McCain repeats false claim ‘Sadr declared the ceasefire.’
McCain repeats false claim ‘Sadr declared the ceasefire.’
Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week, which he pointed to as proof that Sadr didn’t “think he was winning” the battle in Basra. He also said that the Iraqi army performed “pretty well”:
It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki. … With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history, military engagements, the winning side doesn’t declare the ceasefire. The second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. … The military is functioning very effectively.
Watch it:
In fact, it was members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government who brokered the ceasefire, to which Sadr agreed. Experts agree that Sadr’s influence was strengthened — rather than diminished — by the Basra battle.
Finally, the New York Times reported Friday that at least 1,000 Iraqi national soldiers deserted or refused to fight in Basra.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
35 Responses to “McCain repeats false claim ‘Sadr declared the ceasefire.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
McCain is just trying to show that he is well qualified for the job of “Liar in Chief”. =P
April 6th, 2008 at 11:15 amOnce again, Pravda makes up what they want the public to hear - which has NOTHING to do with the truth.
Mcsame is only pandering to those that have no use for the truth or reality, just what Cheeney tells them is the truth.
Get them b-52’s ready to go…
April 6th, 2008 at 11:17 amFinally, the New York Times reported Friday that at least 1,000 Iraqi national soldiers deserted or refused to fight in Basra.
Grahamcracker was just on Steffi’s show, and didn’t say a word about it, while giving McCain a severe tongue-bath.
Imagine that.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:20 amFrom http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=906
“More recently, a parliamentary delegation traveled to the holy seminary city of Qom in Iran. The party was primarily from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s own coalition, namely members of the Dawa Party and SIIC. They defied the Prime Minister by negotiating directly with Muqtada al-Sadr, and the leader of the Quds Brigades of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards: Brig. Gen. Qasim Sulaymani.”
April 6th, 2008 at 11:22 amHe’s playing word games here; Bottom line.. Sadr didnt start it, so him calling for the violence to end and it ending indicates the guy has a substantial control of the situation….spin spin spin spin..
April 6th, 2008 at 11:23 amWho can these messages possibly be for except the loyal 20% who will believe anything mccain and fox tell them…..they won’t question anything.
Beyond that who do they hope to fool? I know there are a lot of people who aren’t paying any attention and get all of their info from the TV but mccain can’t get away with these lies for much longer on msm because there will be democratic pundits who will expose lies like this……
Is this just desperation? I think it must be. I would be more concerned if the 2006 election was not behind us as a marker that the American people are now paying more attention.
The economy and the war are working against them too.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:27 amThe whole point to this statement, is to make it appear that the Iraqi government is in control, and that the radical elements in Iraq are being pushed back and defeated. It helps make the case of the surge working, and everything is just rosy in Iraq. Thus the lost lives, billions of dollars, and the ravaged economy are well worth it.
Pretty sad.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:31 amYes, it was a brokered cease fire. What does that mean? First, it means that the party starting the violence (Maliki) to assert government control over the Basara region failed. Second, it means that Sadr claims rights as the victor since he retains control of the battle ground over his defeated opponent. The only way in which the government could control victory would be if Maliki’s troops were firmly in control of Basara and that is just not the case. Only the status quo returned which means a total defeat for Maliki’s government.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:32 amKrazny
I think you have nailed it…….only thing that makes any sense….
April 6th, 2008 at 11:34 amSHH JMOHR,
Don’t disillusion the trolls
April 6th, 2008 at 11:37 amMe thinks the Honorable Senator McCain is being fitted for his ruby slippers at this very moment we are typing on this thread. -Kevo
April 6th, 2008 at 11:37 amThe second point is, overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. … The military is functioning very effectively.
Gee, I wonder if McCain would say the same thing about our military if over 1,000 soldiers, including officers, laid down their guns and walked away.
This one we can’t lay at McCain’s senile feet. It it the mantra talking point of the right attempting to make silk out of a sows ear.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:41 amThe senile MacCaine is learing well to perform like someone who will continue Bush’s legacy… LIE and DENY the TRUTH. I am amazed he hasn’t declared ‘Mission acomplished’…
April 6th, 2008 at 11:43 amIn fact, it was members of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government who brokered the ceasefire, to which Sadr agreed.
ok… and then sadr “declared” it so?
i know, i know… “word games” as chocolate jesus says…
consider the crowd he’s playin’ to… rah rah rah!
April 6th, 2008 at 11:52 amoh yea… forgot about this:
With respect, I don’t think Sadr would have declared the ceasefire if he thought he was winning.
never mind… he’s just plain LYING.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:53 amThe simple fact that Sadr can declare a ceasefire, should indicate to anyone with half a brain, that the security situation in Iraq isn’t run by the Maliki government. When was the last time the US government declared a ceasefire with homegrown radicals? I don’t recall that in Waco or Ruby Ridge.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:59 amHow many times will McAin lie and get away with it? The media should be all over him for his ignorance about Iraq.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:01 pmHe is the media’s candidate. Fairness doctrine is the only thing that would change this. We have a big job in front of us.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:05 pmlooks like we’ve found ourselves Bush #2
April 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pmAnother point that deserves to be made about McCain’s comment:
“If you’re winning, you typically don’t call for a cease fire.”
By that definition, the U.S. isn’t winning in Iraq either.
I’d also like to point out the dichotomy of McCain and Lyndsey Graham going on all the Sunday shows talking about “Iran aiding & arming extremists” while the reality is that Iran is brokering peace in Iraq on behalf of the Maliki government.
Iran is brokering peace talks in Iraq. What are WE doing?
April 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pmI have read some materials (forgive me I can’t remember the blog-If I do I’ll post the name of it) that indicate the Maliki government approached a high profile religious leader in Iran to help with the Basra situation. It appears that this highly respected religious Shiite was a major factor in arranging a cease fire. Where “Snow Job” and McClone get that someone won or lost or quit first, I don’t know, but they are so desparate for their politics to win in Iraq that they’ll just pee all over themselves if they can grab a situation and make a good sound bite out of it. These guys, especially McCain are so obvious they look like fools. If they think this Iraq think is anywhere near over they are totally deluded.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pmFrom: “Is Petraeus trying to start war with Iran?”
The violence in Iraq was stopped. Not by Maliki, but by Al Sadr. And who brokered the deal?
An Iranian general! Now why would he do that? Maybe he knows why the violence was started in the first place.
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 4/ 6/ 11438/ 33254/ 238/ 490991
April 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pmSorry…
April 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pmhttp://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 4/ 6/ 11438/ 33254/ 238/ 490991
Here is a better take on the ceasefire.
April 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pmthe real story
April 6th, 2008 at 12:51 pm“My friends - I just say things. Because I am a “hero”, no one can question the things I just say, and no one should. Behold my boundless vanity, and understand that I will, necessarily, be your President.” (because lots of crooked defense contractors want it that way, and enough Americans are dumb enough to believe the things I just say).
April 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pmLet’s call him St. John the Revisionist!
April 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pmTechnically speaking, Sadr did declare the ceasefire.
April 6th, 2008 at 2:20 pmthirdparty
April 6th, 2008 at 3:16 pmWhat is it about facts that elude you? Nowhere on you link does it say that Sadr called for the ceasfire. It only says that he ordered his army to stop fighting.
Who will ask the hard questions when Petraeus appears before Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday? Not Sen. John McWar — he doesn’t have a freakin’ clue about what is going on in Bush’s colony of Iraq.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pmthirdparty:
That was only after the deal had been set in place between him and the Dawa Party. He only declared the cease fire after Maliki had agreed to his 9 conditions, including the release of JAM prisoners.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pmRead the headline.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:53 amI would also keep this in mind:
April 7th, 2008 at 4:56 amAs to McCain’s point on the Iraqi army performance, I don’t think his comment is wholly unreasonable. While TP rightly notes the desertions and the fact that the army needed US backing, they were reportedly very successful in some areas that we often overlook. For instance:
April 7th, 2008 at 4:59 amWhen the crack down on Basra began, al-Maliki vowed there’d be no backing down, that the Basra campaign would be seen through to military victory. Clearly, and by most people’s standards, Basra represented an embarrasing defeat for al-Maliki and the fact that McCain could declare otherwise proves yet again that he believes only what he wants to believe and is not about to let facts get in his way.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
April 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm