Direckshun
07-23-2008, 04:21 PM
Trust me folks, this is worth a read.
But first, thanks in order to one of my favorite blogs and recommended reading to anyone here, Obsidian Wings (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/). I post a lot of stuff from that particular blog, and while this post is not necessarily from the blog, it's inspired from the blog.
John McCain, as we all know, polls better than Obama on no more than one type of issue: Iraq/terrorism/national security.
That's it. There is nothing else.
The big thing McCain gets credit for is (everybody now!) the success of the Surge.
So if you're going to run on ONE THING, doesn't it make sense to get that one thing right?
From his interview with Katie Couric (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283813.shtml) today:
Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. 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 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.
A matter of history, he says!
The Surge began the Anbar awakening, he says!
How can Obama make such a false depiction, he says!
Damning accusations, to be sure. If only they were right (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf).
It turns out that the official McCain namechecks wrote about the actual timeline that's occurred to lower violence:
September 9, 2006: Sheiks organize a tribal council and begin the Anbar Awakening.
September 29, 2006: McFarland describes (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3738) the success of the Awakening in a DoD press conference in reducing violence.
January 10, 2007: Surge is announced.
February, 2007: McFarland and his troops leave Anbar (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf), before any Surge troops have arrived.
So let's review McCain's words one more time:
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is 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.
Again, when this is all you've got to run on, it's not the worst idea to make it the Be All, End All of everything.
But you have to either lie or be incredibly wrong to do so.
But first, thanks in order to one of my favorite blogs and recommended reading to anyone here, Obsidian Wings (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/). I post a lot of stuff from that particular blog, and while this post is not necessarily from the blog, it's inspired from the blog.
John McCain, as we all know, polls better than Obama on no more than one type of issue: Iraq/terrorism/national security.
That's it. There is nothing else.
The big thing McCain gets credit for is (everybody now!) the success of the Surge.
So if you're going to run on ONE THING, doesn't it make sense to get that one thing right?
From his interview with Katie Couric (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283813.shtml) today:
Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. 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 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.
A matter of history, he says!
The Surge began the Anbar awakening, he says!
How can Obama make such a false depiction, he says!
Damning accusations, to be sure. If only they were right (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf).
It turns out that the official McCain namechecks wrote about the actual timeline that's occurred to lower violence:
September 9, 2006: Sheiks organize a tribal council and begin the Anbar Awakening.
September 29, 2006: McFarland describes (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3738) the success of the Awakening in a DoD press conference in reducing violence.
January 10, 2007: Surge is announced.
February, 2007: McFarland and his troops leave Anbar (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf), before any Surge troops have arrived.
So let's review McCain's words one more time:
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is 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.
Again, when this is all you've got to run on, it's not the worst idea to make it the Be All, End All of everything.
But you have to either lie or be incredibly wrong to do so.