Apparently, it's not enough that the Prime Minister of Iraq said that Obama's withdrawal timetable was the right one. Al-Maliki was either misquoted, or is lying because he's up for re-election, depending on which BushCo sycophant you listen to.
The press has latched onto a narrative that McCain is more trustworthy on foreign policy issues, and they're not going to give it up, even in the face of, um, well, evidence to the contrary.
Even if you don't care that, in an area of the world where which sect you belong to is a matter of life and death, McCain can't be bothered to get it straight which dudes are the Sunnis, and which are the Shi'ites, there is now the little matter of McCain babbling on national television about trouble along the Pakistan-Iraq border:
Um, wait a minute. The which border?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
But listen to this story from Morning Edition, in which there is a rather uncomfortable exchange between reporter Juan Williams and host Steve Inskeep. Williams attempts to tip-toe around the issue of exactly who thinks that McCain is more capable than Obama on foreign policy, calling them "blue-collar voters in swing states," who expressed during the primary process that they have trouble "trusting" Obama when it comes to representing their interests abroad. And Inskeep says, "do you mean white working-class voters, as it was often put during the campaign?" And Williams responds "You're so blunt, Steve."
He doesn't know from blunt.
I would say that according to certain redneck portions of the voting population, Obama might be good enough to clean the house, but they're certainly not going to give him the keys to car. He can't be trusted with it, and besides, the neighbors might see.
How's that? Blunt enough for ya?
Holy shit, readers, I can't hardly believe it myself, but it appears that John "voters trust me on national security" McCain has once again proven his ignorance about the war in Iraq, and this one definitely cannot be explained away as any kind of misstatement.
McCain has stated that he believes that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrror, and yet in a CBS interview with Katie Couric, he attributed the Anbar Awakening (in which Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar Province turned against the insurgency and began to fight al-Qaeda instead), to "the surge" of US troops, when in fact the Awakening began, and was reported in the press, months before the surge was even proposed.
Holy fucking balls, readers. Even I knew that. Even I knew that the Awakening began before the surge. And you'd think that someone who believed that Iraq was the central front of the war on terror would've known it too.
But wait, there's more.
The Sunni sheik, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, that McCain said was successfully protected by the surge and then went on to lead the Awakening, actually was killed during the surge because he had been a leader in the Awakening. McCain said "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."
And then some genius McCain campaign spokesperson, refusing to back down from the senator's mistaken assertion, said "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda."
Wow, so the McCain campaign is blaming the possible future Obama administration for a murder that took place in September of 2007? That's a unique strategy. I wonder if the press will go for it?
Ah, but the best part is that, in the original airing of the interview with Couric, her question to McCain that prompted his wrongity-wrong-wrong response was left in, but McCain's response itself was edited out by CBS and the answer to another question was substituted in its place.
Odd behavior for a press supposedly in love with Obama, ain't it?
So what is the response today from the McCain campaign? They boldly and unflinchingly canceled their weekly press conference, pulled down the shutters, and pretended to not be at home.
Awesome. Way to go, Maverick.