CNN’s Ware: McCain ‘has no idea what is going on in Iraq.’
CNN’s Ware: McCain ‘has no idea what is going on in Iraq.’
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) constantly touts his support of the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq, how it has “succeeded” and that “we are winning in Iraq.” Last night on CNN, Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware took issue with McCain’s concept of “winning” and said if McCain’s believes that increasing troops was the only factor in reducing violence in Iraq, “then he has no idea what is going on” there. Watch it:
Transcript:
BROWN: OK. So, reality check on McCain. Are we really winning in Iraq, and is the surge the reason?
WARE: Well, first, let me say, the troops will come home with honor regardless. I mean, the way they have comported themselves in this war, they have earned that honor.
Winning, however, is a matter of definition. Now, if by winning, you mean strengthening a member of what President Bush called the axis of evil, Iran, the very thing Senator Obama — Senator McCain says that they prevented, Iran is stronger because of this war.
If you mean by dividing a community with blast barriers, if you mean by having to build an American militia, if you mean by destabilizing the entire region, then, sure, that’s winning, that’s victory. But I’m not sure that’s why people went in there.
BROWN: It doesn’t sound like you think that’s winning.
WARE: Well, at this point, a win may just be getting out while minimizing the damage.
Now, to what degree has the surge played into this? Again, that’s a matter of definition. What exactly is the surge? I would love to hear Senator McCain explain that — 30,000 troops…
BROWN: The increase in troops, the 30,000 troops. That’s what he means, though, when he says it, right?
(CROSSTALK)
WARE: Yes. Well, if that’s what he means, then he has no idea what is going on in Iraq, because what has delivered the successes we’re seeing now, as drops of 80 to 90 percent in violence, and who doesn’t welcome that, began two years ago or more, when the U.S. began engaging with its enemy, the Sunni insurgency when it started bringing in al Qaeda, and putting them on the U.S. government payroll, setting them loose on hard-core al Qaeda elements, and setting them loose on Shia militias.
BROWN: So, strategy, rather than the 30,000 troops?
WARE: Yes, the 30,000 troops was sort of like the icing on the cake.
BROWN: Right.
WARE: But the success that you’re seeing right now has been building for two years. And it also includes accommodating someone who was one of your number-one enemies, which was Muqtada al-Sadr, and turning him into a legitimate political figure.
BROWN: OK.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
McCain won’t let a little thing like ignorance stop him. It’s not as if facts matter…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pmCNN’s Ware: McCain ‘has no idea what is going on in Iraq.’
Or anywhere in this country, either!
September 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pmHear Hear ! It`s a shame that McPalin don`t have a CLUE…..
September 10th, 2008 at 2:26 pmMcSame and the Paleface Pig should be given ZERO credibility given their superstitious beliefs and especially her membership in the christianist cult church.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pmCNN’s Ware: McCain ‘has no idea what is going on in Iraq.’»
Which is why he’s running for a 3rd Bush term ……….
September 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pmHe doesn’t have a clue, but neither do most Americans. He can say literally anything and most will take it, without question, at face value. This is a rare anamoly by the media of calling him on it, but they will have to call him on everything he says for the next two months, and I don’t see that happening.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pmHe knows the surge didn’t do it but what would he have to run on if he lets that go, pow?, what else, maverick….voted with bush 100% in 08, what else…see, he has to cling to it because palin aint going to hold up.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pmMichael Ware has consistently brought the real news of Iraq when CNN will allow him too, I trust his word more than the Senator who walked the streets with 100 soldiers surrounding him and choppers above. What a joke, mccain is.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pmMcSame was actually in favor of knowing what was going on in Iraq, before he was against it.
And as for Miss Piggy, when the Congress asked her to try to understand what was going on in Iraq, she said “thanks, but no thanks”.
There — I think that covers it for both of them…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:38 pmWare is a rare commodity in media. He speaks the truth.
What a concept!
While McCain, Spence & Graham marched around the flea markets in Baghdad, he had an AK-47 held to his head by Islamic terrorists.
Thank you, Michael, for your honesty. But keep an eye on your back…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pmBut, but! It’s a mission from GOD.
Or was it DOG? Very confusing…
September 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pmMccain is a sociopath. He doesn’t care about anybody or anything but himself. any. body. any. thing. He doesn’t care about the truth, honor, morality, god, satan, the flying spagetti monster, the chicago bears, apple pie, hockey moms or pigs in drag.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pmMcCain has no idea what is going on in Iraq
______________________________________________________________
That should have been obvious since that ‘dog & pony show’ photo op last year in the marketplace in Baghdad. You know the one, where he had on a bullet-proof vest, an escort of 100 heavily armed soldiers, helicopter gunships flying cover overhead and snipers on the nearby roofs. And he had the audacity to say the place is perfectly safe. Well, with all that protection, I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pmHe has no idea what “his” campaign is doing, how on earth could he know diddly about anything else?
September 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pmBobwurst,
September 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pmYou could change the name from McCain to Bush, and everything you described about McCain, would fit Bush to a T!
In other breaking news, people who are breathing are alive.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pmBut but but mccain’s buddy was able to buy a rug for $6.00 what do you mean life isn’t wonderful in Iraq. I like the bit that bush doesn’t understand why Iraqis don’t appreciate what American has done for them, like no water and cholera rampant, very little electricity, afraid to venture out of their boarded up homes. Gee I sure can’t understand.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pmLacking a clue appears to be a requirement for Republican candidates for national office.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pmMichael Ware has spent more than five nearly contiguous years in Iraq, on the gound, and in the thick of the conflict. Time and time again he has forthrightly reported his observations and tried to impress upon the American public that we are not ‘winning’ by any reasonable measure. His journalistic work is a rare breath of fresh air in the otherwise poor to pitiful attempt to educate the American public about this conflict.
It’s instructive, at this point, to remind ourselves that occupations are not won: they end when an occupying force withdraws. The United States military, despite its long efforts cannot, and could never have, ‘won’ this insurgency. And in the words of Michael Ware, “…a win may just be getting out while minimizing the damage.”
While it will NEVER be a victory, that’s probably the best acceptable definition of ‘win’ than anyone has ever offered. Tragically, it’s vastly outweighed by the mind numbing losses of human life, resources and opportunity brought about by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the greatest strategic blunder of the last 50 or so years.
And, I say that as someone who spent five years on active duty in the US Army, and an additional ten years of active reserve component assignment, with a background in military police, military intelligence and civil affairs operations.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pmSince everything they say is bovine excrement anyway….
Let’s just say we won and COME HOME!
September 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pmOkay. Ware says that the 30,000 troops weren’t the main cause of the turn around in the situation in Iraq, but only ‘icing on the cake’.
He does recognize the success as being a change in U.S. policy towards engagement with the Iraqis, that happened two years ago, before the surge.
Okay. If we’re using Ware as a credible source, do we acknowledge that even though the additional troops may not have been significant, that there has been a successful turn around that can be attributed to a change in U.S. policy two years ago?
September 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pmbackup Says:
Okay. If we’re using Ware as a credible source, do we acknowledge that even though the additional troops may not have been significant, that there has been a successful turn around that can be attributed to a change in U.S. policy two years ago?
#######
Yes. But the main part of that policy (paying insurgents to not attack us) is now coming apart at the seams. The Sunni Awakening councils are not being accepted by the Shia government, and Maliki is actively fighting against them. Also, part of the change in US policy that caused a huge drop inn violence was the building of barriers between neighborhoods. Most Iraqis vehemently oppose these barriers, including Maliki. This has led to large scale segregation and genocide – the end result of which has been a drop in violence.
If the surge was successful, then we can withdraw our troops. To say that we cannot withdraw is to say that the surge failed. You cannot have it both ways. Victory means exit strategy. And the Iraqi government has asked us to leave.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pmYou know the one, where he had on a bullet-proof vest, an escort of 100 heavily armed soldiers, helicopter gunships flying cover overhead and snipers on the nearby roofs. And he had the audacity to say the place is perfectly safe. Well, with all that protection, I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be.
Uncle Ho,
September 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pmFor a minute there I thought you were describing the RNC in St. Paul!
It’s nice to hear someone with a brain talking about Iraq.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pmJohn Kerry,
Now that we have an agreement with the Iraqi government to confine all troops to base after July 2009, remove combat troops in 2010, and remove ALL troops by 2011 – How is McCain’s Iraq policy any different from what Obama has been saying from the beginning?
September 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pmZz; Sadly, your comparison is appropriate.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pmChris LeJeune Says:
John Kerry,
Chris,
After you have been around here a while, you will know that john kerrie is a drive-by troll; he/she/it throws out one post and then slithers off. Any response to it is a waste of time and energy.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:24 pmMcCain has been wrong about the war even before it started.
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
On November 29, 2002 on CNN’s Late Edition, Sen. McCain said, “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies….I don’t think it’s easy, but I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.”
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
September 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pmPart of an Obama pre-war speech.
In contrast, Obama made a prominent speech around the same time, October 2, 2002, in which he said, “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Qaeda.”
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech
Who had it right 6 years ago?
If the situation is more stable in Iraq, we should withdraw troops. I think the administration has said they support withdrawal based on conditions for quite a while.
Bush announced 8,000 troop withdrawal yesterday, with more to come in 2009.
We should have debate about the causes for the turn around in security, but it is more secure and that situation enables troop withdrawal. Troop withdrawal that progressives have wanted for a long time.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pmbackup Says:
If the situation is more stable in Iraq, we should withdraw troops. I think the administration has said they support withdrawal based on conditions for quite a while.
#####
This is no longer our decision to make. The Iraqi government has made it for us. They originally asked for us to be completely out by 2010. The Bush administration pushed for 2015. The Iraqi government compromised at 2011, but stated that our troops will no longer be allowed to patrol Iraqi streets after July, 2009.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:40 pmIt’s simple. Mccain is elected and the world has lost it’s patience and we will be marginalized until we are no longer a threat. Obama is elected and we have a chance. Quite frankly, both mean the end of conservatism and both are ok with me.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pmBush announced that the 8,000 troops will be withdrawn in February. If anything bad happens as a result? It will be laid on the head of his successor. Chimpy’s idea of “success” is to high-tail it out of office before the Iraqi people launch a “Tet” against us.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pmChris. you have a good point.
I would just add that it is the democratically elected government of Iraq that is in a strong enough position to make that decision.
Leaving the country at the request (or by the demands) of a more stable sovereign nation is a better situation than a premature withdrawal during the chaotic lawlessness of early 2007.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:52 pmpete. how can anything bad happen in the wake of withdrawal that progressives have been promoting for 5 years.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:53 pmNo b-kup. We should not be debating the reasons for the turn-around. We should be exploiting it to get our exhausted military out of harm’s way. False debates are what has gotten us into this mess.
False Debates like:
1. What to do about Saddam’s WMD.
2. What to do about “curveball’s” information which contradicts the inspectors.
3. How do we install Chalabi.
And a couple hundred others up to, and including, Sarah’s ridiculous lies. FACTS MATTER! Debates about imaginary subjects only do more harm. Check out this exchange b-kup.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/09/paul-begala-rips-msm-republican-operative-for-flat-out-lying-about-palins-record/
September 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pmHmmmm. Maybe McAlzheimers has a *house* there!
September 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pmBad things can always happen b-kup. Only an idiot would claim otherwise. And I’m not a progressive, I’m a moderate.
However, I was calling for a pull-back to secure bases, eliminating offensive patrols, and taking a supporting position to Iraqi forces since it became apparent we invaded the WRONG EFFING COUNTRY back in 04.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pmbackup Says:
Leaving the country at the request (or by the demands) of a more stable sovereign nation is a better situation than a premature withdrawal during the chaotic lawlessness of early 2007.
#####
Their parliament originally began asking us to leave, or to set a fixed date for withdrawal, in the spring of 2007. They have the same government now that they had in 2005. The only thing that has changed is that it is election time for them too. So it is now politically expedient for Maliki to take a strong stand against our occupation. Were it not for the election,he would not be asking us to leave. If we stay, we continue to pay for everything and he can keep tossing money into private banks.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pmBTW, if we had changed our policy as soon as it became apparent that we invaded the WRONG EFFING COUNTRY? The horrors of 06-07 may have never happened.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pmMichael Ware is the guru of what is happening in Iraq. When he talks, people should listen. Too bad the GOP noise machine is discounting his opinion.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pmIt’s obvious W sent the toops 800 miles too far west. The little dictator can’t figure out why the people of Iraq are not honoring him. Totally clueless.
JM has been joined at the hip regarding Iraq from day one. He doesn’t get it, either. If he wins the GE, we will be still in Iraq for the next four years, we will be bombing Iran and WWII will be a formality.
While it is true that the additional troops of the surge definitely helped Reduce the Violence in Iraq…
Here’s what really turned things around:
Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bremmer, suffering from delusional thinking and illinformed arrogance, Made Two Huge Mistakes. They disbanded the Iraqi Military and they disbanded the Bathists.
Without the Military Officers and Bureaucrats to run things…CHAOS Ensued.
The Reversal of these Mistakes by Gen. Petraeus resulted our talking to the Sunni Insurgents and Coopting them. They were ready to talk with our military, because the Shias were ethnically cleansing their Buts right out of Baghdad, and the Sunnis were willing to take American Help.
Al Qaeda’s over the top Violent Methods, mostly killing other Muslims, also Caused the IRAQI Insurgents to turn against these foreigners.
It is a much more complicated situation than McCain’s Simplistic “Victory” rhetoric, but we are where we are because Gen. Petraeus used his Brain, and started TALKING with the Sunnis.
What the
September 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pmpete. I looked at your Begala clip. I didn’t think he was that effective, but I did run across this, which seems objective and backs up many of your claims of Palin:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
September 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pmTrue b-kup. Begala was dismissed out of hand. But he was RIGHT! We waste time and effort in false debates which the greedy use to control the stupid.
But, it was encouraging to see someone make that point, and decry the ineffectiveness of the media, and stick to his guns till they cut the mics.
Plus, it’s not much of an exaggeration to say that I can’t find a single statement in Ms. Palin’s record that I would call “dead-honest”. I’m sure there are a couple I missed in the miasma of crap but, I’m long past caring.
Her record is beyond damning. It’s disqualifying. I wouldn’t trust her to walk my dog and, she will NEVER gain my trust, and anyone who picked her is equally untrustworthy.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pmbackup Says:
Okay. Ware says that the 30,000 troops weren’t the main cause of the turn around in the situation in Iraq, but only ‘icing on the cake’.
He does recognize the success as being a change in U.S. policy towards engagement with the Iraqis, that happened two years ago, before the surge.
Okay. If we’re using Ware as a credible source, do we acknowledge that even though the additional troops may not have been significant, that there has been a successful turn around that can be attributed to a change in U.S. policy two years ago?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO you guys want to redefine a success here. Bush already defined what the surge was supposed to do. There were 18 benchmarks of which lowered violence was only one. Hardly ANY of the others have been reached so NO you dont get to redefine what a success is once the surge has demonstrably failed. IF all we wanted was less violence we didnt NEED more troops all we needed to do was wait till the ethnic cleansing was pretty much finished then start shovelling money to the competing sides to stop publicly slaughtering each other.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pmIf all we wanted was Less Violence, we should have Never Attacked and Invaded Iraq in the first Place.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:55 pm