McCain continues to show confusion about the basics in Iraq

At some point, not too long ago, the political establishment decided that John McCain is an expert on international affairs and national security. I’ve never really understood why — by all appearances, McCain is frequently confused and bewildered by basic questions — but everyone seems to assume that the senator has developed an almost unparalleled expertise on these issues.

Thankfully, with increasing frequency, McCain reminds us that he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about most of the time.

Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

All of this is, of course, wrong. Al Qaeda is Sunni; Iran is Shiite. This is “common knowledge.” McCain was speaking with authority about the basics in the Middle East, and getting the regional dynamic backwards.

This happens quite a bit with the Republican candidate.

The WaPo’s Michael Shear added, “The mistake threatened to undermine McCain’s argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.”

Quite right. How do you suppose the media would react if Obama had screwed up Middle Eastern basics this badly? Hell, Obama talked about pursuing terrorists into Pakistan and that’s still considered a gaffe for reasons I’ll never really understand. But McCain thinks — indeed, he insists it’s “common knowledge” — that al Qaeda is being trained in Iran to fight in Iraq? As Kevin put it, “This is hardly some trivial mistake. It’s like accusing Pat Robertson of supporting NARAL. It shows a complete disconnect with what’s going on in Iraq.”

On a related note, Time’s Joe Klein noted today:

Matt Yglesias notices that John McCain has gone back to his old, irresponsible, incendiary baloney-slicing on Iraq. You may recall that on the night McCain won the Republican nomination, he — accurately — emphasized sectarian violence as the major threat if the U.S. didn’t leave Iraq carefully. Now he’s back to his utterly bogus “victory” or “defeat” in the war against Al Qaeda…. It is outrageous and dishonorable that John McCain continues to purposely oversimplify this situation for imagined political gain.

That sounds right, but I’m still curious about something. Klein’s criticism, while certainly welcome, is premised on the notion that McCain isn’t clueless, he’s just dishonest. I’m still of the opinion that it could be both.

In other words, people assume McCain is an expert on national security and international affairs, so when he gets basic facts wildly wrong, it must be because he’s trying to deceive voters. I think that’s largely right, but I also question whether McCain’s actually an expert in the first place.

This is especially true with regards to Iraq. McCain was wrong before the invasion (he said the conflict would be short and easy); he was wrong at the start of the occupation (he supported the Rumsfeld strategy and said we simply needed to “stay the course”); and he’s been wrong about the surge (he predicted widespread political reconciliation, none of which has happened).

As recently as November 2006, McCain couldn’t even talk about his own opinions on the war without reading prepared notes on national television. As recently as March 2007, McCain was embarrassing himself by insisting that Gen. Petraeus travels around Baghdad “in a non-armed Humvee” (a comment that military leaders literally laughed at, and which CNN’s Michael Ware responded to by saying McCain’s credibility “has now been left out hanging to dry.”)

And now he’s absolutely certain that al Qaeda is being trained in Iran to fight in Iraq, a claim that any college student in Foreign Affairs 101 would realize is ridiculous.

I don’t doubt that McCain is willing to fudge the facts to get votes, but let’s also not rule out the possibility that his alleged expertise is a total sham.

What we have here is an older, less stable George W Bush. Or maybe McCain is actually a Bush/Cheney hybrid.

Put his ignorance about al Qaeda together with his jokes about attacking Iran, and you have a guy who should scare the living crap out of all Americans.

  • This is pure insanity not to mention pure ignorance. And, now, of course even Petreus is wrong according to McInsane cause he said there is no real progress in the political reality of Iraq. Wonder how the corporate media is going to spin this one for their Corporate Boy ?

  • Question for Hillary – Is this the “lifetime of experience” that you were talking about? Thanks and I’ll take my answer offline.

  • To be fair to McCain, the whole Sunni-Shia animosity thing has only been going on for several centuries, and Americans have only been shopping seriously for oil and pet dictators in that part of the world for six decades or so. Moreover, the whole Iraq mess only got started in 2003, except for that small fracas back in the earlier Bush presidency. So this is a lot for anyone to learn in such a short period of time. Nonetheless, I am fully confident that McCain has the smarts to get more or less on top of who’s who in that part of the world long before the end of his second term.

    /snark

    If god actually favored the US, you’d think we’d end up with better politicians.

  • I’ve been wondering if the 2008 McCain is pretending to be a wrathful hawk to reassure the ntujob Republican base that he’s their guy.

    Saying that Iran supplies Al-Queda which blows up predominantly Shiite locales with their bombs does NOT help him in any conceivable way.
    The simplest explanation for McCain’s behavior at this point is senility.
    He can’t keep the facts straight and it’s NOT going to get better.

    If they can keep McCain in a bubble like Dubya, it won’t matter whether it’s because the president is dumb as a box of hammers or senile. Both will execute the will of the “handlers”

    The only question remaining to me is, what cabinet seat will Dick Cheney get in order to keep his fingers in the pie?
    I’m placing an early bet on Homeland Security czar.

  • The whole Sunni-Shia animosity thing has only been going on for several centuries

    So has John McCain…

    This is the kind of ignorance that allows people to believe that mortal enemies such as UBL and Saddam Hussein could be allies.

  • So my question is, how will the MSM cover how clueless and inept McCain is in the GE debates? Timmy Russert will have his work cut out for him.

  • Its gotta just be a slip by a TIRED ol’ fellow. He is pretty OLD afterall.

    But …….. if Hillary or Obama made this error, wingnutosphere would be whirring up a blog storm.

  • of course ap did that … as will russert and the entire corporate media … the one’s that went to his barbeque at his ‘rustic cabin’ .. the one’s that went of his train ride and called him a
    ‘man of the people’ as his sat in his first class seat that no one allowed to approach except THE CORPORATE MEDIA

  • I’m thinking that Republicans are using the drawn-out Democratic nomination as cover to audition puppeteers. By the time the general rolls around, they should have someone who can pull the straight-talking maverick’s strings just right (provided they can get that kink worked out that makes the puppet talk straight out of his ass sometimes).

  • I tend to agree with Klein. McCain isn’t so oblivious to the basic facts of this conflict as his remarks would suggest; he’s simply aware of the fact that as far as the Republican base is concerned, anyone shooting at us in Iraq is “al Qaeda,” and directly connected to 9/11. The suggestion that there are in fact multiple groups operating in the Middle East with conflicting interests and perspectives and interests is just too much of a departure from the good-guys-vs.-bad-guys mentality of the NASCAR crowd, so McCain dumbs it down and brings it all back to the GOP bogeyman du jour. Don’t underestimate McCain by assuming he’s as simple as the red meat he throws to the base; that’s a good way to lose the election.

  • McSame must not have gotten the Little Georgie got, when the Muslim split was explained to him five years ago, to which he responded: “You mean, there’s two of them???”

  • Haven’t you heard? Dropping bombs from a plane and being held prisoner makes you foreign policy expert.

  • James, i’m quite curious: on what basis do you draw the conclusion that mccain is “dumbing it down?” i have yet to see a single shred of evidence that he has a view elevated enough that he could “dumb it down,” but maybe i’ve missed something.

    certainly, joe klein hasn’t given us any basis for thinking so: he just asserts. what do you know that the rest of us don’t?

    this is, btw, a separate matter from whether mccain can win in november: facts have never been a favorite of the american people. as long as the press continues to tell us about mccain’s “national security credentials,” the fact that he either doesn’t know jack or is dumbing it down (i’ll at least hold open the possibility that you do know something about him) is irrelevant.

  • One of the things CB left out of the post was this highly entertaining tidbit:

    “A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: ‘I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.'”

    What a thankless and busy job it is to be John McCain’s realtime speech editor.

    But this is not a gaffe. A gaffe is when you mean one thing but say another. This is just plain not having an effing clue about what’s going on in Iraq. Big difference. We simply can’t afford to have yet another completely clueless president in office.

  • The WaPo’s Michael Shear added, “The mistake threatened to undermine McCain’s argument — CB

    “Threatened to undermine”??? How about “demolished it completely”? Were the barbecued ribs at that “rustic retreat” *that* good, Mr Shear?

    I would, in general, agree with James Dillon @13 about the reasons for McSame’s spouting — dishonesty rather than stupidity — if it hadn’t been for the fact that he did correct himself, once Lieberman whispered the facts into his pink shell. So I’ll go with “both” and add a third reason: Cindy McCain might not be the only one in that family who’s having short-term memory problems. Given McSame’s choleric temperament, he’s likely to have popped a vessel or two over the course of his long and distinguished career. Mini strokes aren’t always apparent but they do have a cumulative effect.

  • petorado, @18
    Nope. A gaffe is when you step in it and people notice. Check any dictionary you want. There is a term for what you’re talking about (like, when someone says “I’m interesting”, when they mean “I’m interested” or “I’m ravishing” instead of “I’m ravenous”) but I can’t remember it.

  • Somehow Joe and John remind me of a couple of grumpy old men on the golf course.

    “Eh, those damn Smith boys were raising the racket agin.”

    “No, John, it was the Jones boys and they get their racketmakin’ equipment in IRAN!!!”

    “IRAN? hell, no I haven’t run in years! I threw a golf club at ’em!!!”

    Just think how good this will get by say around August.

  • There is one simple explanation for McCain’s error. The Republicans have very consistently used the term “al Qaeda” to refer to any “evil-doer” in Iraq. Notice it took a part time Democrat (Lieberman) to correct him, and he probably wouldn’t have done that had McCain been talking to an American audience.

  • 18.On March 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm, petorado said:
    “A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: ‘I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.’”

    What McCain whispered back to Lieberman was, “Fuck you. I know more about this than anyone in the room.”

  • I think Danp has got it. Conservatives are simply obsessed with semantics and using the proper words to frame issues, and it looks like McCain’s now so accustomed to thinking that Terrorist = Al Qaeda that he just substituted the words without even thinking about it. He wasn’t really saying that Al Qaeda was being trained in Iran. He just forgot that the words aren’t always interchangable in every context.

    Of course, the truth is that these words are NEVER interchangeable and that there are lots of different terror groups operating in Iraq, but that whole concept undermines everything conservatives have been saying, which is why they had to resort to the Al Qaeda shorthand. Same goes for all our international problems: For them, there aren’t lots of different groups we’re opposing; there’s just the Muslim threat. Similarly, everything was a Soviet plot during the Cold War, and any policy could be justified as long as you said the Soviets were involved. They don’t care what actual threats America faces; they just want the biggest & baddest enemy possible in order to scare the masses. That’s all it’s about.

  • Now I’m not so sure that McCain merely misspoke.

    “Al-Qaida is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran.” He made the comments Tuesday at a news conference in Jordan; he made similar comments earlier to radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

    Once is misspeaking, two is at least confused. Lucky it wasn’t 3 am when he spoke.

  • All of this is, of course, wrong. Al Qaeda is Sunni; Iran is Shiite. This is “common knowledge.” McCain was speaking with authority about the basics in the Middle East, and getting the regional dynamic backwards.

    This happens quite a bit with the Republican candidate.

    Is it? More on this later.

    In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.”

    Quite right. How do you suppose the media would react if Obama had screwed up Middle Eastern basics this badly?

    The Democrat media would downplay it, and guys like Olbermann would ignore it completely.

    I can say how Harry Reid react; he’d probably name Obama head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, just like Pelosi named Rep. Reyes head of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, and he is clueless on what Sunnite and Shiite and Arab and Persian and Kurd and Turk and so on and so on and so on.

    Back to the issues regarding Al Qaeda and Iran.

    The indictment of Osama bin Laden, yes, Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, for the U.S. Embassy bombings shows both the Iranian government and Hezbollah (Hizbollah) as working with bin Laden and Al Qaeda on perpetrating that crime. But you don’t have to believe me; read the indictment.

    The 9/11 Commission noted ties between Al Qaeda and the government of Iran (not the best source, but they did spend time investigating, and they didn’t get everything wrong). It was also reported as such by the Washington Post’s Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus. As much as I don’t like Pincus’ politics, he’s a top-notch investigative reporter.

    And just like Saddam Hussein and the government of the Republic of Turkey, Iran does not want to see an independent Kurdistan as many of their own Sunni Kurds would migrate out or demand an expansion of potentially new Kurdish territory. They wouldn’t have a problem allying themselves with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Islam to inflict terror upon the general Kurdish population.

    And now he’s absolutely certain that al Qaeda is being trained in Iran to fight in Iraq, a claim that any college student in Foreign Affairs 101 would realize is ridiculous.

    The problem is, many “liberals” need to go back to Foreign Affairs 101 class. Alliances based on ideology only work when an alliance is mutually beneficial. That’s just it; alliances exist only when they are mutually beneficial, regardless of ideology. Nobody would have thought two governments who had leaders who hated each other, Hitler and Nazi Germany and Stalin and the Soviet Union, would ever even sign a non-aggression pact, then conquer Poland together (Hitler first, then Stalin after the Poles were close to capitulating; and then Hitler relinquished Polish territory to Stalin). Thus endeth the Foreign Policy 101 lesson for the day.

    It isn’t McCain who has this wrong.

  • SteveIL: why would Iran be training al Qaeda, which routinely attacks the shiites in Iraq, and which also opposes the government of Iraq, which of course is dominated by shiites and on friendly terms with Tehran?

    And if McCain was right, why did he correct himself after Lieberman whispered in his ear?

    Better check the expiration date on your meds.

  • And if McCain was right, why did he correct himself after Lieberman whispered in his ear? If he made a mistake on anything, it was this.

    SteveIL: why would Iran be training al Qaeda, which routinely attacks the shiites in Iraq, and which also opposes the government of Iraq, which of course is dominated by shiites and on friendly terms with Tehran? Do you have any idea of the makeup of the Middle East? First off, as I mentioned, alliances are relationships of expediency, something that is mutually beneficial; at best, ideology is secondary (like the Hitler/Stalin analogy, Saddam Hussein wasn’t a big fan of Islamist terrorists, but didn’t have a problem funding them as long as they stayed out of Iraq). Second, the whole idea this is a Sunni-Shia thing really need to read up on recent history (say, the last 15 years). The Turks are primarily Sunni, the Kurds are primarily Sunni, the Arabs are primarily Sunni (except in Iraq and I believe Lebanon); yet, all three groups put that aside in order to battle each other. Third, the majority of Arabs in Iraq are Shiites, as are the Persians in Iran; but there is enmity between the Arabs and the Persians that goes beyond their shared faith.

    So it is entirely possible, and more than likely probable, that the government of Iran would find it advantageous to help out Al Qaeda, regardless of which denomination of Islam they practice.

  • It’s the equivalent of Gerald Ford saying that the Soviets didn’t dominate Poland.

  • @26 SteveIL

    You do know that the AQ that attacked the US on 9/11 and the embassies a few years before is NOT the same organization as AQ in Iraq?

    You are aware that UBL offered his mujahadeen to Saudi Arabia in 1991 to defend the kingdom from Saddam? That the reason UBL broke from the Saudis is he was insulted when they spurned his offer?

    There is a lot of nuance to the region. McCain’s statement suggests a lack of appreciation of nuance.

  • You do know that the AQ that attacked the US on 9/11 and the embassies a few years before is NOT the same organization as AQ in Iraq? Oh, sure. That’s like saying the Gambino Family isn’t the same as the Genovese Family, and neither is the same as the Chicago Outfit. Bull. They are all part of the Mafia, just like Al Qaeda in Iraq is Al Qaeda. Don’t even try that one with me.

    You are aware that UBL offered his mujahadeen to Saudi Arabia in 1991 to defend the kingdom from Saddam? That the reason UBL broke from the Saudis is he was insulted when they spurned his offer? So? If we’re talking 1991, then we’re talking after Saddam invaded Kuwait, after Saddam had invaded Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield, and after U.S., Saudi, British, French, Syrian, and others kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, with the Saudis already being protected by the U.S. It didn’t seem to bother them to have the U.S. there, only bin Laden. And if you are referencing this time frame, where the hell was bin Laden in helping to get Saddam out of Kuwait? Not in Saudi Arabia. You can forget trying to pass that one on to.

  • Comments are closed.