John McCain's phoniness: The Gift that Keeps on Giving

John McCain, who earlier this week wagged his finger at Barack Obama for not knowing enough about Iraq to be president because he hadn't been there since 2006, continues to show how little he knows about Iraq.

Confusing Sunnis and Shiias was bad enough, even if you give him the maximum benefit of the doubt. And then there was this...

Speaking about Iraq at a townhall event on Thursday evening in Greensdale, Wisconsin, Sen. John McCain declared, "I can tell you that it is succeeding. 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 and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks..." (Video is below.)

McCain was wrong on two points. First, U.S. forces have not returned to pre-surge levels. Before the surge, there were 130,000 troops in Iraq; even if the scheduled troop reductions are carried out as planned, there will still be 140,000 troops in Iraq in August.

Moreover, McCain's claim that Mosul is "quiet" was disproved earlier today in grim fashion. Three suicide bombings -- two in Mosul and another in a surrounding town -- left 30 Iraqis dead and more than two dozen injured, according to press reports.

Seriously, is this guy even electable?

Obama hit back hard today:

"There are honest differences about how to move forward in Iraq, just like there were honest differences about whether or not we should go to war," Obama is supposed to say. "John McCain was for the invasion of Iraq; I opposed it. John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s war in Iraq indefinitely; I want to end it. So there’s going to be a clear choice for the American people this November."

"But that’s not what John McCain’s been talking about the last few days. He’s been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that’s nothing more than a political stunt. He’s even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Sen. McCain’s a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday – in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy – he stood up in Wisconsin and said, 'We have drawn down to pre-surge levels' in Iraq."

"That’s not true, and anyone running for commander-in-chief should know better. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We’ve got around 150,000 troops in Iraq -- 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer -- that’s still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Sen. McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to 'nitpicking.'"

 

Yeah ... let me know when Obama gets the numbers of U.S. states right or the timeline of when his parents met.

 

Yes, because that's roughly equivalent to troop numbers, Sunni/Shi'a and the name of the actual Iranian leader.

Try harder.

 

Wow, that's a pretty weak effort for you hondo.

Or perhaps it's simply indefensible.

At the very, very worst, Obama exaggerated a story about how his parents met. And if you really believe Obama doesn't know how many states there are, you're stupid.

McCain repeatedly shows that his bluster and showmanship on Iraq and the Middle East is far greater than his actual knowledge of the issues. In this time, with these issues on the table, that's simply not good enough.

 

I am very seriously considering voting for Obama, but his plan to remove one to two brigades from Iraq per month -- and have all who are going to be removed gone by 16 months is too fast. Our logistical systems can't move the equipment that quickly, for one. Turnover can't be made to the Iraqi Army that fast (hell, they only have one MEDEVAC aircraft, two flight medics and they only fly on Wednesdays).

 

Watch this clip. No, really. Watch it. I think he's making a little joke. I think anyone with a brain would agree. You know, a joke? Like when McCain sang about bombing Iran?

 

Yeah since John McCain has a son fighting in Iraq versus Obama having - well no military experience at all - I can see where certain people on THIS BOARD would delude themselves into thinking that Obama had the better handle on the situation.

Rock on morons!

 

By your logic, then, perhaps we should instead appoint as president a father who fought in Vietnam, has two sons who fought in Iraq, has a father who fought in World War II, had a grandpappy who fought in World War I and has a fourth-grade education. Since that's the only qualification, I mean.

 

Pre-surge levels in all of Iraq or those three cities?

 

I expressed this sentiment on another thread, and it's worthy of a repeat here: McCain's insistence that he could "educate" Obama on Iraq should blow the logic circuits of every American with an IQ above that of a radish.

And some posters here are obviously nowhere near the produce section.

 

No level of parsing could deduce he meant anything but all of Iraq.