Cross-posted from Daily Kos
It should be clear by now that John McCain just can't get his facts straight on the Iraq war.
McCain, who once had to be corrected by faithful sidekick Joe Lieberman as he was performing one of his gaffes during a recent Middle East visit, once again displayed his penchant for misspeaking about the war during his Sunday appearance on Fox News Sunday.
McCain was all by himself when he was fielding a series of questions from Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, and here's where McCain once again got into a mess (as reported by Raw Story):
During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, John McCain again repeated the false claim that Muqtada al-Sadr declared the ceasefire in Basra last week and said he thought the Iraqi army was performing well.
"It was al-Sadr that declared the ceasefire, not Maliki," said McCain. "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."
As the blog, Think Progress notes, "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.
The Fox transcript further bears out how badly McCain stumbled:
WALLACE: Let's turn to foreign policy. You acknowledge you were surprised by the recent Iraqi offensive in Basra. In the end, the Iraqi government failed to oust those Shiite militias.
Doesn't that raise serious questions about the continued weakness of the central government in Baghdad?
MCCAIN: Well, actually, when I say I was surprised, our authorities in Iraq were surprised, the State Department — it was about a 48-hour...
WALLACE: Right. The whole government was surprised.
MCCAIN: Yes, about a 48-hour window. It's interesting. We have asked the government time after time to act effectively, that we want this government to act. They acted.
Now, obviously, the results were mixed. Obviously, there were problems. And Maliki, in my view, should have waited until we had concluded the battle of Mosul which is going on as we speak.
They do have control of the port of Basra now. That's one of the major economic areas of Iraq because of the oil that goes through there. It was al-Sadr that declared a cease-fire, not Maliki, and they continue...
WALLACE: It was brokered by the Iranians, who actually may have more clout with both al-Sadr — I mean, let me just ask you the question from this point of view.
General Petraeus is coming to testify in the next couple of days. A lot of talk about the surge and how that's helped damp down the violence — some would say because there was a spike of violence during this Basra battle, maybe al-Sadr's decision to hold the cease- fire is as responsible as the surge is, and if he changes his mind, we're back in the frying pan.
MCCAIN: Well, in respect, I don't think Sadr would have declared the cease-fire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history of military engagements, the winning side doesn't declare the cease-fire.
The second point is that overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. Six months ago, it would have — or eight or nine months ago, it would have been unthinkable for Maliki to act this way.
WALLACE: We heard this week that 1,000 soldiers refused to fight or deserted.
MCCAIN: And there were many, many thousands who are fighting there. Compare that with two years ago when the army was basically unable to function in any way effectively.
Look, I didn't particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively. Up in Mosul where some of the best units are, they're functioning well.
I've always said, Chris, this is long and hard and tough. We're paying a huge penalty for four years of a failed strategy that I fought hard against, and I believe this strategy has succeeded and will succeed and can succeed. But it's long and hard and tough.
Even with the facts against him, McCain, like Bush, tried to sell only what he saw was the sunny side of Bush's (and his) failed war of choice in Iraq. Even at that, McCain couldn't get his facts straight (even when he was confronted by Wallace).
It's been bad enough that our foreign policy has been driven into the ditch by George W. Bush and his legions with support along the way by John McCain, among others. If this is the best John McCain can offer, the American people have a urgent responsibility to reject his candidacy and vote for someone who had the sense to oppose the war from the start.
The choice is simple-- John McCain was wrong on Iraq from the start while Barack Obama was right from the start on Iraq. A vote for McCain is a vote to continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq while a vote for Obama is a vote against the war and a far more sensible foreign policy that wages a real war on terrorism that Bush's (and McCain's) foreign policy have left us far too strapped to do.
John McCain-- wrong for America. Barack Obama-- the right man at the right time to lead our nation.
NOTE: Crooks and Liars has the video of McCain's latest Iraq embarrassment.
__________________________
