McCain claimed Iran is training al Qaeda

John McCain put his foot in his mouth in Amman, Jordan this week by asserting that Iran is training al Qaeda:

"Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known and it's unfortunate," McCain said.

Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, traveling with McCain on a swing through the Middle East and Europe, whispered in his ear and McCain quickly corrected himself.

"I'm sorry; the Iranians are training the extremists, not al Qaeda. Not al Qaeda. I'm sorry," McCain said. [Reuters]

McCain's defenders argue that he simply said "al Qaeda," when he really meant to say "the extremists." But if it was just a slip of the tongue, why did Joe Lieberman have to prompt him?

This is a major gaffe for McCain, who has been touting his alleged foreign policy experience on the campaign trail. 

If we want to restore America's prestige in the world, let's start by electing someone who won't cause an international incident every time he opens his or her mouth.

As an aside, am I the only one who is disturbed by the fact that "foreign policy experience" is a euphemism for war-related-experience? 

Trade, finance, and global environmental issues are at least as important to America's foreign policy as military affairs. Yet, somehow, expertise on international cooperation is seldom counted as experience in foreign policy.

Comments

[parse]

Lindsay, the story you link to identifies the source of McCain's foreign policy experience as the extensive traveling he has done, the relationships he's forged with various political leaders in the many countries he has visited and his "passion" for keeping "up to speed on the politics and policies of many nations." "Foreign policy experience" is not used as a euphemism for war-related experience, and McCain's "military resume" is mentioned as something different than his foreign policy experience.

Can you give some examples of what you mean when you say that "foreign policy experience" is a euphemism for war-related-experience.

[El Cid]

The problem is that for McCain's supporters, they not only don't care whether or not such allegations are true, they support any rhetoric which might lead to a war with Iran, so any "gaffe" is actually what they actually desire.

Given that you've got the CNN idiots regularly repeating that McCain is "well known as a foreign policy expert", it doesn't matter.

As long as Big Journalism's highest task is to kiss McCain's ass, what we see as errors are simply his outreach program for the warhawk nutbags.

[DefJef]

McCain appears to have some brain / cogitation problems.

He may be in the early stages of senility.

[Dabodius]

With John Kerry, a younger McCain did play a leading role in normalizing relations with Vietnam. But their efforts were directed less towards Hanoi than the American public, putting a veterans' face on the normalization and debunking the Rolling Thunder delusion that the Vietnamese still held American POWs.

Then McCain was in the right, refusing to allow RW politics to dictate a continuation of Cold War policy. Now he vaunts hawkery in a GWOT in the hope it will keep the Right in power at home -- the familiar Republican confidence game.

[The Phantom]

El Cid

Who told you that McCain's supporters support a war with Iran?

I'm aware of the stupid "bomb, bomb Iran" remark....but I don't see evidence that he or his principal backers "support war" with Iran.

As loathsome as the Iranian govt has been and will undoubtedly continue to be, I don't see a war with them as being in the cards. For a number of very good reasons.

[DJA]

Can you give some examples of what you mean when you say that "foreign policy experience" is a euphemism for war-related-experience.

Sure -- to find an example of this, you could, for instance, tune into any cable news program or open any newspaper published at any time over the past seven years.

[The Phantom]

DJA

Haw, haw, that's a real knee-slapper!

Ain't buyin' it

[The Phantom]

Actually cannot log onto Cable TV. I have gone off the cable tv grid for now, as a scientific experiment. Most of what little TV I watch now is via the internet.

[parse]

Sure -- to find an example of this, you could, for instance, tune into any cable news program or open any newspaper published at any time over the past seven years.

Obviously this is not literally true, and since the specific article linked to the post provided a counter-example which used "foreign policy experience," but didn't use it as a euphemism for war-related experience, perhaps you could provide a more specific reference as a response.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Lindsay, the story you link to identifies the source of McCain's foreign policy experience as the extensive traveling he has done, the relationships he's forged with various political leaders in the many countries he has visited and his "passion" for keeping "up to speed on the politics and policies of many nations."

The story also shows that for all this traveling and relationships and keeping up to speed, McCain doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to our glorious 100 Years' War in the making in Iraq. Something which both you and Phantom seem desperate to obscure with your ridiculous yes-but-what-aboutery.

[The Phantom]

UK

His gross misstatement of fact about Sunni Al Queda and Shia Iran is shocking.

It is another thing to lunge across the Grand Canyon with the statement that McCain supporters like any rhetoric which may lead to a war with Iran. That's baloney and El Cid knows it.

No one wants a war with Iran that I am aware of. Where's the source of this, besides "Pat Buchanan said on TV once that if McCain is elected, we'll surely be in Tehran the following week"

McCain should talk tough with Iran, as should any candidate. Reagan talked tough with the USSR. Its a necessary tool in the arsenal. Doesn't mean that war's a comin'

[parse]

I don't have any interest in obscuring McCain's egregious misstatement regarding al Qaeda. I think his bellicosity in general and in regard to Iran specifically is asinine and would make him a dangerous president.

Lindsay apparently thinks the use of "foreign policy experience" as a euphemism for war-related-experience is a topic worthy of discussion, since, albeit as an aside, she included it in this post. If you think it's too trivial to mention, you might consider simply not mentioning it.

I amused by the fact that there's already been two answers to my question about the issue, but not a single substantive one. If the usage Lindsay refers to is as ubiquitous as she implies (and DJA claims outright), surely someone can provide examples. My question started out as mildly snarky but mostly sincere--I have to admit that these over-the-top have shifted my interest to mostly snarky and hardly at all sincere.

[Porlock Hussein Junior]

I don't want to harp on that tired old Age Issue, especially for a guy who's not a whole huge lot o years older than I am. But y'know, maybe experiencing the loss of the first few zillion brain cells gives one some insight. So:

Why did he not react to slip like a normal human being? Here are 2 examples:

1. You hear, physically, the words that came out of your mouth, they echo in your head for moment, and you say, "D'oh!! Did I say Al Qaeda? You guys know I meant Shiite terrorists, not Sunni."

2. You fail to hear it (it can happen, even to the non-old), and your friend gives you the nudge. You say to press, "Ouch! Joe tells me I said Al Qaeda. That sure must have sounded dumb. Shiite terrorists, of course. And furthermore..."

Of course McCain is not going to admit to an error as a normal sane person would; but his reactions are those of someone who doesn't know and doesn't much care about getting things right.

Which is no surprise, but the error itself shouldn't overshadow the total wrongness of his approach to information.

[Jim]

Is it just me? Paying huge amounts of tax bucks so a presidential canidate can get air time in a war zone is stupid! If John was in the wrong party would they have taken him over anyway?

[DJA]

Come on, parse. Surely the meme that "Republicans have more credibility on national security because they aren't afraid to start a bunch of wars, unlike those spineless Dems" has not escaped your notice? I understand that this bit of conventional wisdom has been somewhat influential in recent American politics.

[The Phantom]

Jim

There have been lots of leading Democrats over there. John Kerry went there when he was running for President.
Let not your heart be troubled.

[parse]

DJA. how does a spurious claim that Republicans have greater credibility on national security due to a greater willingness to go to war support the claim that foreign policy has become a euphemism for war-related experience?

[DJA]

Parse,

You seem like a bright enough chap, when you're not playing dumb in comments. So I will leave it to you to connect the dots between the significance of the phrases "national security" and "foreign policy" as they are currently used in our national political discourse.

(Hint: the dots are not far apart.)

[Margalis]

What actual foreign policy experience does he have?

His experience is in fighting wars and advocating for more.

His "slip" has been repeated a few times. There are two possibilities:

1. He knows that what he is saying is false and is conflating AQ with Iran to further his anti-Iran agenda.

2. He doesn't really know or care, all the bad guys in the Middle East are basically the same and he doesn't think about it any deeper than that.

We saw the same "slips" for years regarding AQ and Iraq. Tying nations we want to attack to AQ is a way to advance a war agenda.

[Margalis]

"No one wants a war with Iran that I am aware of."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

"The Case for Bombing Iran"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/The-Case-for-Bombing-Iran-10882

That you aren't aware of basic facts says less about those facts than it does about your lack of awareness.

[Dock Miles]

The worst for McCain is this seems like a classic "senior moment," and he's not even close to being president. I appreciate his no-bullshit instincts. But America has to confront the age of his neurons at this crucial time. Even a hero stumbling around in his mind is a nightmare for this era.

[The Phantom]

--What actual foreign policy experience does he have?--

As noted previously, he played a leading role in the US reestablishment of relations with Vietnam. He could have stopped with the lifting of a finger. Instead, he strongly supported moving forward. He has actually been an friendly voice for legitimate Vietnamese interests in the US ( against some protectionist legislation etc ). He has visited Vietnam
which was part of the reconciliation process.

Net gains:

A real people to people friendship has been re-established

The governments have a friendly working relationship (neither trusts China that much, which does not hurt )

Much greater prosperity for Vietnamese people ( I saw it when there in late 2005 )

Greater security in the region

------

If this was is only foreign policy experience, it would dwarf that of Hillary and Obama, combined.

[The Phantom]

Margalis

Please re-read my earlier post...I had mentioned the "bomb Iran" comment today, on this thread, and called it stupid. And I maintain that neither he nor his principal backers support war with that very large country. Stormin' Norman may loom large in your imagination, but mine. I don't see him as a major player, and I do not expect war with Iran.

I guess I should not have used the word "no one". Wow. What a terrif point you made.

--I'm aware of the stupid "bomb, bomb Iran" remark....but I don't see evidence that he or his principal backers "support war" with Iran.--

[The Phantom]

--Stormin' Norman may loom large in your imagination, but not mine--

[Pennant]

"McCain should talk tough with Iran, as should any candidate. Reagan talked tough with the USSR. Its a necessary tool in the arsenal. Doesn't mean that war's a comin'" - Phantom

Well, pre-3/03 most people would have agreed with you, Phantom. Apparently, that's what a lot of Senators now claim they thought was the case when they voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. It was just to flex some muscles while giving the tough talk. We know how that turned out. That's a much more recent and relevant example - against a weaker opponent that's comparable to Iran - than Reagan's tough talk against the USSR, an opponent with military resources that were much closer to par with the USA's.

Next, you might bring up North Korea as another example, and it is a more relevant one. However North Korea claims to be nuclear armed (unlike Iran) and it would be much more tricky to restart the Korean War without China getting in the game than it would be to "teach Iran a lesson" (it's not clear who would really get schooled). I would expect it's also logistically easier to widen the existing Iraq field of operations to include Iran than to fight in two widely separate theaters. The difference is probably large enough that one could get traction with ambitious generals in the Pentagon while another would get insurrection from an Army "close to breaking". If Iran believes that the USA can't support an invasion of their territory though, then the "tough talk" just undermines USA credibility instead of strengthening it.

The Bush administration has repeatedly equivocated or lied to the American people on a range of subjects from Iraq, renditions and torture, through warantless wiretaps, to New Orleans/Katrina to hide failings or pursue personal goals that are not in the USAs best interest. For years now, John McCain has been more of an enabler of those activites than a maverick. That leaves the interpretation of "misstatements" like this more open than was the case for him pre-2000.