I don't know about you, but I am tired of constantly hearing that Senator Obama is naive when it comes to foreign policy while McCain't is some sort of "expert." Had Obama made even half of the gaffes McCain't has made on foreign policy, the media would have raked him over the coals about it for the following month. When McCain't does it, the only ones who talk about it are Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, and maybe Chris Matthews.
Jump. . .
February 14, 2008:
February 28, 2008:
Speaking at the Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston, TX, last month (Feb. 28th), McCain stated the following:
But Al Qaeda is there, they are functioning, they are supported in many times, in many ways by the Iranians. (click link to see video)
March 18, 2008
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."
March 19, 2008:
For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday.
This time, in a statement from his campaign honoring the fifth year anniversary of the war, McCain wrote:
"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."
April 1, 2008:
Call it a pattern of mischaracterizations. John McCain recently got the facts wrong on Iraq again when he tried to portray Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's disastrous attempt to take on Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr as a success. (You can learn more about Sadr here.) He said this on the campaign trail:
"Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn't Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire."
That's completely misleading. Not only did Sadr come out of the fighting just as strong as he was before (check out Robert Dreyfuss in The Nation), but his people were celebrating what they called a victory over the Prime Minister and, by extension, America
April 8, 2008:
JOHN MCCAIN: "There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view al-Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?"
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: "It is a major threat. Though it is certainly as not as major a threat as it was say, 15 months ago."
MCCAIN: "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shias overall?
PETRAEUS: "No, sir."
MCCAIN: "Or Sunnis or anybody else then?
April 15, 2008:
Speaking before the Associated Press’s annual meeting yesterday, McCain was asked whether he would consider "diverting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan" in order to catch Osama bin Laden. McCain replied, "I would not do that unless General Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that."
[snip]
The problem, of course, is that McCain’s response doesn’t make sense. In fact, as the Army Times reported, Petraeus himself explained just last week, to McCain and his Senate colleagues, that decisions like these aren’t his to make.
The Army Times notes that McCain may have "missed the explanation," but that’s not really the point — whether McCain was in the room or not, he’s supposed to be an expert on national security and military policy.
And he clearly isn’t.
April 29, 2008:
John McCain’s stated position, repeated over and over again throughout the campaign, is that he’s willing to leave U.S. troops in Iraq up to a century, so long as we’re not taking major casualties. He compares this to a presence along the lines of U.S. troops who remain in Korea a half-century after the war there.
There’s no shortage of problems associated with such an approach. First, it’s based on truly ridiculous assumptions. Second, it wouldn’t work. And third, as Sam Stein reminds us, McCain has frequently disagreed with his own vision.
Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.
In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan — something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign — the senator offered nothing short of a categorical "no."
"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."
Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. "You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"
McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
May 20, 2008:
McCain insisted that ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Ahmadinejad -- even mocking Klein when he challenged him on it. In fact, according to the CIA's World Factbook, ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not the president.
Here's the exchange:
KLEIN: I've done some research, and um -
MCCAIN: I have too.
KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,
MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.
KLEIN: But if -
MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.
KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -
MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.
KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?
MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.
NEW REPORTER: One more quest-
MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.
(Video at the link)
May 30, 2008:
The comment in question was made by McCain yesterday to reporters. He said: "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."
Pre-surge troop levels? Not so much, countered the Obama campaign, which pointed out that troop levels are at 155,000 right now, well above the 130,000 pre-surge mark.
And what's worse is that the McCain't campaign tried to say it was just about "verb tenses"
When pressed on the error, McCain’s campaign said it was a matter of "the tense of the verb," because the senator’s comment will be true in a couple of months. This is both factually wrong and surprisingly foolish. Pressed to admit he misspoke, McCain refused.
July 8, 2008:
Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."
He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.
July 14, 2008:
t his press avail today, John McCain referenced current relations between Russia and, um, a non-existent country.
From a transcript...
"I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia. Apparently that is in reaction to the Czech's agreement with us concerning missile defense, and again some of the Russian now announcement they are now retargeting new targets, something they abandoned at the end of the Cold War, is also a concern."
Czechoslovakia, of course, hasn't existed in over 15 years. Not the hugest deal, of course, but McCain keeps making this mistake.
As we all know, he made the Czechoslovakia mistake two days in a row. . .
July, 17, 2008:
ABC reports that McCain't has criticized Obama for not holding hearings on Afghanistan while McCain't has missed ALL of the hearing on Afghanistan, the McCain't response?
McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers, in a statement to ABC News, argued that McCain's years of previous foreign policy experience make up for his recent lack of attendance at hearings.
"The point is that Obama claims to be a leader on Afghanistan, but had the power to hold hearings on our NATO operations there and failed to do so," wrote Rogers in an e-mail, although he did not say why McCain missed his own Armed Services Committee hearings over the past two years.
"John McCain has visited Afghanistan four times, spent 22 years in the military, served for years on the Armed Services Committee, and is a recognized international leader on national security policy," he said. "Obama has never visited Afghanistan once before this week and has no other foreign policy or national security experience to speak of. It isn’t even close."
Basically, McCain't doesn't HAVE to go to meetings to be informed because he's visited and spent 22 years in the military like 30 years ago. SMH
Now, this diary is just the list of stuff I could find in 2008, I didn't even go beyond that, I'd be typing this diary all day. McCain't is NOT an expert, he messes up on LITTLE stuff that's easily pointed out, so Lord only KNOWS what else he's messing up on.
Now the McCain't campaign has a video out of what it calls Obama's Iraq flip flops, which is not a smart move from this extraordinarily INEPT campaign. First of all, Obama hasn't flipped or flopped or any combination thereof on Iraq. He has maintained that we never should have gone there in the first place, and that we need to get out as soon as possible. McCain has flipped all over the place on Iraq the latest of which being on timetables:
I know I'm trying to stay in 2008, but as The Real McCain points out, McCain has a long tortured history of not knowing what he's talking about with Iraq. Talk about flip flopping:
With all of this, OBAMA is the one who's "naive" on foreign policy? Give me a break. As the netroots, we need to hit harder on this point, we need to MAKE the media stop perpetuating this lie that McCain is better on foreign policy because he was a POW during the Vietnam War. We may honor his service, but General Clark was exactly right when he stated that simply serving and being taken hostage does not make one qualified to be commander-in-chief.
Susan Rice (LOVE HER!) said it best: