if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
McHistory Major
Is John McCain rewriting the history of the reconciliation in Iraq? Here is is talking to CBS:
Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.
Or is it? Here’s McFarlane himself.
On 9 September 2006 Sittar organized a tribal council, attended by over 50 sheiks and the brigade commander, at which he declared the “Anbar Awakening” officially underway. The Awakening Council that emerged from the meeting agreed to first drive AQIZ from Ramadi, and then reestablish rule of law and a local government to support the people. The creation of the Awakening Council, combined with the ongoing recruitment of local security forces, began a snowball effect that resulted in a growing number of tribes either openly supporting the Awakening or withdrawing their support from AQIZ.
Now, who’s history is more accurate? It’s one thing to criticize Obama for being wrong about the surge and not owning up to it. It’s another to give your own version of the success in Iraq which doesn’t give enough credit to events that were set in motion before the surge even began.
Comments
It’s not nit-picky; this is the full context of McCain’s quote:
Kate Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?
McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.
McCain says that Obama is wrong to partially credit the Anbar Awakening with the fall of violence in Iraq, since the Anbar Awakening was caused by the surge. This is demonstrably untrue, and McCain then takes it and says that it shows that Obama is against the troops for saying other factors (the al-Sadr ceasefire, the Anbar Awakening, etc) along with the surge (that he conceded in his interview with Couric was a factor in lowering the rate of violence in Iraq) resulted in the relative peace in Iraq today.
Besides, even if the timeline McCain suggests was true, how would additional troops in Baghdad protect Sunnis in Anbar?
Yes, it’s nit-picky. It’s the sort of thing that bloggers will get their panties in a wad over for a couple of days.
So, McCain calling Obama’s comments on factors affecting the Iraq War “a false depiction of what actually happened” only for it to be shown that Obama’s version is true and McCain’s is false is nit-picky. How is it nit-picky to point out a politician attacking his opponent for getting his history wrong actually got HIS history wrong and his opponent got it right?
This stuff doesn’t get picked up on enough in the media; one side says one thing, the other side says another, and both sides are presented as obviously factual without any research. We need this stuff to get picked up on from both candidates 24/7.
Is John McCain rewriting the history of the reconciliation in Iraq?
WVR is running out of real issues to write about, I see. Must be a slow news week.
Omg. Was the peace caused by the surge or was the peace caused by the surge?
Obama’s account is not 100% correct. And it appears that McCain’s account is not 100% correct. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Proceed with panty unwadding.
Next entry: Mile High Hypocrisy
Previous entry: Carry On, Senator
This seems pretty nit-picky.