 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Washington Post debate fact checker Glenn Kessler on another point made by McCain:
9:52 p.m.
John McCain correctly asserted that in 2003 he began to question the Iraq war strategy, which is correct. In November 2003, he criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war, saying the United States should send at least 15,000 more troops or risk "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."But he has also made later, more rosy pronouncements. After visiting the Shorja market in Baghdad in April 2007, where he was protected by more than 100 soldiers, McCain said, "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made." Privately, according to a recent book by Bob Woodward, he was more critical, telling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime."
So... before the extra troops went in McCain said we needed more troops. Then, as they started to arrive, he said "things are getting better" and "we may be about to lose." I'm not sure what Glenn Kessler's point is here - perhaps it's that in his opinion some of McCain's comments on Iraq have been "rosier" than others. But unless you're the sort of imaginary loon who feels that "in war, everything is rosy" or the sort of real loon who believes that such imaginary people exist (and that John McCain is one of them) that variability (or "honesty" as I call it) won't get you very excited.
I suppose if one feels a need one can apply some sort of subjective "rosiness scale" to each of those comments - but I'd say an "accuracy" scale might be more useful. On that scale I'd say hindsight reveals the "things are getting better" comment as most accurate (I'd even call it "correct" or "right"), the 2003 call for more troops as "debatable"(it worked in 2007, but who can really say with certainty what would have happened in '03 - at best, the answer is hypothetical), and the "we may be about to lose" speculation as least accurate - in fact without the "may" it would be flat out wrong. I'm glad the "rosiest" comment was also the most accurate - a position I hope most Americans share. (I simply can't imagine what sort of person wouldn't.)
But on the surface, are the statements inconsistent? Clearly the oddity is the "about to lose" quote - especially coming within days of the "better" statement. So let's turn to the cited source - Woodward's The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008
At a press conference following his hour-long tour, McCain said that the American public was not receiving "a full picture" of the improvements in security. "Things are getting better in Iraq, and I am pleased with the progress that has been made."I'll refrain from comment on whether that's a fair treatment of State or not - that isn't the point of this post, but note that Secretary Rice did counter that - details are in the book. But clearly McCain was noting improvement (not victory) in Baghdad, crediting the military surge for that, and warning State that it would all be wasted if they didn't do their part. That's in line with the bigger strategy of the surge - the military couldn't do it all - as described by President Bush and General Petraeus from the start (and co opted by the opposition as their own exclusive policy point immediately thereafter) and it seems to me to be completely appropriate (important, even) for a senator returning from Iraq to bring those concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State.Later, McCain was widely criticized for making such a judgment after touring a market fortified with blast walls and cement barriers, surrounded by a virtual cocoon of American security. One U.S. military official told The Washington Post that McCain's diagnosis of Baghdad security was "a bit of hyperbole."
Condi Rice appreciated McCain's positive comments. She invited him for for a private visit at the State Department at 08:30 A.M., on April 12. McCain seemed tense when he arrived. Rice had expected him to reiterate his optimism, but after some pleasantries, he let loose.
"We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime," said the man who had been held and tortured for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The senator launched into a full-throated critique of the State Department's role in Iraq. You guys aren't fully in this, he said. You don't act like we're really at war. The civilian side is not doing it's part. Rice listened calmly. His criticisms echoed a lot of State Department bashing.
But again, what the hell is the point of the "fact check"?
