McCain: The Surge Began Before The Surge
July 23rd, 2008, 5:56 PM EDT
John McCain is denying that he made a mistake when he stated to Katie Couric that the Anbar awakening occurred as a result of the surge.
He told reporters during an unscheduled stop in a super market that, what the Bush administration calls “the surge” was actually “made up of a number of components,” some of which began before the president’s order for more troops.
Funny, I thought the surge was a surge in the number of troops.
Hey, some good petitions for the signing:
http://www.grassfire.org/
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
these guys are used to changing statements and flat-out lying and getting away with it.
i’m SO sick of it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
You know, “these guys” have been running our country for the last eight years. If the dems put up someone who could win maybe “these guys” wouldn’t have to run the country.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
The last “8″ years??? It’s been at least 28 years.
The Republicans controlled most of Congress for most of Clinton’s time in office.
And folks wonder why young people are disillusioned…
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
LV: keep it on-topic, huh?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
A republican surrogate on the Newshour remarked in passing that Bush implemented McCain’s strategy in ordering up the surge.
And, you know, it’s funny if it’s true, and it’s just as funny even if it isn’t true.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
dark funny
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You guys are such fools the way you hyper-parse statements and avoid all the facts surrounding them.
The surge did come in stages as any major change of doctrine does.
The Marines went into Anbar before the level of troops were increased. The Marines worked on the relationships with the Sheiyks and assured them that the Left in this country wouldn’t prevent the American military from standing with the Sheiyks as they began their counter-offensive against Al Qaeda.
You people are petty and ill informed.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Obama is under scrutiny while he’s out of the country to see if he slips up. Good thing McCain is allowed to bray like an ass as usual…
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Grace us with your vast and holy knowledge, Vinnie Pee the Scourge of Islam…
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
The rethinking that led to the surge happened nearly a year before the surge plan was even announced
These are some excerpts from a great article which details how Bush came to the surge decision.. a decision that McCain had a role in jumpstarting.
That’s good judgement. Not Obama’s (paraphrase) “I oppose the surge because of political factors and dont care what hte consequences of our leaving would be”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/658dwgrn.asp
On February 22, 2006, the golden dome of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest Shia mosques in Iraq, was bombed. That single act of violence would change everything. For several weeks, Iraqi Shia and their militias didn’t react, and Bush and his advisers thought they’d dodged a bullet.
Then in April, violence exploded with a fury unseen in Iraq in the nearly three years since American troops had deposed Saddam Hussein. Shia militias hadn’t responded to earlier al Qaeda and Sunni provocations. But now they erupted in a killing spree. Shia death squads slaughtered thousands of Sunnis. Baghdad became a free fire zone. Iraq was on the verge of an all-out civil war.
At the White House, officials began to question the military strategy in Iraq and the assumptions behind it. American forces had been pursuing a “small footprint.” Its rationale was that Americans were an occupying force whose presence stoked the Iraqi insurgency. So the strategy was to keep U.S. troops out of Iraqi neighborhoods as much as practicable. They were camped instead in large installations, mostly outside Baghdad, and deployed on missions to destroy al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents.
There was another crucial assumption shared by American military leaders: Iraqis had to step up first. Violence wouldn’t subside until the new Iraqi government took tangible steps toward reconciliation between Sunnis and Shia. Reconciliation was a precondition for security. And while the American military could train and equip an Iraqi army, it couldn’t win the war. If Bush was skeptical of the small footprint, he never expressed it. He accepted the assurance of his commanders that the strategy was working–until Samarra.
After the bombing, NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren’t alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy–but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad. But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy.
…
To stimulate fresh consideration of Iraq strategy, the NSC staff organized a panel of experts to address the president and his war cabinet at Camp David in mid-June. The two-day meeting at the presidential retreat loomed as a potential turning point in the Bush administration’s approach to Iraq.
The four-man panel wasn’t stacked. Kagan spoke in favor of additional troops and outlined his plan for pacifying Baghdad with a “clear, hold, and build” strategy. American soldiers, along with Iraqi troops, would do the holding, living in Baghdad and guarding its citizens, Sunni and Shia alike. Robert Kaplan, the foreign correspondent and military writer now teaching at the Naval Academy, talked about successful counterinsurgency campaigns in the past. (Kaplan’s books are among Bush’s favorites.) Kaplan neither advocated a troop buildup nor opposed it.
Countering Kagan, Michael Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operations officer, explained how Iraq could actually be won with fewer troops, not more. Vickers is now an assistant secretary of defense. The fourth panelist was Eliot Cohen, now a State Department adviser. Bush had read his book on wartime leadership, Supreme Command. Cohen reemphasized its theme: Leaders should hold their generals accountable if a war is being lost or won.
Bush’s reaction to the panel offered no hint of his thinking. After the first day’s session, he secretly flew to Iraq to attend the inauguration of Maliki’s government. Bush’s advisers, still at Camp David and expecting to see him in person, were surprised when he spoke to them by teleconference from Baghdad.
…
In the NSC’s inner circle, Bush’s partiality was clear. He liked option two, what later became known as the “surge.” He got plenty of reinforcement for that position. Hadley and Crouch traveled to Iraq in late October and early November: Hadley to talk to political leaders, Crouch to spend time with military units. On his return, Hadley sent a memo to Bush and his war cabinet that criticized Maliki, but also pointedly hinted at a surge of additional troops in Iraq. The memo was leaked to the New York Times.
…
Crouch visited Anbar and found what O’Sullivan and others had also discovered in Iraq: American soldiers were now welcomed. Anbar, once controlled by Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq, had turned. The Sunnis had revolted against their al Qaeda allies and joined forces with Americans. With more troops, U.S. officers said they could gain control of the entire Anbar region.
On November 30, the day after Hadley’s memo became public, Bush met with Maliki in Amman, Jordan. He had “a couple of important factors” to work out before committing to a surge. “One was, would I have a partner to deal with in the prime minister of Iraq,” Bush said. “I went out to the region to have a little sit-down with him, to get a sense of his intensity in dealing with killers, whether they be Sunni or Shia. In other words, there had to be Iraqi buy-in to any new strategy in order for it to be effective.”
The second issue was whether the Iraqi troops would participate in a surge and perform better than they had in Together Forward I and II. Maliki claimed the Iraqi army could handle the job of securing Baghdad alone. His attitude, the president said, was, “We need you there for a while, we can do this, we’ll take care of it.” But “after the meeting, General Casey said they can’t.” Bush believed Casey.
It was weeks before Bush got satisfaction from Maliki on the two points, weeks that included numerous phone conversations and talks by teleconference. Finally, in a speech four days before Bush announced the surge, Maliki gave public assurances that Iraqi troops would be fully engaged in pacifying Baghdad and would act in a nonsectarian manner.
In Washington, the president got little satisfaction from the interagency review of Iraq policy. Instead of a surge, the State Department favored a strategy of pulling troops out of Baghdad and allowing the Sunnis and Shia to finish their bloody struggle. When Bush heard about this idea, he rejected it out of hand. “I don’t believe you can have political reconciliation if your capital city is burning,” he said.
…
On December 11, Bush had five military experts to the Oval Office to talk about the Iraq war. Keane, a friend of Cheney but almost unknown to Bush, made the strongest impression, arguing that “train and leave” wasn’t a strategy for winning. He laid out a case for the surge, reinforcing Bush’s strong inclination. Retired generals Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey opposed the surge. (McCaffrey later changed his mind.) Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Democrat, criticized the gradual retreat urged by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. And Eliot Cohen talked about civil-military aspects of the Iraq war and said Bush should talk to younger officers, not just the generals.
…
Bush was originally scheduled to deliver a nationally televised speech on Iraq the second week in December, a day or so after the Tank session. But the president wasn’t ready. He wanted to give Gates time to visit Iraq. And a key decision–about sending troops to Anbar, home of the Sunni Awakening–was still to be made. The speech was put off until after New Year’s.
When Gates returned from Iraq just before Christmas, he brought Casey’s recommendation for a surge of one or two brigades–a mini-surge. Bush felt that wouldn’t work. He had agreed with Hadley and Crouch that Anbar was an opportunity worth seizing. He didn’t want to “piecemeal the operation” by tackling the province later. Once he’d “made the decision to cleanse Anbar and settle down Baghdad at the same time,” Bush said, it had to be five brigades.
…
Though he was replacing Casey and jettisoning his strategy, the president didn’t want to embarrass him. Bush admires Casey and rejects the Lincoln analogy: that like President Lincoln he fired generals until he found one who would win the war. When I raised the analogy, Bush interrupted. “McClellan and Casey,” he said. “That’s not accurate.” Lincoln fired General George McClellan and ultimately made Ulysses Grant his top commander. According to the analogy, Petraeus is Bush’s Grant. “I wouldn’t go there,” Bush told me. He promoted Casey to Army chief of staff.
The Petraeus factor strengthened Hadley’s hand in working on Bush’s speech. Words matter in presidential addresses, even a single word. The Pentagon wanted Bush to announce a surge of “up to” five brigades. Hadley urged the president to be more specific and forceful. Bush agreed and said he was “committed” to sending five brigades.
And if a question lingered about his intentions on Anbar, Bush answered it in his speech. “I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops,” he declared
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Alan: It’s pretty irresponsible for you to be so uninformed about these matters as you are a person of great public prominance.
Your goal should be the truth, not your lame-ass political agenda.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I saw this thread an hour ago, but it’s taken me that long to scroll down the page past that dissertation posted by another commenter.
Now that I’ve finally reached the comment box…
McCain should really hang it up.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I restrained myself from posting one of many insults I was thinking of typing but changed my mind.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Knock yourself out, Vince. It only matters to you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
LOL!
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Vinnie, have you ever considered writing a book? Make that a novel.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Sky, I was here first so I set the topic…thrrrrppppppp
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Only the dead will see the end of war! Not my words that was Plato…..
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
In the past I wrote about how Muslims are under a mandate to subjugate Non Muslims and then offer then these choices
- Convert to Islam and be treated equally
- If one is a Christian, Jew or Hindu, agree to pay the Jizya and live as a dhimmi. Dhimmitude is the condition of living under barabaric sharia law as a Non-Muslim and under many horrible conditions and with essentially no rights.
- Be killed
Here it is in the world today:
MANILA, Philippines (CNS) — A bishop in the southern Philippines reported receiving a letter threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”
Bishop Martin Jumoad of Isabela also told the Asian church news agency UCA News that he got text messages from Catholics saying they, too, had received threatening letters.
Bishop Jumoad said a student of Claret College in Isabela, the capital of Basilan province, was told to give the school secretary the letter to pass to the bishop.
The bishop sent a copy of the letter July 19 to church-run Radio Veritas in Quezon City, northeast of Manila.
The letter had the names “Puruji Indama” and “Nur Hassan J. Kallitut” printed at the bottom and “mujahedin” under each name. The purported senders introduced themselves as “Muslim warriors” who “don’t follow any laws other than the Quran,” Islam’s holy book.
They said Bishop Jumoad should choose to convert to Islam or give “jizya,” Islamic tax, to their group in exchange for protecting him in the “place of Muslims.”
If he refuses to convert or pay, the letter threatened “force, weapons or war may be used” against him. It warned him not to feel safe even if he is “surrounded by soldiers” and cited bombings in various cities.
Bishop Jumoad was given 15 days to respond, with two mobile phone numbers to contact.
“If we do not receive response from you, it means you will oppose,” the letter added.
A document written in the local dialect on the letterhead of “Al-Harakatul Islamiyya” accompanied the letter. The bishop said he did not recognize the names, but has encountered the phrase “Al-Harakatul” in kidnapping incidents in Basilan involving Abu Sayyaf, a guerrilla group named as a terrorist organization by various countries.
On July 21, CBCP News, the online news site of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, reported the kidnapping of five parishioners of St. Vincent Ferrer Parish in Sumisip.
St. Vincent Ferrer is among nine parishes of Isabela prelature, which covers all of Basilan, where 96,000 Catholics form 30 percent of the population. Except for the city of Isabela, the rest of the province belongs to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
On July 22, provincial administrator Talib A. Barahim told UCA News that no one had reported receiving a ransom demand for the release of the parishioners. He said Gov. Jum Akbar of Basilan, the provincial police director and Basilan mayors met the previous day and planned to make a “citizen’s arrest.”
He added that he was aware of the threatening letters sent to Bishop Jumoad and other Catholics.
In Manila July 21, Hamid Barra, Muslim convener of the Bishops-Ulama Conference, said that according to the teachings of Islam, life is sacred. He recited a verse from the Quran that says whoever kills a person without justification kills all people.
====
Notice the lie at the end of the story. The Quran allows Muslims to tell lies to Non-Muslims if the lie is to advance the cause of Allah.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Let me put my Canadian logic in here….*cough cough*
McGaff, proud new name, covering a lie with lies. History has showed how the Sheiks ask for help and with existing troops, they dealt with the terrorists. Never heard talk of “SURGE” then and for the following months.
Nobody has any idea that Bush wanted a troop increase in Iraq. Hell I bet someone told him “Hey ya know, maybe if we send more troops there, just for Baghdad tho” Bush replied ” Ya, good idea there!!”
So, many months AFTER The Awakening….January 07…The announcement of DA SURGE!!!Dunnhh Dunnnnnhh.
Obama voted against it, FACT! MaGaff voted for, also freaking FACT!!!! He (McLame) never hinted of A SURGE already been active in August 06…
Simply Folks, In An bar, it was just a good mission to do, I agree with it…the moment some Sheiks asked for support, McFarSomething (too lazy to look him up, lol) grabbed some troops and went there for a real good counter-insurgence mission!!!Good move there Commander!!
So how the old senile, not to mention lunatic, can make us believe it was A FREAKING SURGE of their doing?? When IT was THAT COMMANDER expertise and the troops DOING the work that save the freaking thing ENTIRELY!!!They just want him to look more experienced in that stuff…then say Obama KNOWS shit.
And by the way, Obama is the CAUSE of the GAS PRICES!!! LOLOL….sorry, gut pain …laughing hard!!
How much more BULLSHIT you need, McCain voters? Are you so gullible or too well brain washed to see what the fuck is wrong with this picture???
Or is it just a racial thing?
You can’t get yourself to vote for Obama cause of…
1)He’s black… ?? Color matters?? His beliefs are pleasing to me. Pubs are banking next generations to occupy a country after showing the way to Iraq how to police their land of shit disturbers.
Enemy is push back into The Afghans, got the Road Runners!! Looking at Uncle Sam big freaking war machine, ” I like ya Allah, but that is freaking big steal slugs coming at us, Yes ALLAH, I know , we’ll regroup in there..we got caves!!!!”
Need troops in there too. Let’s finish the job for good. That’s where Obama is telling us ,” The war is there!!” So …inexperienced ..hmmm Sounds pretty realistic, I’d say!!! They want to play politics instead of getting their asses in gear and go where the militants are…SO logical to me.
So…wake people…please!!! If you don’t want to think for yourself…think for others…
TC
Thank God I’m Canadian!!
July 24th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Scroll up , idiot Candian.. the whole time line for the surge is up there.
Not your invented scenerio.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Vince P,
These liberal “freaks of tolerence” witnessed 911 on television. Most of those who died were adults, but young children were in the daycare centers within those towers, and on the aircraft these Saudi Arabian dirtbags used to murder. Amadinejahd himself has been shown on film involved in terrorist kidnappings of Americans, yet “tolerance” allowed this pile of human waste to come within our borders to address the world with Muslim lies. He should have been arrested by our military as soon as his stinking feet hit the tarmac. However, regardless of the proof Vince, even when it’s stareing them in the face, these pinheads of the lunatic fringe will continue to wallow in their tolerant ignorance because they’re the ones terrorism has truly injected with fear. Tolerence is the liberal spin these liberal cowards use to camoflauge their cowardise. They’re willing to bet our nations leadership on it. See how nice and tolerant we Americans truly are? Why, we’re even willing to let a Muslim lead our country.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Vince P,
If we continue to allow tolerence to blind us, then all our brave soldiers who have fought and died in all the wars of this great nation from its humble beginnigs, will truly have been lost in vain.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am
There’s a great video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R6gcbC9Hz4
It goes into what led a lot of the Far Left in the 60s/70s to Radicalize and join groups like Weather Underground.
And how Obama’s campaign mirrors the motifs.
One notable thing is how these Lefties admitted they were consummed and driven by their hate.. The same hate we see from the Lefties here.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Vince P,
Muslims throughout the world (which includes those who live here in America) are very clear about their intentions regarding Israel and America. Their admitted hatred for “all infidels”, and their cowardly acts of sensless murder throughout world history, should leave no doubt in those of sound minds. The cowards who murdered all of those on 911 were Saudis’. Our elected officials ignored the ones legally responsible for the murder of it’s own citizens, and continue to do so by ignoring the security of our borders. Tolerant liberal thinking clouds the minds of many, but not all. Elect officials willing to protect us and our loved ones from those we know are a direct threat. Let’s rid ourselves of the cowardly tolerent already elected.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Vince P,
The ones within this blog (we know who) promoting this tolerent hype will undoubtedly accuse me of hate speech. The spinsters are busy aquiring their spineless spin from their base of twisted knowledge known as YOUTUBE. The epitomy of twisted thinking, supporting theory from fact, lies from truth, and tolerance from logic. So get ready Vince. How about some support from our other fearless sound minded conservatives?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Obama is for rebuilding this country, not McGaff! Repub are for, and only for, big corporations.
US people are sick of the same garbage from the Repub, well at least the ones with a brain to think for the welfare of their families.
I just look at the crowd when town hall meeting occurs. Guess what? it’s mostly old folks, afraid to changes. They so used to get fucked by the government that they can’t see any other options then keep getting fuck by the same assholes with the same freaking agendas.
Now look at Obama crowd, it’s young, hoping for changes that will make their future shine so freaking bright , ya gonna need sunglasses to see it.
The old are on the way out, the young is the future. So that’s why the next President of The United States will be Obama.
I know it in my heart, I see it every time I see an Obama gathering. I’ve talked to politicians in my home town, men and women in Canadian politics that are unanimous about 1 thing.
The world will be wayyyyy better with Obama as the President. Period.
And they have years of experiences among them, why do you thing that we are in Afghanistan and not Iraq? We’re fighting for the same fucking goal BUT in the right place.
Bush and his gang went to Iraq under false pretensions and lied to their own people about it. What do you call that??? A faux pas? LOL, give your head a shake, Vince…come down to Earth….
TC
Thank God I’m Canadian!!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I just got to say thank you to Alan for finally mentioning that CBS covered up McCain’s Anbar Awakening falsehood. I’ve been waiting for one of the FOX News show hosts to bring it up for discussion but I haven’t heard it mentioned. They mentioned Couric’s questions to Obama on the surge ad nauseum but not the lie McCain told her about something he should know about (if, as so many say, his strongest point is his knowledge on foreign affairs).
July 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Tom Cody,
We (conservatives) might consider cutting you some slack. It’s warmer here south of the border. The cold has less an effect on our liberal counterparts. Get the point?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Tom Cody:
Just ignore the neocons. You can’t reason with them as “they are right and everybody else is wrong”. However, they’re great a personal attacks lacking substance.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
LOL at TDro not knowing what a neocon is.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I just listened to the liberals GOD OBAMA. Spoken like the antichrist described in scripture, ignorant of the scriptural truth he (Obama) himself says he believes as the believer in Christ which he pretends to be. I’m disgusted in my fellow Americans who flock to this trash talker as though he were the “new messiah”.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
TDro,
Advice spoken like the defeated liberal that you are. Unable to take what you yourself dish out.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Once again, the neocons have nothing intelligent to add, just more RW rhetoric and personal attacks. How sad.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Isn’t it funny to imagine if Barack Obama was EXACTLY the same as he is now, but a Republican:
~ It would be DISGRACEFUL to use his middle name!
~He would be a good Christian man who is despised by commie libs who HATE people of faith.
~ He and his beautiful and intelligent wife came from humble beginings and PULLED themselves up by their OWN bootstraps! They embody the American dream!
~ Anyone who doesn’t vote for him is a racist but the “Democrat party IS the party of racists!
July 24th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I can’t wait for November…truly…I can’t wait to rub it in their Republican faces. Defeat will suit them soooo well. American people will voice their choice and it’s going to be “Thanks, McCain but no thanks”
So Vince Pee and Con-Artist(Conservative) bore us with whatever comments you want, I don’t freaking care cause I know the real man will win in Nov. So you 2 can go with McGaff to his defeat party and cry in loser’s towels.
That day, I will be here and I will let you know how freaking happy I am that you lost your election and a real leader is in place.
The future of the Great United States will be in good hands with Obama. So my neighbors from the South, be patience, salvation is coming to you, it will require lots of work to undo all the freaking crap the Repubs did to your country but it feasible.
You all are in my prayers…
TC
Thank God I’m Canadian!!
July 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
TDro,
A personal attack would mean I have knowledge of who you are? I don’t, and have no wish to know you. So please don’t take it personally. Huh?
July 24th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
TDro,
Have you noticed anything? I’m correcting my punctuation to help with your reading skills! You’re welcome!
July 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
TDro,
BUT! Now that you’ve mentioned my responses as a personal attack. Maybe I’ve nailed it? Are you feeling a tad guilty? No, surely not Big Bad TDro.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Tom Cody,
Canadian logic? I thought most Canadians were liberals?
July 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Canadians have turned into entitlement seekers like most of Europe.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Conservative:
Good luck with your seering hatred.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:02 pm