McCain "Documentary" On Obama And Iraq Fails To Draw Real Blood
I just watched the McCain campaign's new "documentary" on Iraq a few times, and while it does find scattered inconsistencies in Obama's positions, it doesn't really draw blood.
Let's dive in.
The first thing the "documentary" tries to do is prove that Obama reversed himself on whether he said the surge would fail. It seizes on an early Obama quote where he said that the surge wouldn't "solve the sectarian violence," and added that "it'll do the reverse." Then it cites him later saying that he'd always said "we would see an improvement in the security situation."
It's true that Obama originally said that it would "do the reverse." So there's a slight inconsistency here. But Obama's broader original point was that the surge wouldn't solve the political problem. His later quote was strictly focused on whether there would be military gains. Whatever slight inconsistency there was is just not really meaningful when looked at in the broader context of his larger arguments.
Let's move to the next set of charges.
The "documentary" quotes Obama saying in July 2007 that the surge hasn't worked and we wouldn't see anything different in the future. It then quotes him in February 2008 saying that it's "indisputable" that violence has been reduced, and again in July 2008 saying the same. But so what? In July of 2007 the surge hadn't worked! That summer was the deadliest one of the war.
Obama's assessment changed with the changing conditions -- what a surprise! Maybe his prediction was in error. But there's no flip-flop here at all.
The documentary also quotes Obama in April of 2006 demanding a flexible phased withdrawal plan, but saying that "a hard and fast arbitrary deadline for withdrawal" offers commanders "insufficient flexibility" to implement such a plan. But this plan never materialized, so he eventually called for a timetable.
Yes, Obama's position was nuanced at that time. Did Dem primary politics have something to do with him hardening on the timetable? Sure, why not. But again, things changed. It became more and more apparent that we were never leaving under Bush. It's hardly surprising that he -- like many other Dems -- would, after waiting and waiting and waiting in vain for the actual commander in chief to produce a plan, finally throw up his hands and insist on a hard and fast date.
Those are the first three key charges. Feel free to de-construct the rest.
Good Job Greg. It was a defense lawyers dream, nevertheless appreciate taking time to put the pointing across.
July 17, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean the point across...EDIT option where are you?
July 17, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no thanks. I've got a root canal to get to.
You are made of stern stuff, Greg. I couldn't get past the first minute and a half.
July 17, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks. I think I'll go drown myself in a martini now.
July 17, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great news!!! For Tanqueray!!!
July 17, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly, if the surge has solved the sectarian violence, then we can get out of Iraq.
Of course, the surge hasn't solved the problem... it has made it worse. The alliance of convenience with Sunni militias has promoted tribalism and empowered regional warlords. Consequently, the possibility of a unified Iraqi state is more remote than it ever has been.
July 17, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't one important point about the timetable is that Obama says withdrawal will start in Jan 200, but McCain doesn't even have a timetable, or a time when withdrawal will start. Obama just wants flexibility on how fast, and exactly what and who would be left behind at the end.
McCain has just failed to state what the mission is going to be: what is winning? Obama has set some kind of a new definition for that, something not perfect, but not a continuing danger to the US.
July 17, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You took one for the team, Greg.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
July 17, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh god i need a nap now.
July 17, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic -- can you review the Kerry/Iraq documentary now and pick a favorite: http://www.archive.org/details/gwb_iraq
That one's only a few minutes longer, and I believe it has less obnoxious music and is in chronological order so it might be more bearable.
July 17, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks you for watching and deconstructing, so we (I) don't have to.
I wonder if any of the sound bites will be/are included in the list of talking points for the McCain trolls...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/a-grim-fairy-tale-the-tro_b_113326.html
July 17, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
just watched the whole thing.
let me just say i hope McDouche Bag spent a ton of cash.
first of all, it's not even clear from his cherry picked clips that obama's even contradicting himself.
meanwhile, it's out of order chronologically, gets a little boring and features obama saying over and over again how we wants to bring the troops home.
i liked it and think it will convince anyone with a rationale mind that obama's the candidate.
McLame doesn't even appear in it, which is probably wise because his best scripted appearance is still more painful to watch than obama clips.
keep it up McDouche.
July 17, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's as if McDumbAss doesn't realize this is an unpopular war.
July 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't yet, go to the McCain site and vote for the best poster submitted by the faithful. There are so many wonderfully bad ones, it's really hard to choose...
July 17, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG!!! Half of them are riffs of Obama's slogans, the other half make McCain look positively fossilized!
July 17, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question of whether the Surge worked is a complex one. On the one hand, it may have reduced violence in the region, but for how long, and under what circumstances? Is it a game of Whack-a-Mole, or is it a genuine solution. I think the fact is that Obama probably realizes, like anyone who really looks at the dynamics of Iraq and its neighbors, that violence can only have a temporary effect.
Can this reduction of violence empower an Iraqi government enough to take charge, as it's stated goal was, or is it simply a good campaign issue for McCain to falsely brag about and try to create a muddied picture of Obama's position? Moreover, is the real tension in the region really mitigated because we sent a few more brigades of guns and bodies into the fray?
The hearts and minds of insurgencies are not beaten by guns, and the fact is that anti-American and anti-Western sentiment are on the rise in the Middle East, in part because of Bush's misbegotten war and the way it has been used as an imperialist tool, bets the question of whether the Surge has been effective - and if so, effective at what and for how long?
We should not forget that many people in the Muslim world have long memories, and there have been centuries of tensions and meddling from the Western, Christian nations, and more recently, involvement in the past six decades has been intensified by European and American interests.
Because Obama deals with nuance and more than one meaning at a time, it's possible for McCain to mischaracterize his positions in such a way that uncritical audiences will not see the differences. It takes a bit of thought to see through the obvious meaning of any event when it comes to this administration, but I'm sure McCain doesn't want us to look deeply, and I'm equally sure that Obama does.
Thanks, Greg, for not being one of those people who can't see the nuance.
July 17, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody knows if the surge has been successful until we fall back to the number of troops who were in Iraq before the surge. For the surge to be proven successful, we need to pull out our soldiers at least to the pre-surge level. So I'm not sure that Obama was wrong on this, we're yet to really find that out. What is true though is the terrorists have gained in strength and organization in Afghanastan and Pakistan while the surge has been going on in Iraq...we are still not safe from the real threat to our country. So I think we have to factor in that when deciding if the surge was a success. If the surge enabled the terrorists to organize against us, then it wasn't a success, it was a terrible military strategy.
July 17, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's disturbing that the MSM has ignored three key point with regard to the "surge":
1. It is possible the possible that the violence would have decreased regardless. Most of the people fighting each other were dead before the surge started. It was bound to wane for that reason aloen. Correlation does not prove causality—the first rule of science.
2. Leaving Iraq may have caused an equal or better result—we have no way of knowing.
3. More than anything else, though, paying the sunni awakening to do our bidding was no doubt the primary reason for the decrease in violence. We could have done that without any surge.
Obama needs to speak the truth and stop pandering to the idea that the surge has "worked." I don't think there is any real evidence to that effect when one considers al the variables.
July 17, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: #3
From the Weekly Std, dated April 30, 2007:
http://tinyurl.com/3db4hs
"...The process in standing up the Anbar Salvation Council, a group of local tribes and former insurgents opposed to al Qaeda's harsh brand of Taliban-like sharia law, has been ongoing since the summer of 2006..."
MFIraq still has two infantry brigades to deploy in support of the Baghdad Security Plan. Three have already deployed, and the fourth...was reported to have entered Iraq in mid April..
..General Petraeus and the Iraqi government have made some positive moves in the ten weeks since the kickoff of the Baghdad security Plan...
So 9 months before the "surge", as noted here, there were already signs the Anbar Awakening was having positive results. Even with the LONG time it took Bush/Pentagon to ramp up, the Anbar pre-surge was working out in what was once THE most dangerous parts of Iraq.
Also, to add a #4, it is noted in the link that the Baghdad security plan included building 12ft high separation walls between districts to stem the bloodletting - certainly a factor. Kind of a #4b, the ethnic separation of Shia and Sunni districts was already taking hold and must be considered another big factor in the result - even today.
July 17, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
you watched the whole thing ???
WE GOT A 2319 HERE
DECONTAMINATION TEAM
WE GOT A 2319
Dude, You're makin it worse
July 18, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that crediting the changed situation solely to the surge is extremely simplistic. Heretic listed some of the other factors and I would add the increased segregation of Iraqi neighborhoods, a segregation enforced in some cases by concrete walls, and the truce with the Mahdi army. The Commander before Petraeus didn't request additional troops and Colin Powell said at the time that he didn't see how it would help, that you couldn't secure Baghdad with 500,000.
One problem that Senator Obama faces is that he doesn't want to say anything that can be spun as devaluing the contribution of our troops. That said, I do think he needs to start attacking Senator McCain's simplistic analysis of the surge.
July 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink