ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama vs. McCain: Anbar Awakening

Posted: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:22 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

McCain isn't backing down from his claim the surge started when he said it did, countering Dem attacks. "McCain said Army Col. Sean MacFarland started carrying out elements of a new counterinsurgency strategy as early as December 2006. At issue are McCain's comments in a Tuesday interview with CBS. The Arizona senator disputed Democrat Barack Obama's contention that a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida combined with the dispatch of thousands more U.S. combat troops to Iraq to produce the improved security situation there. McCain called that a ‘false depiction.’”

VIDEO: John McCain tried to explain his statements about the surge in Iraq beginning before the Sunni Awakening by insisting that the surge was actually a broader counter-insurgency strategy of which the surge in U.S. troop numbers was a part. The Nation's Chris Hayes outlines the inaccuracies of what McCain said and what actually happened.

“Democrats jumped on his comments. They said McCain's remarks showed he was out of touch, because the rebellion of U.S.-backed Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq's Anbar province was under way well before Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. McCain asserted he knew that and didn't commit a gaffe. ‘A surge is really a counterinsurgency made up of a number of components. ... I'm not sure people understand that “surge” is part of a counterinsurgency.’”

The New York Times fact-checks the back-and-forth. “Democrats noted that the sheik who helped form the Awakening, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was assassinated in September 2007, after the troop escalation began. The National Security Network, a liberal foreign policy group, called Mr. McCain’s explanation of the surge’s history ‘completely wrong.’”

“But several foreign policy analysts said that if Mr. McCain got the chronology wrong, his broader point — that the troop escalation was crucial for the Awakening movement to succeed and spread — was right. ‘I would say McCain is three-quarters right in this debate,’ said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

The surge is the reason Olamo can walk around safely in the middle east. The surge is the reason we'll leave Iraq on our (US) terms, and not on the terms of the terrorists. And yet, Olamo still insists that the surge would not have happened under his so called leadership.
Oh yeah...now there's an unbiased source - Mike O'Hanlon.  He's as invested in the surge as McCain...would he have said anything other than, "yeah, I think McCain's mostly right"?

Dude's not just some "foreign policy analyst", he was and remains and Iraq war and surge cheerleader.
"McCain said Army Col. Sean MacFarland started carrying out elements of a new counterinsurgency strategy as early as December 2006."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The "surge" was so named because of the increase in the number of troops. McCain himself acknowledged that when he made that other gaffe claiming that troop levels were down to "pre-surge levels" (which was, AGAIN, not true). This increase in the number of troops did NOT occur before the Anbar awakening - that is an historical FACT. So now he wants to redefine "the surge" in terms of it merely being a shift in the method of attack, but that is, to be sure, revisionist history.

He didn't know (or remember) which events came first in the surge.

He didn't know (or remember) the number of troops that were still in Iraq after the surge.

In short, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He's either too old, or just incompetent.
And like the current administration, McCain has no intention of acknowledging a mistake.  Iraqis deserve some credit for assisting in stabilizing their land.  I was insulted for them yesterday when McCain said they aren't moving forward because of corruption ('not as bad as Afghanistan, though...').  Corruption hasn't prevented the Republicans from running our country and economy into the dirt.  How many BILLIONS of tax payer dollars are unaccounted for in Iraq?
I want Mccain to keep pushing and arguing this issue, because the more he defends and argues, the more he exposes his true incompetence to handle foreign affairs.  With this as his supposed strength, he appears to be bent on dismantling it for the sake of proving himself right.  
Wouldn't he do the same with foreign leaders?
Maverwack plan:  Distort and confuse is his way of communication.  I'm sure the old boy will impress a few people already in the tank with him that he's a military genius but to anyone who's still evaluating the best McCain can hope for is their sympathy.  I can't wait for the debates.  
“But several foreign policy analysts said that if Mr. McCain got the chronology wrong, his broader point — that the troop escalation was crucial for the Awakening movement to succeed and spread — was right. ‘I would say McCain is three-quarters right in this debate,’ said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If Mr. McCain got the chronolgy wrong? If? WTF?

The Awakening came before the surge. There is NO QUESTION about that. Why does the media continue to print the lying DRIVEL?


Three-quarters right? Isn't that like a little bit pregnant?

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this. The media is getting more and more shameless in their attempts to create the truth daily.

I guess the terrorists did win. Propaganda and power trump truth, justice, and the American way again.
I want Mccain to keep pushing and arguing this issue, because the more he defends and argues, the more he exposes his true incompetence to handle foreign affairs.  With this as his supposed strength, he appears to be bent on dismantling it for the sake of proving himself right.  
Wouldn't he do the same with foreign leaders?
theres is no obama versus mccain on this issue because mccain was just flat out wrong.

Video: McCains Daughter doesnt think mccains getting unfair media treatment, media party
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/media-unfair-to-mccain-meghan-mccain-seems-to-differ/
or
http://sensico2.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-blogs.html
The reason why Obama can walk around Bagdad is because Sadr called off his militia before the "surge" and the Anbar "awakening". Things were settling down before the "surge". The surge troops should have gone to Afghanistan; now we have to commnt more troops to retake Af....... more needlessly Americans deaths and casualities. What a "Cluster #@$%". Vote the Big "O".
"And yet, Olamo still insists that the surge would not have happened under his so called leadership."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No, it wouldn't have, because we never would have started a war with Iraq in the first place. We would have stayed on Bin Laden's trail, captured him, and sentenced him to death. We would have 4100+ of our brothers and sisters still alive with us today. And the price of gas would not be $5/gallon. If you wanna talk about who was right and who was wrong, then lets have at it:

MCCAIN: Attacking Iraq is the right thing to do.
MCCAIN: We will be greeted as liberators.
MCCAIN: This will be over in a short time.
MCCAIN: Iraqi oil will pay for most of it.
MCCAIN: Mission accomplished.
MCCAIN: We need to keep the fight in Iraq and not go to Afghanistan.
MCCAIN: We should not engage in diplomatic talks with our enemies.
MCCAIN: We should not set a time table for withdrawal.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong..... You wanna know why McCain is all about "the surge" right now? It's because that is the ONLY thing that he supported that turned out positive. The ONLY thing. Every other thing he was flat our WRONG about. And on all those other issues, Obama was RIGHT. So yes, I'm happy to play the "who was wrong/who was right" game with you. Any time "my friend".
Not a good place in front of a cheese display to talk about the surge. It looks too cheesy. ha ha ha get it. What is his campaign thinking? Should have put him in front of sour pickle display because he is a sour old man.
o'hanlon? the neo-con who has championed this debacle from the start who has as much credibility on this issue as friedman? yeah, i would listen to the guy...
It is so strange that Obama going to Iraq confirmed that the Iraq's want us out of there...I sense a bit of sensorship...Freedom of the press is no longer our rights...is that part of the Constitution ?
If a surge is a counter-insurgency, Mr McCain, then the surge really started in 2005 and no one opposed it - not even the dreaded Rumsfeld! Havent we been taken for a ride enough the past 8 years with the dropping in value of our overall coutnry.

During his explanation, he looked like a high school student stuck in front of the class on a fairy tale in the process of saving face on a flub.
If his claims are true - then why didn't he and his surragoats -- that's right goats - say that all the while they were repeating the mantra Obama hasn't supported the surge, Obama hasn't supported the surge. None of the surragoats could answer any question posed to them without saying Obama hasn't supported the surge. I mean - really do they really believe this is a plausible answer?

And on a different note, I mistakenly tuned into Morning Joe and he made a comment that really surprised me even for him - it was regarding the leaders who did not support the incursion into Iraq and have not changed their stance - He referred to them as being "too stupid" to acknowledge they were wrong on the event that required the "surge" -- I mean really -- that was just too ridiculous a statement even from this man.

Oh and btw, if Senator Obama would have tried to pass off that explanation of "the surge" - the media would have had that as breaking news all night and through next week..so much for their love affair with him.
To Viet Era Navy Vet, Tampa

Asolutely, I being a Vet. see the same thing...news sensorship tu-boot..This is a military cluster f@ck for the nation..somebody is being paid off...
The funny thing about Repubucans they call Obama all of these names and say how dumb he is . Ask yourselves one question , forget about the surge for a moment. Just ask yourselves this What was the reasons given for us to invade Iraq ??? Why have we not capture , killed or mamed Osama Bin Laden? I am sorry to tell you Repubucans this but in the rules of war, To the victor goes the spoils . With that thought in mind unless we are pumping oil out of Iraq for the good of the American people. you cant keep talking about a victory. Now the other day Capt. Smash cracked a joke but it would be better than what we are left with now. Make Iraq the 51st state comandere the oil build Casinos and place the Iraqis on reservations . Anything short of that is not winning the war since we are not getting any of the spoils of that war. Oh and somebody needs to tell McCain about the the magic of an EarPiece it's what has helped the current President not look as bad as he really is. That way with an earpiece McGaffe can stop spouting off incorrect facts , and Liberman doesn't have to whisper in his ear in range of the camera.
Second problem with McCain's expo: If Army Col. Sean MacFarland started the surge, how did McCain spend the past year claiming credit for it?

Folks are we a country of morons? Why do we let our intelligence be insulted like this? You can have aspects of policies I disagree with and both candidates do, but simply taking us for a fool is the crossing line. Is there someone still polling for this guy here?
What's more troubling to me than the mistake itself, is CBS's jury-rigging of the interview!  Is this commonplace in straight news interviews in network television?  They weren't creating a "show" -- Couric was interviewing McCain.  I know they have to edit for length, interest, etc. but doesn't the audience have the right to expect that there will be no editing within a Question/Answer itself? And do we not have a reasonable expectation that a network will NOT try to cover-up a gaffe?
Mostly right does not cut it. The facts are the facts.  Also a combination of the surge, the Sunni awakening and Al Sadr standing down all contributed to less viloence.  The key point is to look forward and all parties( except McCain) want t timeline for U.S. troops out of Iraq.  We need this both militarily and economically. Instead of whinning John McCain why not put forth new plans and goals.
I can't believe McCain's handlers set him up in front of the refrigerated cheese section. Poor guy.
Love to see Mayor McCheese with a fitting backdrop!

Baboons would be could run his campaign better.  What were his handlers thinking?
Not a good place in front of a cheese display to talk about the surge. It looks too cheesy. ha ha ha get it. What is his campaign thinking? Should have put him in front of sour pickle display because he is a sour old man.
"I would say McCain is three-quarters right in this debate,’ said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution."
----------------------------------------------

Too bad they don't mention that this so-called "expert" O'Hanlon has been a war promoter since it began:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/

As usual,  they only cite an "expert" who's promoting whatever the current warmongering party line happens to be. Lawrence Korb, the former Assistant Sec. of Defense in the Reagan Administration has said that the surge was the least important factor in the decrease in violence, the first being the Sunni Awakening that McCain lied about, and the second being the stand-down of the Sadrist militias.

But we must remember that the NYT is the hated "liberal" media because they turned down McCain's poorly written and poorly thought out diatribe. Their liberalism doesn't extend past the editorial page. It must be remembered that the Times, like O'Hanlon, shilled for the Iraq war from its beginning and peddled convicted felon Scooter Libby's sewage, using Judith Miller as a pile-line from the Pentagon to the public.
It never was a "surge", that term was a false lable meant to mislead Americans into thinking it was temporary.

Call it what it is, a permanent troop increase. Because after the 2 year established window has ended, there are still thousands more troops in Iraq than before, no WONDER we can control more terrain. :P
What you ignore (intentionally probsbly) is the  order in which the events happened was the basis of McCains claim.  He said it was a historical fact and he was wrong.

BTW if he had not voted for the WAR no surge would have been needed. DUH !!!!  When Obama gets back I hope he slaps the old man across the head with that little fact.
Making matters worse for McCain, I don't think the surge even affected the region. Weren't all the additional troops basically positioned in or near Baghdad?

Anbar is to the West, and its a big, mostly sparcely populated swath of desert that runs all the way to the border. Anbar is one of the area of operations for Marines, who said they were switching gears and beginning to engage clan leaders in hopes of greater cooperation - in the months before all this occurred. Just speculating here, but that seems to be more in line with the Sunni rejection of al Qaeda than increased troop levels in Baghdad.
"My friends, [noun] [verb] surge"

And ususally, either the noun or verb is surge also.
Why is everyone complaining about McCain's handlers?

HE is the one trying to be Commander in Chief, right? Can't he think for himself?

You don't need a handler to tell you not to go grocery shopping in a three-piece suit and do a news conference in the cheese section.

If he needs a handler to tell him that, then I say there is NO WAY IN H*LL he should be running for President of the Free World.

Exactly how much slack are we gonna cut this guy? Being a POW can only take you so far - geez.
culturethreads.com has the latest on McCain's huge gaffe about the Sunni Awakening, which is still getting worse!  Must read.....

Sure the surge helped the awakening, Obama said that too!!!!  What McCain said in response was that the surge CAUSED the Awakening because the surge came first, and that is wrong.
Surge, Awakening, guerrilla fighters bribed with borrowed money; we voters will reduce it all down, and form our own opinions.

Frankly, I find any soldier fighting for a cause, (any cause), who could be bought off disgraceful.

Additionally, how corrupt is the mindset that could conceive, and carry out such odious transactions?

Leaders have been for sale forever, and the individual grunt here, or there, but whole brigades being bought is extremely disturbing.
To our posting Veterans - thank you so much for your service to our country.

I watched that video last night of McCain TRYING to explain - whoa... did I get dizzy!

One of the things that keeps popping into my head is that at the time of the "surge" the word ESCALATION was being downplayed.

Those who still believe the surge is responsible for peace in our time should ask themselves what happens if the US taxpayer stops greasing the palms of all those tribal leaders. What shall we call that "awakening"?
McCain, the historical revisionist, may have something resembling experience but where's the evidence he has anything resembling a clue?
If 100,000 Sunni insurgents decided - on their own - to stop killing Americans and went after Al Qaeda BEFORE the 30,000 troops arrived for "The Surge" violence - HAD to be reduced. The Mahdi Army (Al Sadr) took a vacation from violence, That reduced the violence. The additional U.S. troops did help in Bahgdad but to say they were the MAIN reason for the reduction in violence is McCain being as confused as he was about the border between Iraq and Aghanistan. HE's NO President. A war hero yes -a President NO WAY!
The editor of the New Republic last night on Olbermann's show pointed out that the "surge" couldn't have had much impact on the Sunni Awakeningin Anbar Province because most the additional US troops were sent to Baghdad. Why is it so hard for "journalists" to understand simple logic like that?

And why doesn't FirstRead ever mention anything ever said on Olbermann's show? I get the impression that he's the black sheep of MSNBC because his views are politically incorrect. He doesn't tow the party line -- the War Party line. I think he's only tolerated because of his viewer ratings.

BTW: See http://juancole.com/ for a rational, but politically incorrect analysis of the "surge" by an expert.
If pandering is an event in the Olympics, the gold medal will definitely go to Obama. He's been going the extra mile just to get some photo op with foreign leaders to compensate his lack of experience...what a total phony...the American public can clearly see through all his dog-and-pony show.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1218852

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google