When McCain Says “Victory” in Iraq, Is He Lying About THAT, Too?

/in /by

It’s now apparent that the McPalin campaign will lie about anything: earmarks, foreign travel, crowd size, even who paid for Meghan’s Prius. As the Obama campaign asked today, "is there anything the McCain campaign isn’t lying about?"

Is it possible that McCain’s bravado about how well Iraq is going is all a lie, too? According to Bob Woodward, that may well be the case.

Woodward’s latest book about the Iraq war, "The War Within," portrays McCain as offering a rosy assessment to the public about the surge’s progress while privately telling U.S. officials he thought the country was on the brink of losing the war.

The book describes McCain’s press conference after visiting the Shorja market in Baghdad in early April of 2007. After touring the market — 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."

McCain was widely mocked for those statements later after television crews showed the level of protection surrounding him at the market.

But what was not known at the time was how different his private assessment of the war was.

According to Woodward, McCain was invited to visit with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after he publicly made the positive comments at the market. "Rice had expected him to reiterate his optimism, but after some pleasantries, he let loose," Woodward writes.

"We may be about to lose the second war in my lifetime," Woodward quotes McCain as saying to Rice. Woodward writes that McCain "launched into a full-throated critique of the State Department’s role" in the war effort. [my emphasis]

Now, after the WaPo published this story this morning, the McCain campaign issued a rebuttal.

McCain campaign senior advisor Mark Salter sought to clarify McCain’s position Saturday afternoon. "Senator McCain returned from Iraq and met with Secretary Rice to discuss the concerns of U.S. officials in Iraq that the personnel the State Department had sent to Iraq were too few and too junior," he said. "He expressed to Secretary Rice the same opinion of the surge’s prospects he had expressed in public. It would be tough, but it was the last and only chance for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq."

Of course, given the McCain campaign’s pathological inability to tell the truth, there’s no reason to believe Salter’s refutation in any case. But note what Salter didn’t do: fundamentally challenge the story that McCain "let loose" with Condi.

Remember–Woodward has been known to tape important interviews.

image_print
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    Yes. Everybody needs to go read Fallows today. The mismatch between McCain’s image and his actions are catching up with him and I think the ‘waving the red cape’ image is perfect.

    • Minnesotachuck says:

      Way late to this party – social obligations dontchaknow. Anyway, Fallows had a superb post yesterday on the subject of what makes Sarah Palin utterly unqualified to be President, and by extension Veep:

      Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don’t. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we’re able to talk and think about it in a “rounded” way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I’d really like to hear answered is A. . . . Here’s the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio. . . . Mention a name or theme — Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong’s comeback, Venus and Serena — and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

      What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

      Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed — an endorsement of “preemptive” action — was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq. . . How could she not know this? For the same reason I don’t know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.

  2. Boston1775 says:

    If ya say it sincerely, don’tcha know, it’s sincerely true, yup.

    They actually are kindred spirits, my friends, yup.

  3. DanC says:

    Speaking of McCain’s outlook on victory in the Iraq war:

    Petraeus will never declare victory in Iraq The general in charge of American soldiers in Iraq has given a mixed assessment of progress in Iraq. General David Petraeus says that, while the country is in better shape than it was at the start of last year it still faces serious problems. General Petraeus has overseen the so called “surge” of American combat troops into Iraq and he is about to leave to take on a more senior role. He says the fabric of Iraqi society was being torn apart by “horrific” violence. The outgoing commander says he will never declare victory there.

    Does McCain agree with Petraeus that there will never be “victory” in Iraq? Does McCain still insist that U.S. troops must remain in Iraq until “victory” is achieved?

    • Leen says:

      This week Petreaus said situation in Iraq is “fragile” and “reversible”. Does the spell victory? Ask some of the 5 million Iraqi refugees.

  4. jayt says:

    Remember–Woodward has been known to tape important interviews.

    Shhhh….

    (whispers – he doesn’t know about audio or video tapes).

  5. CTuttle says:

    Woodward outed Keane’s back channel between the WH and Betrayus, well he’s back… The Endgame in Iraq Now, interestingly, Aswat Aliraq mentions an unnamed envoy from Darth is applying pressure on the SOFA negotiations with Maliki… It might be tin-foil territory, but, it wouldn’t surprise me one iota…!

  8. wigwam says:

    OT: I often disagree with Cass Sunstein, and here is another example:

    There has been much debate about whether Sen. John McCain is a candidate of change. But in one area, McCain is unquestionably a reformer. He would almost certainly make fundamental changes in the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    McCain has said that, should he be president, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito “would serve as the model for my own nominees.”

    How can anyone in their right mind call using Bush’s appointees as prototypes for future appointments a “change in direction”? IMHO, it is exactly what Obama has been claiming it would be, four more years of Bushism.

    • Leen says:

      You have to wonder which side Sunstein is on. This guy is part of the team pushing for “turning the page, moving on” No Accountability for the Bush administration.

  9. radiofreewill says:

    Neither Bush nor McCain want to admit to a Three Trillion Dollar Mistake that has cost more than 4,000 American lives and all Our Credibility in the Global Community.

    $3T divided by 300 Million Americans = $10,000 for every man, woman and child – every social class, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

    For what Noble Cause was such a price payed?

    What is the nature of this ‘Victory’?