CBS Caught Covering Up Major McCain Gaffe

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

McCain Gets History Of The Surge Wrong, CBS Doesn’t Air Footage

During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the “surge” strategy in Iraq. In an interview with anchor Katie Couric, the Arizona Republican said, inaccurately, that the surge strategy was responsible for the much-touted “Anbar Awakening,” in which Sunni sheiks turned against Al Qaeda, helping in turn to reduce violence in the country.

From the JedReport

As you can see, CBS edited out McCain’s historically incorrect answer and replaced it with an answer to a completely different question. Both the Senior Senator and CBS have some explaining to do, such as why can’t MCain answer a simple question with an honest answer and why does the McMedia insist on playing the part of McCain’s press office?  

Now one can see why the New York Times rejected and returned McCain’s Op-Ed with red ink all over it.

19 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    After this he should withdraw in shame if he had anything to do with applying pressure on CBS to sanitize the interview.

    CBS has big explaining to do.

    • Go Blue says:

      is not only the fact that McCain’s campaign is complaining over Obama’s overseas trip coverage as proof of a bias (laughable as that already is), but that McCain has repeatedly distorted history to try and score political points and the media hasn’t done their job in reporting the FACTS, not just McCain’s lies but instead have been sweeping McCain’s “mistakes” under the rug, since the American people do not need to know that a candidate for the most important office in our country doesn’t know simple history less than three years old. Spencer Ackerman said it best. This is completely fucking wrong.

      As for McCain, I must agree with Joe Klein that this is McCain’s Meltdown which makes him unpresidential.

    • BlueCat says:

      CBS pro-Republican cheerleading has been obvious for ages.  Bob Schieffer going apoplectic at Wesley Clark’s completely reasonable comment that being shot down as a fighter pilot doesn’t in and of itself qualify a person to be president is a perfect example.  Suddenly a simple common sense statement became a media feeding frenzy over an “attack” on McCain’s military record. This is nothing new, just a bit more blatant.  

  2. Skyler says:

    This one particularly got to me.

  3. Barron X says:


    short version.

    In June 2004 I was advising Dayton Maxwell, then head of the policy planning office at the Coalition Provisional Authority,

    to reach out to the Sayyid Moqtada al-Sadr, because his ancestry and family history indicated that,

    if he lived,

    he would be the first freely elected leader of the new Iraq.  

    Considering how bad the US-controlled elections in Iraq have been mangled, I stand by that prediction.

    And no, al-Maliki was NOT chosen in the elections; al-Jaafri was.

    I also first offered to implement the “Model Communities” approach to stabilizing Iraq in a formal proposal to the CPA that month.  

    It calls for the authentic indigenous local leaders of small, discrete towns and neighborhoods to be empowered to take charge of, and provide security for, the small communities of which they are the natural or cultural leaders.  


    Aside: When he gave up control of that policy planning office in December 2003, British Colonel Tunnicliffe emailed me to apologize for not advocating more strongly for the culturally sensitive approaches I had explained to him.  He characterized the CPA leadership as nuts in their denial of history and human nature.


    So, anyway, the top strategists for the CPA knew in the first year that the “realist” way to stabilize Iraq was to turn it over to Iraqis,

    rather than maintain an oppressive foreign infidel occupation.  

    But they were willing to let the Iraqi people pay any price so that the US could conduct this idealistic experiment about changing the Middle East.  

    I was persona non grata around those parts as long as the place was run by folks recruited from the American Enterprise Institute, and family members of folks in the Bush Administration.  

    The military folks nominally in charge of military forces in Iraq at that time did not push back at all against the neoconservative dream of a new Iraq that was grateful for our intervention and an ally to Israel, for example, and where women were equal to men.  

    But then, somehow, folks who understood the Arab mind, and the inability of firepower to change hearts and minds, took charge.  

    They were constantly butting heads with the White House Iraq Group, which continued the pipe dream of an Iraq that loved having its decisions made by American Non-commissioned officers.  Abizaid and Casey.  

    Casey read my work.  

    In November 2005, 2 1/2 years into an oppressive occupation, he approached the tribal leaders of al-Anbar Governate and suggested that they help the occupation forces root out the radical takfiri jihadis,

    who are still today incorrectly called “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”  

    Tribal leaders agreed, but asked to be allowed to take control of their local communities,

    and for US forces to pull out.

    Casey ran it by the WHIG.  Disapproved.  


    Casey asked for permission to implement something like the “Anbar Awakening” in 2005, only where the local Iraqi forces were under local Iraqi control, rather than under the control of the US military, as they still are today.  

    Addington, Libbey, Cheney, Blackwill, Hadley and Rice disapproved it.  I believe Bush made the final call on that.  

    3 years later, this crowd is clamoring for credit for that which they squelched back when it should have been implemented.

    It’s not so well-known, but there was a sort-of surge in early 2006 when tours were extended.  That surge was inconsequential because it didn’t change the facts on the ground – Iraqis resisting occupation efforts to subjugate them to their colonial masters.  

    Yes, the Administration relented, and in mid-2006 allowed the first progress toward letting Iraqis regain some of their honor and dignity by being allowed to defend their homes and families.

    But that was only after the earlier refusal led to what honest observers said was open civil war.  The bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Sammara was not a key turning point in February 06 – it was just an especially visible symbol of the mess that Bush forced on our troops and on the Iraqis.  


    • Barron X says:


      as if that means that they know better than you what’s happening there,

      assess whether they were part of the neocon fiasco.  

      Ask when they were there, and what they did.  

      Most folks working at CPA the first 2 1/2 years did ZERO to advance US national security.  

      They gained experience at royally screwing things up.  

      Sitting in Colorado, you and I knew better what was going on than they did in their Green Zone cocoon.

      So it shouldn’t impress you that McCain has been to Iraq so many times.  

      He was being fed rah-rah pablum every time.  

      A better man would be embarrassed to have spent so much public money for those trips and have learned nothing.


    • redstateblues says:

      If Al-Sadr were to become Prime Minister of Iraq (the head of government, versus the ceremonial power of head of state) then he would never be “freely” elected. Iraq is a parliamentary democracy which means that the people elect the lower house of the parliament, which then elects the Prime Minister. Just like the UK.

      • Barron X says:


        It was that parliament that chose al-Jaafri to continue as PM.

        And the US Ambassador that nixed the choice.  

        Iraq went for 6 months without a PM, because that parliament would not go along with the US choice of al-Mahdi.  

        The Iraqis and Americans finally compromised on al-Maliki.

        I contend that, if the US wasn’t controlling the machinations of the Iraqi National Assembly,

        then the MP’s would “freely elect” al-Sadr.  

        But you are 100% right,

        if you mean that under the current system

        the Iraqi people do not get to vote for their PM.  


  4. Go Blue says:

    McCain: Coverage Is “Fun To Watch”

    Yesterday, John McCain released a series of ads complaining about the media’s fawning coverage of Barack Obama. His campaign mocked the huge group of reporters trailing Obama by handing out press credentials that say “McCain Press Corps JV Squad, ‘Left Behind To Report In America.'” On the other side, the same words are in French under a wine-drinking, beret-wearing European.

    As the Huffington Post’s Jason Linkins notes, media-bashing is an odd line of attack from the man who once courted the press as his “base.”

    And indeed, McCain couldn’t stay mad at the press for long. The Politico reports:

    Trying to avoid being portrayed as a whiney spoilsport, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) broke with his advisers Tuesday and told Katie Couric of CBS News that news coverage of the presidential campaign has been fair and even “fun to watch.”

    The contradictions within this campaign is just another sign of what type of administration this old man would run.

  5. sjintheknow says:

    How many of you have ever run for an office?

    Have any of you been on your feet for 15 hours a day talking to people and shaking hands.  Have you ever made speech after speech?  Have you ever been on your toes to make sure every word you say is correct? Have you ever had to have every history fact correct?

    I do not fault Obama (who I do not like) or McCain for making honest mistakes.  

    You Liberals are unforgiving, not nice people.  If you have never run for office  you have no right to complain until you do this marathon.

    Here is why the Liberal Press covered it up…the Press is starting to realize that McCain is going to be President of the United States.  McCain has always been good to the press even though the Press has not been good to McCain…so the Liberal Press figures why make the next President mad at you. IMHO

  6. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    “A surge is really a counterinsurgency made up of a number of components. … I’m not sure people understand that `surge’ is part of a counterinsurgency.”


Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.