is this based on the solid analysis that missed John McCain's "Five Year Gaffe" or has Joe Klein been burned by his sources YET AGAIN?

Samantha Power put it more delicately, "a best case scenario.

I can find no evidence that Samantha Power is calling Barack Obama's plan a best case scenario. I've seen a BBC interview where she said THE GENERALS consider that a best case scenario. As I have noted before, the generals are conservative in their mindset, as opposed to the people who actually plan and execute withdrawals from Iraq have said:

"Coming out of any theater of operations is tough," says retired Lt. Gen. Gus Pagonis. But packing to go home from that distant desert presents special problems, as simple as finding the water to wash down your grungy gear, says this man who oversaw the homecoming from the last desert war, in 1991. Air Force Col. Jeffrey Mintzlaff, who will be deeply involved in this one as what he calls a "synchronizer" of troop flights home, said "a lot of variables" complicate the picture... "Six months is what is talked about around here," Mintzlaff said from Scott Air Force Base, Ill. Others estimate as few as four or as many as 18 months would be needed. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks of withdrawing one combat brigade per month, pointing to a two-year plan. But Pagonis said that "once a withdrawal is decided on, they will want to do it expeditiously," whichever party is in charge in Washington.

But why listen to experts who have actually withdrawn troops from Iraq? Why not trust the generals and their "best case scenario" which is actually a worst case scenario? This is Joe Klein's standard operating proceedure, to trust people who lie for political benefit and/or maintain high levels of incompetence.

I was going to give John McCain a break on his Al Qaeda-Iran gaffe yesterday. But... I just received a mass email from the McCain campaign

Joe Klein doesn't research anything unless research falls into his lap(top).

Surely, McCain knows that Iran is Shi'ite and Al Qaeda is Sunni

Why do you say this? What evidence do you have?

What's really going on here, as far as I can tell, is that McCain believes in bad guys, and conflates them.

Or he simply uses what he thinks are the most effective fear-mongering phrases.

Or he has absolutely no clue.

If Kucinich said this you'd be all over him. If Obama said this, Chuck Todd points out that it would be running in an endless loop all over 24-7 cable.

McCain has been completely incoherent in his foreign policy statements. He demonstrates, repeatedly, that he has no understanding of thenature of the threat from stateless actors engaged in asymmetrical warfare. He doesn't even understand the situation in Iraq was bin Laden's goal. He thought it would happen in Afghanistan, but he'll take this.

McCain is breathtakingly incompetent if we take him at his word. I cannot see why we should take Joes, and David Broder's and David Brooks' word for it when they say he isn't as stupid as his words say he is.

So you want to give McCain a break? Great. Let me know when you will give Hillary a break. This is a pathetic post given McCain's blustering. The man is dangerous and not someone who should have his finger on the nuclear button. But Mccain gets so many passes, doesn't he? After all our folks in the MSM need to make sure they get to the next private party and hang out. The MSM is McCain's base. Chris Matthews: fancy yourself Press Spokesman designate?

Obama's reply:

"We wish the McCain campaign well as they try to figure out the difference between Iran and al Qaeda. Yesterday, Senator McCain said that Iran is "taking al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," to Iraq. This was shortly after telling talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, "As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq." Or does Senator McCain believe the clarification that he issued yesterday, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda." Or does he believe the statement that he issued today: "Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated." Huh?

"Does this sound familiar? Back in February 2003, before the war in Iraq began, there was no operational connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But John McCain was saying that we had to invade and occupy a country that had no ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks because of Iraq's, "support for the international terrorism of Al Qaeda." Despite all of his Washington experience, John McCain voted for, supported, and continues to support the greatest strategic blunder in American foreign policy in decades. Osama bin Laden and the core leadership of al Qaeda responsible for the 9/11 attacks are not in Iraq. They are reportedly in northwest Pakistan, which is over 1,000 miles from Iraq. So while John McCain likes to boast of his willingness to follow Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, all he has done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have regrouped, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

"This fall, John McCain will support George Bush Foreign Policy 101: endless war in Iraq; a policy of not talking to adversaries that has not worked; and a disturbing tendency to conflate very different threats. Barack Obama will offer a clean break from the failed policies of the past. He will end the war in Iraq, finish the job in Afghanistan, and focus on the threats of the 21st century," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

So, Iran doesn't back Al Qaeda? Really, but then why are we going to bomb Iran and begin WWIII? Like, I totally don't get it.

So, like, well, um, did Iraq attack us on 911, cuz I like heard the president say something like that, you know--and well that's the only reason we'd go to war there right. For sure.

We should all join AMC in the corner, shaking.

Kelly O'Donnell interviewed McCain tonight on NBC News tonight and she asked him about the comment. His response was that he made a mistake and immediately corrected himself.

O'Donnell just nodded her head and didn't even bother to point out the obvious--that he made the same statement about Al Qaeda and Iran multiple times and he didn't correct himself. Someone else had to correct him. The press must love it when McCain lies to them right to their faces.

Ok lets put this in clear terms.

A man who wishes to be Commander in Chief of Our Armed forces can not correctly identify who our enemies are.

And the folks in the Press corps are unsure if this is important enough to mention.

Even Reagan at his worst could correctly identify the USSR on a map!

But then again he also had a soft spot in his heart for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan...oops ....never mind!

But then again he also had a soft spot in his heart for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan...oops ....never mind!

ZOMG, don't ever mention again Ronny Raygun's involvement with terrorists in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq! The Beltway press corps will be having none of that!!!

Chuck Todd today said:

this was not a one-time slip and so, you know, this just shows you how much bank -- how much of the foreign policy experience stuff he's got in the bank, because had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over, and would have absolutely hurt them politically.

I have a dumb question. But, I am wearing pajamas and such and don't understand nuance.

What judgments of McCain in foreign policy have been that spectacular? Yes, McCain was around to agree to this stupid war. He also has had other stupid foreign policy ideas. He doesn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni.

What is his area of expertise you people in the media keep touting? Is he an expert on China? On Russia? On palestinian/Israeli conflicts? I keep hearing it repeated that McCain has all these foreign policy credentials but nobody in the press ever bothers to tell me what profound wisdom McCain has that others lack.

Thanks for answering if you do Joe.

The burden is on McCain to explain what the following actually means:

"We're winning now, so we have to keep fighting!"

Really? Hasn't that been the de facto "strategy" for five years? Just keep stayin' cuz we can't leave? How many troops should "keep fighting"? 160,000? How many tours is too many for the average troop and his family? Four tours? Five? Six?

I just don't see how McCain is offering one iota more nuance then Bush has for the last five years. Why would this appeal to voters in November? 70% of the country doesn't like Bush, largely over Iraq, so we're going to elect the guy who basically has the same (lack of) "strategy"?

When every I get depressed over the Dem cat fight, I just look at McCain and think, "this guy is toast."

"nobody in the press ever bothers to tell me what profound wisdom McCain has that others lack."

From the press's perspective, it's his reflexive desire to blow stuff up reeeeeaaaal good. That's what they view as "smart" and "serious" on national security.

Although Mr. Klein and others can try to vapor in the void and pretend that McCain has some sort of expertise, that's really all it consists of. But to them, that's enough.

Thank God you're finally seeing the light Joe. Face it you guys just hold John McCain to a different standard on national security. You tend to assume he knows what he's talking about even when he doesn't.

Here's a start: admit to yourself that if Obama had made the type of "gaffe" McCain made you would have ran him out of the race by now. News check: Just because one candidate's older than the other and "experienced" it doesn't mean he ALWAYS knows what he's talking about. Conversely, the younger candidate can be right about national security, as Obama was today.

THIS is what we mean when we say the press is doing a terrible job. I'm really getting sick of this election and the media's total inability to do any actual research. You are doing the American public the same disservice you did us when you, largely, helped get us INTO the Iraq War in the first place.

So please, please, do us all a favor. (And here you are slightly better than the other reporters.) Stop worrying about the horserace, stop worrying about who you're being unfair to (Obama, Clinton, McCain), stop worrying about who you're trying to make it up to (again McCain, Obama, Clinton) and just report the straight facts for a while. Maybe then we can have a real election.

I wonder if in fact McCain was intentionally saying this hoping that his target audience would believe what he claimed was "well known," to enhance his argument about Al Qaeda in Iraq. Lindsey Graham looked extremely uncomfortable at the beginning of the clip where Joe Lieberman corrected him. I think this was the third occasion he'd said this, so Graham must have known what was coming.

Petraeus Says It's Syria not Iran that's supporting AQI...or, at least, is the usual pathway for fighters and arms.

Thanks for linking to that story, because you left out an important element of it.

The reporter talking to Petraeus, Kyra Phillips of CNN, repeated McCain's nonsense about Iran.

This is why you can't treat lies or ignorance like this without saying in Big Letters (gratuitous capitalization) that McCain is WRONG.

This is how people came to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11. TV reporters, in particular, were not saying IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM OR AL QAEDA. THE PRESIDENT IS WRONG.

There have been plenty of mea culpas. But those don't freakin' matter if you do it again.

Yes, KathyR, this may be an attempt to get this repeatedly said in public, so that it becomes widely known, although false. The fact that Kyra Phillips repeated it, talking to Petraeus shows that this is happening.

Of course we must cut Mccain some slack. This is a guy who gleefully admits that he was 5th from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy. He walks around like John Wayne and the media melts.

Only in American culture is failure looked highly upon. No wonder we've outsourced our economy to the Chinese and Indians.

This is a guy who indignantly shouted that the Clinton administration must cut and run from Somalia in 1993. 15 years later he turns around and blames that specific response for emboldening Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqvHS6bdcVA

Someone should ask him what he did to stop 9/11 all those years..

Oh, I think it is obvious why John McCain deserves a pass on this.

I mean, c'mon, the man hosts great BBQ's.

What's a little country mix-up among commander in chiefs anyway?

Even if we attack the wrong country, the ratings and circulations will spike, so what difference does it make?

But we need to get back to the real issues....like Jeremiah Wright!

To Florida, Obama called the leader of Canada the president of Canada.

To Joe Klein: Are you aware that the saint Barack Obama referred to the leader of Canada as the president of Canada. Canada has been under parliamentary system for 140 years. You were silent on this gaffe which happened in the first debate in chicago. The leader of Canada is called the prime minister.

Barack Obama said 10,000 people died in a tornado in Kansas. Does he really believe that. Did you write about that?

Hillary said Musharraf was running for election when Bhutto died. He was not. The media was silent on that gaffe.

To Joe Klein: McCain has numerous times talked about the madhi army being trained in Iran. He has talked about it in senate hearings.

McCain last week went to fundraisers, campaign events, and back and forth to washington to vote. Now he has been flying all over the middle east with no sleep.

McCain had a breifing about the offensive against al queda in mosul. He was tired and made the mistake twice not three times. He had al queda on his mind. He made it on the hugh hewitt show and yesterday. It was a slip in his train of thought. Just like when obama said 10,000 died in a tornado in kansas. McCain hasn't slept in a week.

McCain gives the press constant access on his plane, on his bus, several press conferences a day.

McCain gives the press 20 times more access than Obama or Clinton. Obama runs out of press conferences. So how do you go about thanking McCain you love to smear him.

McCain has a son who just came back from serving in Iraq. He talks to him constantly.

McCain has been to Iraq 8 times. He has been breifed non stop on Iraq.

Obama has been MIA in visits and in hearings.

But McCain is exhausted and you jump on him from a slip of the tounge.

Iran is training hamas and islamic jihad in iran. They have equipped hamas's army in gaza and have trainers in gaza.

Iran has trained taliban fighters in camps in iran to go after us in afghanistan.

Iran views it that the enemy of my enemy can be helpful.

Iranian groups have given assistance to al queda in iraq. Al queda in iraq has trained in iran. The government wasn't involved but they have trained in iran. The telegraph reported this. They also let bin laden's son go free. They also let a top bin laden liutenant go free.

Only in America can Obama call the the prime minister of Canada our northern neighbor the president of canada and the media is silent but jumps on mccain.

How is Obama a foreign policy expert when he calls the prime minister of canada the president of canada.

The media hates the maverick senator. They love to smear and slime him even though he had his arms hung in vietnam. They said he voted against torture when he did not. He voted against the army field manual being used by the CIA. He didn't vote against torture. McCain lead the charge to ban waterboarding and for the media to slime him is wrong.

To The incumbent McCain had his IQ tested at 133 in the navy.

Hillary failed her DC bar exam.

Obama only got into Harvard because of affirmative action. He would have never gotten in based on his grades at Columbia.

To stringer Obama called the prime minister of Canada the president of Canada.

The media is silent.

The media can't stand mccain. They have spent the last months lying about him.

McCain was the one who lead the charge against Jack Abramoff. The media never mentions that when they say he is in bed with lobbyists. McCain showed great courage leading the charge against abramoff even though his own party was against the investigation and it would the republican party.

Because of McCain the Abramoff investigation came out. But the washington post and ny times then went about smearing. The NY Times saying he was in an affair with a lobbyist with no evidence. The washington post said because he has lobbyists on his campaign he has no credibility even though K street hates him for what he did in leading the charge against abramoff.

The Times has questioned mccain's citizenship.

McCain is a maverick he lead the charge against abramoff.

McCain has been called a cheating cancer patient with no right to run.

Oh yeah the media loves him. They love to lie about him.

McCain never said we would be in a 100 year war with Iraq. He said troops would train iraqis and iraqis would be on the front lines. McCain said U.S troops could only be there if there were no casualties.

McCain even said the training could take place outside of Iraq.

McCain wants to bring our troops home and he said it will be up to the Iraqis to deal with the insurgency.

Obama says bomb pakistan but takes no greif and McCain makes one joke to a veteran about Iran and the media uses that to define him.

McCain's policy towards iran is multilateralism working with europe on sanctions. But the media loves to portray him as a warmonger. McCain hates war he has seen the horrors of war.

The media hates McCain because they are 85 percent democrats.

They love to slime him. Portray him as voting for torture when he lead the charge to ban waterboarding in his bill.

McCain is everything a lot of the media isn't. He served with honor he can't even lift his arms up to comb his hair and yet the media and the left wing can't stop making fun and sliming this hero with lies.

To The incumbent McCain had his IQ tested at 133 in the navy.

So at 5 points smarter and 20 years younger, I guess that makes me 3 times more qualified to be President. Either that, or your alleged point was really stupid.

RKA--

Ha!

You. as usual, are completely wrong. While it is indeed time to get back to the real issue of the day, any idiot know that the most pressing question in America right now is where Hillary was when Monica was doing Bill.

You simply don't understand what the important issues are in this vital election taking place in this Very Dangerous World (gratuitious capitalization: TM--PD).

These people would save everyone a lot of time if they would just put up links to this stuff.

Or, if this is in email, open up a blogspot account, post the

Oh, wait, that might be too hard for them to do...

BTW, it's even worse than the sunni kurd vs sunni arab vs shiite arab conflicts.

When McCain talks about Shi-ite extremists receiving aid from Iran, he is talking about extremists allied with the Iraqi "government." The al Sadr faction, allied with al Sistani, practices the pre-Khomeni Shi-ism, that religious leaders should stay apart from government. Khomeni (the guy who led the revolution against the Shah [installed in 1953 by the CIA because America didn't like that year's election results]) followed an offshoot inspired by Marxist revolutionary theory.

Vali Nasr describes al Sistani's view at a Pew panel conference:

Sistani has not involved himself in Iranian politics. He is an alternative model because Sistani is akin to the pre-Khomeini Shiism of Iran; namely, you want to protect the faith, but you don't put forward a model of government proactively. You say, "Let the political process take place, I'll have a veto power over what I like, but I'm not saying that there is a model of Islamic government." The Iranian Constitution of 1906 was exactly such a document. Many, including myself, have argued that Sistani is very influenced by the Iranian Constitution of 1906, even though it was never really implemented in Iran.

So the axis of evil in Iran is allied with the faction of the Shi-ites in the US "supported" government in Iraq, in opposition to the Shia who would limit clerical role in government.

The "extremist" being trained are allied with the government the US supports.

Anonymous Liberal does a good job of summarizing what happened. McCain still hasn't learned his neo-con talking points:

As I've repeatedly pointed out at this blog, the Bush administration and its surrogates have, for quite a long time now, been trying to convince the American public that Iran is actively supporting al Qaeda and other Sunni militants in Iraq, who are responsible for the vast majority of American casualties. The goal is to draw a direct link between Iran and American casualties and thereby increase public support for military action against Iran.

The problem, of course, is that Iran is a Shiite country and it simply makes no sense that it would be funding, training, and arming Sunni militants in Iraq. To the extent Iran is aiding anyone in Iraq, it is Shiite militants, most of whom are affiliated with the Iraqi government which we installed.

In an attempt to gloss over this problematic distinction, the administration has repeatedly asserted--without any further explanation--that Iran is arming "extremists" in Iraq, a claim that may literally be true but is clearly intended to convey the false impression that Iran and al Qaeda are somehow in cahoots.

McCain's mistake was that he stated explicitly something which he was only supposed to imply. That's why Joe Lieberman--who is very familiar with neoconservative talking points--stepped in to correct him. Notice that Lieberman didn't correct McCain by pointing out that Iran is actually aiding Shiite militants. Rather he whispered the administration-approved fudge word: "extremists."

And now here is where the requisite media criticism comes in.

This is a big deal. It's at least a big a deal as what Obama was really trying to accomplish with his speech about racism in America. What McCain is really trying to accomplish here is to confuse Americans about who the bad guys are, to persuade them that there is no difference between shia and sunni, persian and arab, Indonesian and Moroccan. They're all bad people, potential terrorists, and the only way to stop them is to keep killing civilians in Iraq.

That should be a caricature. But I challenge Joe, or any commenter, to provide a more nuanced view of this, from any administration official, or from anybody over on the right blogosphere, where they don't permit dissenting comments.

"They said he voted against torture when he did not. He voted against the army field manual being used by the CIA. He didn't vote against torture"
-davidryan

And what is a 'not vote against terror', if not an actual vote for terror? Thank you, and we accept your apologies.

And the army field manual doesn't permit torture.

I meant he never voted for torture.

The media distored his vote by saying he voted for torture.

The bill banned waterboarding but it also had other provisions in it.

The bill would have made the CIA follow the army field manual. It was a bad bill. An intelligence agency operates differently than the DOD.

McCain was the one who lead like a bull to have the DOD follow the army field manual on interogations. He stopped them using dogs and several other inhumane tactics.

It was McCain who lead not Obama or Clinton. McCain's bill already bans waterboarding.

McCain said as president he would demand the CIA and the DOD follow the geneva conventions.

Now the media and all the left wing blogs are accusing McCain of voting for torture when he did no such thing.

McCain never voted for torture. He voted against a bad bill that would have made the CIA have the same field manual as the Army. That doesn't mean he voted for torture. He knows that agencies operate differently. He has many times said the CIA has no right to use waterboarding. He has said that is illegal.

The media distorted his vote. They flat out lied saying he voted for torture. That was a terrible bill that would have had great ramifications on the CIA that had nothing to do with torture. The CIA wouldn't have been able to use money in ways that the army field manual won't allow.

Think how the left wing would have reacted if the right wing had lied said max cleland voted for torture.

davidryan are you saying McCain did or did not vote for torture?

The army field manual bans torture.

Why does the CIA need to torture people?

How does the CIA's interrogation requirements differ from the DoD's?

If anything,they would want to follow more humane, more effective techniques. The armed forces need actionable intelligence that gets stale, even worthless, when in theatre. It's easier to tell a story that justifies using less reliable, but faster methods like torture.

Cleland

And, [epithet deleted], have you not noticed the left wing raking democrats over the coals on issue after issue. It astounds me that you people says stuff that has absolutely no relationship to reality. Did you see a word of defense for Spitzer, for Jefferson? Did you see people popping, the way they did for Delay and Abramoff claiming that this wasn't really corruption?

One of the more bizarre dittohead attributes is that because their leadership, the ones who rule their world, are unprincipled liars, they presume that the people who are not cutting and pasting histrionic nonsense are also unprincipled liars.

This is not so. We're against Republican torture and Democrat torture. We're against Republican abuse of power and Democratic abuse of power. We don't believe IOKIFYAR OR IOKIFYAD.

jay for a long time dittoheads, actually more than just them on the right, have viewed politics like a football game. It's just sport for them, our team versus their team,
Argue with them for the personal satisfaction not because they will ever engage in a moment of introspection.

Yes, Paul, that's very true. It's also common for them to project this winning team mentality to the left. Every once in a while it's worthwhile to note that they are doing this.

As Glenn says, it's a good thing when they come out of their spiderholes and post stuff, because it reveals a great deal about their depth of thought, their reasoning ability, their diction and their grasp of grammar.

davidryan:

McCain lusts after the Presidency. That is why every time there is a decision between embracing Bush and standing for principle, he (literally) embraces Bush. There was nothing stopping McCain from speaking out against Bush's torture policies and calling for the closing of Guantanamo. But McCain has to have it both ways. He needs Bush's 30% savages as well as the moderates to win election. So he is against torture, except when it means speaking out against Bush.

There is a hard core of war-loving, xenophobic, homophobic, racist Americans, and these are not people who will vote for Obama. Guess who needs their vote?

davidryan:

Did you intentionally seek out the gay bar? For that's what it seems like--you just walked in off the street attempting to preach us off the ledge of our delusional lifestyle. Or vice versa, if that (admittedly bizarre) analogy works for you. Find some ignorant people to chat about your wacked ideology. No takers here.

Greenwald rightly takes Joe to the woodshed on his "brain fart":

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/19/mccain/index.html

Once you understand that Joe Klein is to journalism what John McCain is to political leadership, their symbiotic relationship becomes clear. The reason people like Joe Klein work in corporate journalism is to make it possible for people like John McCain to reach high political office.

Chutzpah Joe Klein is a prominent Time Magazine writer not DESPITE being a liar, but BECAUSE he is a liar. That is why Joe is proud of his lies and "stupid" stupid statements, because they prove that he can dish them out and readers will come back for more.

Joe - come on. You sound ridiculous trying to call this a "brain fart".

He said it several times in different settings.

What - is he chronically farty? Is he "factose intolerant"? Should we just write that off as you have done or be disturbed that it is part of a broader pattern.

We already have a President who can't seem to master basic facts - we don't need another.

And your defense of that just makes you appear sycophantic and silly.

McCain did say foreign fighters were coming through syria.

To austinrunn2 Obama called the leader of canada the president of canada. Canada has no president.

Obama said 10,000 people died in a tornado last year in kansas.

Hillary said Musharraf's name would be on the ballot after the bhutto assasination when Musharraf wasn't running.

Hillary made several gaffes relating to Pakistan.

McCain is quoted numerous times in senate hearings talking about shiite fighters JAM going back and forth from Iran to Iraq. McCain has visited Iraq 8 times, been breifed constantly, and just had a son come back from serving there.

McCain is on record getting the facts right but I guess you libs have no idea what jet lag is.

McCain speaks to the press constantly. He hadn't slept in a week. Fundraisers, events, votes in the senate last week then flying all over the middle east.

McCain had just been given a breifing in Mosul earlier about an offensive against al queda. He slipped up twice not several times. On the hugh hewitt show and in jordan. Al queda was on his train of thought.

Paul I am saying McCain didn't vote for torture.

HH McCain has called for the closure of Gitmo.

McCain is nothing like Bush.

That is a juvenile attack from Dean which defines the current leadership of the democrats.

McCain wants to sign Kyoto. Bush against that.

McCain wants to close Gitmo. Bush against that.

McCain wants to join the international criminal court. Bush against it.

McCain against waterboarding.

McCain for stem cell research, bush against it.

McCain against drilling in anwr, bush for it.

McCain for prescription importing drugs from canada. Bush against it.

McCain is drastically different from Bush.

But you libs are too clueless to figure it out.

McCain is far more to the center in American politics than Obama or Clinton.

So all you libs can do is lie and say McCain is like Bush.

Your attacks are pathetic.

davidryan:
I would believe McCain's position on these things if he hadn't sold out to the religious right. Remember the Straight Talk Express in 2000, and how he called Falwell and all those guys agents of intolerance? And then he started kissing up to them after he lost the election.

Yes, McCain has been to Iraq, but I remember clearly how he declared how he could walk safely through a market, when he was being guarded by soldiers and Apaches. That undermines his word a little bit right there.

Plus, after five years of constant blunders in Iraq (many due to ignorance of Muslim sects) and an attempted run-up for a war in Iran, I'm very leery of any politician who doesn't get the Sunni-Shiite distinction correct.

Is that overly harsh of me? Probably. But seeing how HRC and Obama are getting dissected on every little thing, I think it's fair to pound McCain on the details of a war that has damn near broke our military.

In defense of McCain, he's just not that smart. He did after all finish 894th out of a class of 899 at the Naval Academy. Makes George Bush look like a star student.

Source:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmIzNDU0YmQ1M2JkY2VkYjc4OWQ4YmZhOTk5ODllMGE=

Crust McCain's IQ was tested at 133 when he was in the Navy. He might not have been a great student but 133 is very solid.

"So all you libs can do is lie and say McCain is like Bush."

Davidryan:

McCain supports tax cuts for the rich, just like Bush.

McCain wants to keep fighting in Iraq, just like Bush.

McCain welcomes the support of Christofascist nuts (e.g., Hagee) just like Bush.

McCain wants coverage-denying insurance companies to run health care, just like Bush.

McCain wants to privatize Social Security, just like Bush.

McCain wants abortion made illegal, just like Bush.

McCain supports discrimination against homosexuals in the military, just like Bush.

McCain favors the death penalty, just like Bush.

Do you really want me to go on?

I can understand the media's love affair with John McBush. After all, he has proven himself an expert on Iraq time and again (when he's not playing the ventriloquist dummy of Lieberman, that is).

John-Boy's expertise:

"I believe that the success will be fairly easy." (9/24/02)

"We’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." (9/29/02)

"We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." (1/22/03)

"There’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators." (3/24/03)

Joe, he didn't confuse it once. He confused it four separate times. Or aren't you reading Greenwald these days? (If not, why not? You'll definitely be better informed & you won't go embarrassing yourself so much spouting untruths that are easily checked).

Reminder: Just because the Republicans keep whispering stuff in your ear, don't make it so.

Per Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/19/mccain/index.html)

'Juan Cole notes that McCain's attempt to link Al Qaeda and Iran is consistent with a long-standing Pentagon myth which even they were forced slowly and quietly to abandon. McCain wasn't "misspeaking," but rather, deliberately repeating -- whether from ignorance or an intent to mislead -- a long-standing, now-discredited claim that neocons have been making for years.'