Doubling down on the surge

As of now, the lead item on Mark Halperin’s “The Page” is a piece noting that John McCain thinks Barack Obama “has been completely wrong” about the Middle East.

The presumptive GOP nominee slams his opponent who is traveling in the Middle East, calls him “someone who has no military experience whatsoever” during a joint presser with Bush 41.

McCain: “When you win wars, troops come home. He’s been completely wrong on the issue…. I have been steadfast in my position.”

Now, there’s quite a bit of interesting political news today, and for the life of me, I can’t imagine why Halperin thinks this deserves top billing. In fact, if you look at “The Page,” two of the top three political stories of the afternoon — and three of the top five — are McCain lashing out wildly with misleading attacks against Obama (not that Halperin actually points out that the attacks are misleading).

And as part of this excessively aggressive approach, Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s top foreign policy aide, also told reporters, “Obama’s judgment in Iraq has been universally wrong.” Appearing on NBC’s “Today” show, McCain made the exact same argument, over and over again, in some instances in response to unrelated questions.

Now, I suspect this is part of a rather desperate media strategy. Obama’s overseas, and is getting quite a bit of positive press, so the McCain campaign assumes, perhaps correctly, that the only effective way to undermine the success of Obama’s trip is to lash out, ferociously and recklessly.

That may actually work. Either way, we’ve quickly reached the point at which every McCain sentence includes a noun, a verb, and “Obama was wrong about the surge.”

Seriously, go ahead and watch this clip from the “Today” show, and count how many times McCain makes the case that he was right about the surge and that Obama was wrong.

It’s become the latest in a series of rationales for why we’re supposed to elect him. Josh Marshall asks a good question: “[I]s that enough?

McCain implicitly concedes that he was wrong on getting into the war itself (concedes in as much as public opinion is firmly on the side of his being wrong and he realizes that). He’s also now all but forced to concede to Obama’s stand on the timing of withdrawal, in as much as the Iraqis are now being clear that they want US troops out in roughly the same period of time.

So he goes to the public with Obama being right and him wrong on starting the war in the first place and with the timing and approach to getting out — but along the way he was right about the surge, so he should be president?

Maybe the hypothetical Barack says to the hypothetical McCain, “Fine, I’ll take the hit on the surge. And you cop to being wrong about getting us into this mess in the first place and supporting it for years. And we’ll call it even.”

I find McCain’s claim to being ‘right about the surge’ dubious but arguable. But even if you concede that, it leaves McCain talking about the past and conceding the real issue that is before the public.

Agreed. Scheunemann told reporters, “Obama’s judgment in Iraq has been universally wrong.” This is almost comical, given McCain’s record on Iraq. I’m reminded of this recent Rosa Brooks column, in which she argued that McCain’s record of “getting it embarrassingly wrong on Iraq is virtually unparalleled.”

Here’s McCain, in his own words, getting Iraq wrong from Day One:

“Saddam Hussein [is] developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can,” he informed Fox News in November 2001. By February 2003, McCain had upgraded Hussein’s capabilities and was warning Americans that “Hussein has the ability to … [turn] Iraq into a weapons assembly line for Al Qaeda’s network.”

Well, no. But never mind that. We won’t hold McCain responsible for the Bush administration’s cooking of the intelligence books.

So how’d McCain do on his other Iraq-related predictions?

On the Cheney/Rumsfeld Delusional Thinking Index, McCain scores a perfect 10 out of 10. “I believe that the success will be fairly easy,” he assured CNN’s Larry King in September 2002.

Quagmire? Insurgency? Naah. “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting,” he scoffed to Wolf Blitzer in 2002. “We’re not going to have a bloodletting.” In fact, by March 2003, McCain was positively giddy with Rumsfeldian enthusiasm: “There’s no doubt in my mind … we will be welcomed as liberators.”

When it came to predicting the sectarian conflicts that have wracked Iraq since we “liberated” it, McCain was equally off target. “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias,” he explained confidently on MSNBC in April 2003, “so I think they can probably get along.”

McCain’s had five long years since then to reflect on just how well Sunni and Shiite groups are getting along, but he’s still having a tough time keeping the whole thing straight. In Jordan this past March, he pronounced it “common knowledge … that Al Qaeda” — a Sunni-dominated group — “is going back into Iran” — a country led by hard-line Shiites — “and receiving training … from Iran.” Oops … no! Joe Lieberman, McCain’s new Mini-Me, whispered a correction in his ear, presumably explaining that the Iranian Shiites hate Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda and wouldn’t help the group if their lives depended on it.

A slip of the tongue on McCain’s part? That would be easier to buy if McCain hadn’t repeated variants of the claim on multiple occasions, insisting to a Texas audience in February that Iran was aiding Al Qaeda and wondering during Senate hearings if Al Qaeda in Iraq was “an obscure sect of the Shiites overall? … Or Sunnis or anybody else.”

Does McCain really want to get into a discussion about who’s been “completely wrong”? Seriously?

Because at this point, McCain’s message seems to be, “I was wrong in 2002 and 2003. And still wrong in 2004, 2005, and 2006. But I supported the surge and said it would reduce violence and lead to political reconciliation, and only some of that turned out to be wrong. So vote for me because of my accurate track record.”

Just how foolish would one have to be find this even remotely persuasive? Or put another way, just how stupid does McCain think we are?

It’s all they’ve got.

  • Attack the opponent’s strengths with lies and spin. This has the stink of classic Rove about it; he’s probably becoming more active in Saint John’s campaign.

  • Watch CNN and MSNBC, they are also giving heavy coverage to the McCain campaign’s talking points and very little to the original news. When Republicans scream and rant, media members drop everything to give them an amplifier.

  • McSame knows how to win wars, you win wars by being as dishonest as possible. Right? Where’s Joe Lieberman? Joe??! Lindsey? LINDSEY?!!

  • If most of the U.S. only hears McBush’s side, why wouldn’t it work?

    Has anyone in the Corp Media actually reported Maliki’s comments in a straightforward manner? If they did, McSame would be laughed off every interview.

  • Now, there’s quite a bit of interesting political news today, and for the life of me, I can’t imagine why Halperin thinks this deserves top billing. In fact, if you look at “The Page,” two of the top three political stories of the afternoon — and three of the top five — are McCain lashing out wildly with misleading attacks against Obama (not that Halperin actually points out that the attacks are misleading).

    But. . . but. . . MSNBC.com has an “analysis” questioning whether the media coverage is slanted toward Obama!

    (Buried much lower on the page is a much better explanation of all of the above:
    “Study: Shrinking newsrooms hurts quality”)

  • Does McCain really want to get into a discussion about who’s been “completely wrong”? Seriously?

    Yes, he does. Because he knows that the SprinkleMedia Stenographers will report whatever lies he spouts, and leave it to the public to figure out that he’s lying. Or not.

    Like Rick said, it’s really all he’s got.

  • Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I just don’t see a whole lot of voters voting for McCain because he (allegedly) got the surge right. Even by his own claims, that issue’s over (see, e.g., “we have succeeded. Not we are succeeding; we have succeeded). So what does that leave?

    A major part of McCain’s supposed appeal was always that he was the candidate who wouldn’t leave Iraq before the job was finished (no surrender, they’ll follow us home, etc., etc.). But once it’s over — whether because we’ve succeeded, or because the Iraqis want us out — that becomes a non-issue. So why vote for the guy?

  • It might be worth pointing out that the surge has not been a success — at least not by the measuring sticks that accompanied its announcement. The surge was supposed to provide breathing room for political reconciliation in Iraq. There’s still plenty of violence. There has been hellacious ethnic cleansing. The various political elements are as far apart as they ever were. Success? I don’t think so.

  • FINALLY, Republicans get one thing right in 8 years. Like Rick said it’s all they got. After getting us into a protracted, illegal, unnecessary, bloody war; after killing hundreds of thousands of people; after not sending enough troops in the first place and misleading Americans about the length, difficulty, and cost of the war; after nearly a trillion dollars spent on the war and billions spent on ineffective homeland security that investigated peace activists for goodness sake, yes, finally, the Republicans may have been right that more troops would lead to more stability, a military strategy that generals had been requesting for years. Wrong on security, wrong on politics, right on one strategy.

    That being said, yea! The surge worked. Let’s get the fuck out.

  • Question: Did McCain say, back when the “surge” began, that political reconciliation was the actual goal of the surge? If he did it would be good to roll those clips and ask WTF happened.

  • the Republicans may have been right that more troops would lead to more stability, a military strategy that generals had been requesting for years.

    And they also said we couldn’t do it for very long, so I’d say it’s entirely likely that the reduction in violence is in part because the bad guys are presently sitting back waiting for us to run out of time.

  • He does want this argument. The press is willing (eager) to give it to him. They want their horse race, dam it!

  • What war?

    McCain keeps talking about when you “win wars.” We’re not at war. We’re occupying a nation we foolishly invaded. The american people want us out, the Iraqis want us out. There is no war. We’re stuck in a tar pit of our own making that isn’t doing us or anyone else much good.

    Obama is on what looks like a very successful trip to the middle east. His strategy for Iraq is being welcomed by the Iraqis. Its what’s desirable to the American public. I don’t care how many headlines McCain get or how much time he gets on cable news shows. He’s not selling what the american public or the Iraqis want. The longer he has his hissy fits over this the worse he looks. By comparison Obama looks measured, thoughtfull…and presidential.

    The debates should be fun.

  • Anyone who thinks an influx of troops helps when fighting a guerrilla opponent is sadly mistaken. In fact, typically it only bolsters the strength of the guerrilla force by making the population sympathetic to their cause.

    The enemy not bold enough to attack now has simply gone into hiding and the Iraqi government may have actually had time to pursue political reconciliation, but what have they accomplished? Very little.

    Although they have said repeatedly they’d like us to leave their country. Remind me again who we are fighting and who the good guys and bad guys are?

  • “just how stupid does McCain think we are?”

    Stupid enough to put George W. Bush in the White House, and then re-elect him in 2004.

  • But, John, how do you win a three trillion dollar mistake? The surge is really nothing more than saying “the last 18 months”. We really don’t know if the “security situation” would be any different now than if the surge never happened. We do know that nearly 1000 American soldiers died during the last 18 months in Iraq. We know that many of the Iraqis stopped fighting each other, but we also started paying them not to fight.

    Would these same people support a “surge” into East St. Louis where we would send in troops and also pay the Bloods and Crips to stop fighting. Pay them $250,000 per day per hundred square kilometers? After all these warring bands are actually Americans.

    Would they support a “surge” on the Mexican-American border? Soldiers could stop people from crossing, but pay each one $500 not to come back for a month? How exactly does the surge in Iraq make any more sense than that?

    Obama was correct about the surge, there was more violence during the first 3 months or so, and Bush and McCain have forgotten it was supposed to be the quick fix. It’s been a year and a half and McCain’s logic is that despite some success we still have to stay until somebody hangs some sort of Arc de Truimphe around his neck.

  • McCain keeps talking about when you “win wars.” We’re not at war…

    But we are at war. We’ve outsourced our Second Civil War. Fought off-site, off-budget, and by contract employees.

    This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what thiscountry, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war about it — just not here. If it wasn’t in Iraq, it would have been someplace else.

    Iraq was designed for the GOP, operating out of the White House, to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher, using a wartime surge of nationalism and the powers of an aggrandized executive.

    It was the key to a one-party state.

    And it almost worked. It’s all slipping awa, and they’re blind with impotent rage.

  • McCain is Halperin’s “Hope B”; should Bush/Cheney fail and *not* bomb Iran, McCain’s sure to finish that job.

  • Not everyone buys it. A report on CNN (by the McBush crawler Howard Kurtz, yet) says McCain submitted an op-ed to the New York Times “rebutting” Obama’s op-ed and the Times rejected it, saying there was nothing new, only more of the same as above. The Times editor suggested that McCain come up with his own plan for dealing with Iraq rather than just trashing Obama. Kurtz, of course, says this is a real black eye for the Times and objective journalism, and quotes the Drudge Report to make his point.

    I’m not much of a fan of the Times (Brooks, Kristol, Dowd and Israel uber alles), but someone has actually done his job for once.

  • Can I shorten that down in Texas slang:

    “I was so wrong for so long, but I’m so right tonight (almost).”

    I’m somewhat amazed that it is the morning show hosts who are asking the tough questions, togethre with undeniable video and quote setups ala Meet the Press.

  • tomj: I’m somewhat amazed that it is the morning show hosts who are asking the tough questions, together with undeniable video and quote setups ala Meet the Press.
    — because it’s late afternoon in Afghanistan?

    Rick #1: It’s all they’ve got. — It’s all they need.

  • If McCain has supported Bush’s war all along, how come he did not speak out when Bush & Rumsfeld were firing the generals who said they went in without enough troops? Also I have heard one of the republican talking heads refer to it as McCain’s surge. My memory must be playing tricks on me because I thought that when Bush announced the surge he had already sent many of the troops! He did not even try to get approval from congress. But I’m getting a bit old so maybe I am just dreaming.

  • Im so tired of this “bush adminstration cooking the books” talk.. The UN, Russian intelligence,French intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence etc.. all said Saddam was developing WMDs.

  • Well, as of what I witnessed coming out of the mouth of Senator McCain this morning, all we have to do to win over the Middle Eastern nations is assemble all our troops along the Iraq/Pakistan border. That’s about what I heard the dear Senator say, the Iraq/Pakistan border. Oh boy! -Kevo

  • “I have been steadfast…

    All hail MCBAIN!

    Saving the world one creepy grin at a time! MCBAIN!

  • john…. get a life…

    none of those intelligence agencies found that… That’s why the French, and the Russians and the Germans where against Bush going into Iraq…..

    More to protect their own interests, – self preservation.

    the intelligence that came from those countries was discounted as not trustworthy by the Cheney gang.

    Stop rewriting history… Wait enough and move to Texas, close to the Bush library… you’ll be in haven, because there you’ll be able to educate yourself about how the Bush administration never made any mistakes. That fits your profile and life view.

    You’ll also find proof there that the Earth is only 6000 years old and humans lived together with dinosaurs.

    Can we help you pack the U-Haul?

  • This is so freaking Orwellian! “News from the front! Our glorious armies are winning the war!” The news about the War in Iraq is being controlled to fit the election cycle, just like the Homeland Security alerts were. Saying “the surge has worked,” is like saying “Reagan defeated the Russians!” Some people, by which I mean Republicans, will buy anything.

  • Chuck Hagel responding to McCain, March 2008:

    “We have lost over 900 dead Americans since the “surge”. Now if you want to dismiss that as ’success’ that would be your interpretation.”

  • Capt Kirk at 18, dead on right. And I might add that in the sense that our military is stretched beyond capacity, that any measure of the surge’s effectiveness, if there has been any sign of that as opposed to other factors such as payoffs and al Sadr’s truce, should include an examination of Afghanistan for a whole host of reasons. The surge troops – where did they come from, anyway? And wasn’t the initial plan for the surge to work in 6 months or pull back to pre-surge troop levels? Just because the MSM has decided/been told to quit covering the war in Iraq doesn’t mean the surge has succeeded. See chrenson at 31 hwo said it best.

    And Steve, please add John’s comment to your “conversation enders” discussion for me. Thanks

  • I wish someone in the MSM would point out that the reason the so-called surge is “working” is because we’re paying off Al Qaeda in Iraq–we are giving $ to the Sunnis who used to target US troops–that and the fact that many neighborhoods are so ethnically cleansed that there’s no one left to kill. It isn’t a military victory by any standard–we’re now keeping our troops out of the action as much as possible–hence the drop in US causalties.

  • Comments are closed.