McCain flubs on Iraq timeline

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

Yes ... mr foreign policy expert fucks up .. oops excuse me ... got confused again

Asked about Obama's contention that a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida combined with the addition of thousands of U.S. combat troops that were sent to Iraq contributed to the improved security situation there, McCain scoffed.

"I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened," McCain told "CBS Evening News," adding that Col. Sean MacFarland was contacted by a major Sunni sheik.

"Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening," McCain said, referring to the U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Anbar province. "I mean, that's just a matter of history."

The problem with McCain's statement — as Obama's campaign quickly noted — was that the awakening got under way before President Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to flood Iraq with tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to help combat violence.

In March 2007, before the first of the additional troops began arriving in Iraq, Col. John W. Charlton, the American commander responsible for Ramadi, a city in Anbar province, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, had helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080723/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_timeline_2;_ylt=AjSBoo8JT6Qk.3oFRBPEFdXCw5R4

Update:

The Huffington Post found a gem of a quote -- John McCain talking about the Anbar Awakening on January 5, 2007...before Bush announced the surge.

Too often the light at the tunnel has turned out to be a train, but I really believe -- I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html

[conley]

perhaps it is mccain himself who needs to be awakened 

[BigLebowski]

What time was the interview, was it passed his bedtime?   

[conley]

dubya goes to bed at 8 pm...sometimes 9 if he stays up for CSI

[Peter1469]

Just to be fair:
http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/uninformed-obama-stutters-hesitates-media-turns-other-way/

Of course the video has been removed- it is old news after all- last month. 

And another speech:
http://jimwickre.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-stutters-for-75-minutes.html

This one sounds doctored to me: http://www.voiceofarkansas.com/Stuttering_Obama-5031-2-10033.htm anyway it would represent only a stutter.  The preceeding link although only text, represents stutters that are going one while his brain is saying “what the f’ck, I don’t know the answer to the question.”

Now the obvious retort is the Obama still speaks better than Shrub.  This is true.  But when Shrub does it, the media shows it during prime time and laughs about it.  When Obama does it, it is glossed over or not covered at all. 

[conley]

no matter who the next president will be, he will no doubt be made fun of constantly. i enjoy it. the daily show, conan, etc are not just going to go out of business and give up.

one thing i definitely believe tho is that people are afraid of making fun of obama because they will be branded racists.

unfortunately it is much 'safer' to make fun of old white men like bush (not so old) and mccain

[conley]

well, it's tough to draw any conclusions from a non-existant video and a spliced together mp3

hopefully the repubs will come up w/ better material

obama definitely says "uh" a lot, i noticed that in his debates w/ hill. when he speaks from a prepared speech he does better but when he is asked a question and thinking he uses "uh" to pause to collect his thoughts.

i am a horrible speaker both in public and private (as you might have guessed ;-) so i am always impressed when someone is a good speaker, though that alone is not nearly enough to get me to vote for him or her.

ruwart is no great speaker but i plan on voting for her as it stands now.

[Peter1469]

There was a recent incident where Obama’s teleprompter crapped out on him and he totally flubbed the speech. 

My point isn’t the gaffs; it’s the lack of coverage.  I do agree that one the Magic Negro is President, the gloves will come off. 

[conley]

There was a recent incident where Obama’s teleprompter crapped out on him and he totally flubbed the speech. 

My point isn’t the gaffs; it’s the lack of coverage.  I do agree that one the Magic Negro is President, the gloves will come off. 

why not just watch fox news?

why this incessant drumbeat saying the media is unfair?

[Peter1469]

Saying that the media is unfair is not a drumbeat for me, it is an observation. 

[BigLebowski]

Saying that the media is unfair is not a drumbeat for me, it is an observation. 

I am not disagreeing with you, but do you feel CBS and Couric were trying to make it up to McCain by not airing his latest gaffe about the Iraq timeline?   Or do you feel they were protecting him?   I see no other options as to why it did not air and why the response was changed.   Just curioius on your thoughts about it Peter.

[Peter1469]

I certainly agree.  The liberal media are not complete idiots.  When they realize they have gone overboard for their candidate they try to correct for it.  But their default mode is pro-liberal. 

And I do not blame them for this: I am after all the one that says that we cannot expect people to act contrary to their nature.  The vast majority of the media are liberals; and not just liberals but various shades of left-liberals- most have a hard time seeing the center from their vantage point.  I would never expect them to be fair in their coverage.  I just like to point out their biases. 

[BigLebowski]

I certainly agree.  The liberal media are not complete idiots.  When they realize they have gone overboard for their candidate they try to correct for it.  But their default mode is pro-liberal. 

And I do not blame them for this: I am after all the one that says that we cannot expect people to act contrary to their nature.  The vast majority of the media are liberals; and not just liberals but various shades of left-liberals- most have a hard time seeing the center from their vantage point.  I would never expect them to be fair in their coverage.  I just like to point out their biases. 

Too me it is alittle different I guess, I have been so used to the bias in the media(on both sides) it doesn't phase me anymore.   I understand what I am going to get when I read Krauthammer or Kristol..etc.   Just as I know exactly what to expect when I watch the cable news as well.   

What really bothers me is when folks deny there is any sort of bias from the left in the media, and then blast fox news for it.   

[Peter1469]

I am in agreement with your point.

My previous point was in reference to the left-leaning media; which I believe is the vast majority.  There is right leaning media- FOX news and AM radio. 

I guess if you did not go by numbers in the media, but % of audience, then I could see who the left say that there is more bias on the right. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

you would have to throw what is left of print media as being in the tank for obama as well.  as for iraq, time lines, the surge.....the indisputable fact is that if we had followed bo's preferred course of action iraq would exist as the divvied spoils of iran and aq.  this would be a national security catastrophe.