Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMcCain (Mis)Speaks
How the Senator Won the War of Words in Iraq (again and again and again…)
The Iraq war was a disaster for Iraq, a disaster for the United States, a disaster for the Middle East, a disaster for the world community, but most of all, it was a disaster for the experts.
They were wrong about its difficulty. (It was to be either "a cakewalk" or "a walk in the park" -- take your pick). They were wrong about how our troops would be greeted ("as liberators" said Vice President Dick Cheney on September, 14, 2003; "with kites and boom boxes" wrote Professor Fouad Ajami on October 7, 2002). They were wrong about weapons of mass destruction. ("Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise" wrote Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen on February 6, 2003.) They were wrong about how many troops would be needed. ("It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct a war itself," said Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on Feb 27, 2003.)
They were wrong about the number of casualties. ("...we're not going to have any casualties," said President George W. Bush in March, 2003). They were wrong about how much it would cost. ("The costs of any intervention would be very small," according to White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard on October 4, 2002). They were wrong about how long it would last. ("It isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either," claimed Richard Perle on July 11, 2002.) They were wrong about the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network," as Secretary of State Colin Powell put it in addressing the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. They were wrong about the likelihood of Iraq descending into civil war. ("[There is] a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism," insisted William Kristol and Robert Kagan on March 22, 2004.) There was, in fact, very little they were not wrong about.
Who are we to make such charges? Not to be boastful, we are, respectfully, the CEO and president -- the founders, as it were -- of the Institute of Expertology, which has been surveying expert opinion for almost 25 years. It is true that our initial study, The Experts Speak: The Definitive Guide to Authoritative Misinformation, came under attack back in 1990 because, at the time, we failed to find a single expert who was right, although we readily conceded that, in statistical theory, it was possible that the experts were right as much as half the time. It just proved exceedingly difficult to find evidence of that other 50%.
In Mission Accomplished!, our new study of the experts -- people who, by virtue of their official status, formal title, academic degree, professional license, public office, journalistic beat, quantity of publications, experience, and/or use of highly technical jargon, are presumed to know what they are talking about -- we once again came under attack from critics who claimed that our failure to include any misstatements by Senator Barack Obama betrayed a political bias. These allegations were quickly refuted. Everybody knows that Obama has no experience and therefore does not qualify as an expert. Senator Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, did make the cut, but the presidential candidate-cum-expert of genuine interest is Senator John McCain.
At first, we were impressed by the senator's statements in Republican primary debates about how he had actually opposed the Bush administration's conduct of the war from the start. As he told CNN's Kiran Chetry, in August of 2007, "I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three-and-a half years."
Well, having dug into those missing years a bit, here, for the record, is what we found to be Senator McCain's typical responses to some of the key questions posed above:
How would American troops be greeted?: "I believe... that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (March 20, 2003)
Did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear program that posed an imminent threat to the United States?: "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon." (October 10, 2002)
Will a war with Iraq be long or short?: "This conflict is... going to be relatively short." (March 23, 2003)
How is the war going?: "I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical." (September 10, 2003)
How is it going (almost two months later, from the war's "greatest critic")? "I think the initial phases of [the war] were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." (October 31, 2003)
Is this war really necessary?: "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (August 30, 2004)
How is it going? (Recurring question for the war's "greatest critic"): "We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year." (December 4, 2005)
Will the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and surrounding areas that the senator had been calling for finally make the difference?: "We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months." (February 4, 2007)
In April 2007, accompanied by several members of Congress, Senator McCain made a surprise visit to Baghdad to assess the surge, had a "stroll" through a market in the Iraqi capital, and then held a news conference where he discussed what he found: "Things are better and there are encouraging signs. I've been here many times over the years. Never have I been able to drive from the airport. Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today. The American people are not getting the full picture of what's happening here today."
The next evening, NBC's Nightly News provided further details on that "stroll." The Senator and Congressmen were accompanied by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead." (In addition, the network said, still photographs provided by the military revealed that McCain and his colleagues had been wearing body armor during their entire stroll.)
Reality check: Five months later, on September 12, 2007, McCain again observed that "the next six months are going to be critical."
Six months later, McCain claimed that the U.S. had finally reached a genuine turning point in Iraq and that his faith in the surge was (once again) vindicated. On March 17, 2008, he reported: "We are succeeding. And we can succeed and American casualties overall are way down. That is in direct contradiction to predictions made by the Democrats and particularly Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. I will be glad to stake my campaign on the fact that this has succeeded and the American people appreciate it."
Well, we at the Institute of Expertology appreciate it, too, and we are, of course, pleased to record the Senator's ever-renewable faith in this latest turning point. As scrupulous scholars, however, we do feel compelled to add that the Senator is not the first to detect such a turning point. Indeed on July 7, 2003, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith said: "This month will be a political turning point for Iraq."
On November 6, 2003, President Bush observed: "We've reached another great turning point..." On June 16, 2004, President Bush claimed: "A turning point will come two weeks from today."
That same day the Montreal Gazette headlined an editorial by neoconservative columnist Max Boot: "Despite the Negative Reaction by Much of the Media, U.S. Marines Did a Good Job in Fallujah, a Battle That Might Prove a Turning Point." On February 2, 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated: "On January 30th in Iraq, the world witnessed an important moment in the global struggle against tyranny, a moment that historians might one day call a major turning point." On March 7, 2005 William Kristol wrote: "[T]he Iraqi election of January 30, 2005... will turn out to have been a genuine turning point."
On December 18, as that year ended, Vice President Cheney, while conceding that "the level of violence has continued," assured ABC News: "I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point..."
The Institute continued to record turning points in remarkable numbers in 2006, and 2007, but perhaps in 2008 the surge will, indeed, turn out to be the turning point to end all turning points. After all, Senator McCain has staked his campaign on it.
Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky are the co-authors of the recently published Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq: The Experts Speak, which provided the basis for this essay. Their previous book, also a product of The Institute of Expertology, is The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation. They appeared recently on Bill Moyers Journal.
Copyright 2008 Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky
32 Comments so far
Show AllIt doesn't matter who you vote for in a rigged election.
Do you really think there is a chance in hell that the Republicans, after all of their efforts to transform the executive branch into a virtual dictatorship, will let anything as easy to rig as an election force them to hand it all over to a Democrat?
Get real -- it's going to be President McSame as the puppet with the same bunch of crooks that run the show behind the scenes. I bet my (almost worthless) house on it.
All of this campaign strategy blah blah blah is silly and pointless.
There is fresh evidence that the learning-curve of Senator Obama's campaign against Senator McCain is near-horizontal. McCain has berated Obama that he has visited Iraq only once to which Obama responded; "this is irrelevant". That is a very poor, potentially losing strategy for the following reason. Obama attacks McCain personally for being "irrelevant" instead of immediately reassuring his crucial and possibly numerous on-the-fence-sitting-voters with his record that he is indeed very well informed about Iraq despite the fact that he has been there only once. The use of "irrelevant" also smacks of high-school debating and is on the cusp of arrogant. Obviously Obama could not say in this case "that is irrelevant, sweetie".
With regards to the "Ahmedinejad-flap" Obama could learn from the consequences of Senator Clinton's admission that she should not have voted for the 91' Iraq resolution. That hurt her with Democratic core voters but probably not at all with most other voters. Obama should stop skating on very thin ice and simply admit that his statement on unconditional head-of-state to head-of-state confabs was poorly thought through then and aver that his well-researched current position is consistent with traditional U.S. strategy. He should also admit that his Roosevelt/Stalin and Nixon/Mao self-justifications are truly irrelevant. Such admissions will not hurt him with any potential Democratic voters.
sorry folks I don't feel things are going to change. If impeachment was in the works giving a strong message we hang leaders who screw up and lie then I can see a GOOD future for America. There is not and these criminals who have made Americans the lowest respected people on the planet don't give a shit. Sorry folks to play on this planet you have to be a world player not live in a cave, in fear.
for some strange reason, this article made me think of a song I heard back in the nineties:
Maxine
(Sharon O'Neill)
Creases in your white dress
Bruises on your bare skin
Looks like another fine mess
You've got yourself into
What's the matter with you?
Has the cat got your tongue?
Well if you don't like the beat
Then don't play with the drum
Maxine, you're not the only one
To take the whole world on
But no one's ever won
Maxine, Case 1352
A red and green tattoo
Eyes cold steel blue
On a rain-slicked avenue
Long shadows in the night
Take off your spike-heeled shoes
You've got to run for your life
Razor blade in your pocket
From an ex-marine
Makes you speed like a rocket
Ooh, it cuts so clean
Maxine, you're not the only one
To take the whole world on
But no one's ever won
Maxine, Case 1352
A red and green tattoo
Eyes cold steel blue
How come you're payin' for borrowed time
Starin' out into space?
Bad boys and cold comfort
And a smacked-up face
Maxine, you're not the only one
To take the whole world on
But no one's ever won
Maxine, Case 1352
A red and green tattoo
Eyes cold steel blue
Who's that walking, walking behind you, who's that
talking, talking about you
Who's that walking, walking with you Maxine…?
Have you seen the video? It closes on a woman's toes under a morgue blanket, dogtagged: Case 1352.
It seems to be appropriate in this context.
huzzah May 29th, 2008 10:19 pm -- "What, if anything, do you propose we do this election?"
Whatever you wish. Just don't delude yourself about the true nature of your available options and the inverted totalitarian system that pre-determines them in the "greatest democracy on earth".
Tail --
I agree. I'm angry, too, especially since the Republican narrative is, "The Democrats are a bunch of pussies who can't protect you." Then the Dems won't even mount a defense against he accusation. Then the Republicans just smile and say, "Exhibit A: They won't fight back against us...
Good points! Sorry, its true I bash Democrats 24/7. I am angrier at them than even Republicans because they are supposed oppose Republicans not enable them. But I get your point about bashing, it's not productive. You're right, I should volunteer to work for Cynthia instead of working to trash Democrats. I'm going to work on that-thanks. Good call huzzah.
ps The truth can still be said in a way that is not demeaning. The still believe the Democrats have fallen down on the job.
The problem isn't the "Dims". (By the way, you might have a little better luck swaying people to your point of view without the attitude) The problem is that such a huge number of voters vote for whatever name they hear the most. The Greens, Libertarians, and any other smaller party just flat out lack the money to mount any sort of challenge. I vote Green whenever I get the chance.
If you really want to make a difference, why don't you start a "Nader Trader"-type web site to entice people in non-competitive states to vote for McKinney. I'll do it if I'm sure there's no way McCain will lose my state. Promote the Green Party. Stop bashing the Democrats and saying people are dumb for supporting them. The differences between Obama and McCain are numerous and substantial. He may not be your ideal candidate (Hell, he isn't mine) but if you think we won't be better off after 4 years of Obama than we would after 4 years of McCain then "Dim" might be a word that applies to yet another person here...
Arvy May 29th, 2008 1:09 pm
^^^^ Let's not do what again? Vote for Dems as an "alternative" to establishment policies?
I'm with you. If you don't like war you'd better find another party besides the Democratic-Republican Party. Obama-Clinton will keep many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in order to enrich Big Oil and Big Profits Inc. Anybody believing otherwise is self-deluded. Read his website yourself.
From Obama's web site:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
This is obviously hogwash because we all know al Qaeda isn't leaving and neither will the troops he will need for his "targeted" strikes that always end up killing some innocent kid looking out the window.
The Greens are actually against the war but don't expect very many Dims to vote for them. Dims only vote for "winners" regardless of whether they are pro-war or not. All a Dim needs to hear is that the candidate is "against the war" in a vague and hopeful way, never mind the fact they always voted to fund it have a way to continue funding it written into the fine print. And that's the truth!
Gee, Arvy. Straw man? What?
Yes, it was I who said that revolution is the only alternative to working within the system. It was you, however, that came in saying, and I'm paraphrasing here, that all three major party candidates remaining are pro-war. The implication is that regardless of which we vote for, nothing will change. We all know that voting third party changes nothing unless that party gets the 10% (or whatever) of the vote that is required to qualify for Federal funds in the next election. I'm all for that, by the way. Nader 2000! A viable third party, however, is not currently realistic. So if voting changes nothing and not voting changes nothing, the only other possibility I see for change is revolution. If you are not implying the need for revolution, I would like to know what exactly you are doing other than coming on here and griping about things.
What, if anything, do you propose we do this election?
AGITKID: Good post. I think the purpose of the article is to educate those who don't realize the extent of the campaign of lies/being wrong... they've itemized how far back the inverted speculation goes.
For the record, TOM DISPATCH did an article on the many times the words SURGE/IT'S WORKING were also used, or how often the idea of TURNING POINT was used. Remember Bush hired Karen Hughes for PR purposes. As if one could MARKET a good image of the U.S. with this WAR ON FIXED CAUSE with blatant torture in the background. It's like some pretty reporter smiling in front of a tragedy in live motion! Sure. That's gonna win hearts...
Thank you Arvy. I heartily agree with your assessments and comments on this issue.
It seems more and more that people here are as guilty of checking in their 'thinking hats' as those who are so uncritical of the current strategies.
huzzah May 29th, 2008 5:12 pm -- "Did you even read the next sentence???"
Sure. But I don't debate straw man arguments. It was you, not I, who raised revolution as the alternative to working within the establishment's "two party" system and who proposed "no better/no different" as a point of contention.
The one thing I like about this article is the idea of setting up an institute to specifically challenge the experts. I like that.
What I don't like is how outrageously naive these authors are, an affliction common to most liberal commentators, when they assume that those in power were simply "wrong" about all the lies and propaganda they purposefully fed to the likes of these authors, and other pundits who have internalized the nobility of the state, regardless of stray actors.
Let's get something very clear here, they weren't "wrong", they were lying through their teeth to justify an illegal invasion. It had nothing to do with being "wrong", but with bombarding the US public, via the corporate propaganda system, with excuses to go to war. They weren't "wrong" when they knew they were lying, fabricating evidence, forging documents, hiding information, and generally orchestrating the war machine to pursue their agenda.
Just to presume that they were just "wrong" implies that they had noble intentions, but were just blundering idiots (very similar rhetoric actually to "Doves" during the Vietnam war).
Wake up and smell the war criminals, guilty of the crime of aggression.
I think I have to start a new think tank, dedicated to "Liberalotology" where I try to understand the minds of liberals tied to institutional power and privilege, and why they internalize all the ideological premises of the ruling class, and it's media culture.
Did you even read the next sentence???
"... the only way to really change the way the system works is to use the system to do so."
I think your nation's founders might disagree with that assessment.
HEY ADROC!
"I'm interested to see how the scope and frequency of his misstatements matches up with McCain's."
If so, get off your duff and find them. It's little wonder that McCain misspeaks often. He is more befuddled than Reagan was ... and mean as hell and in poor control of his temper to boot.
What are you proposing? Marxist revolution? Anarchical coup? French Revolution style public beheadings of government officials and corporate execs?
Sorry, buddy, but the only way to really change the way the system works is to use the system to do so. Unless you're planning to overthrow the government, in which case your going to need a large coalition of like-minded individuals, and you're not doing anything here to win people over.
So, either start with your revolution or stop with your denigrating of Obama as no better than McCain. While he might not be perfect, the idea that he's no different is asinine.
Okay. I'll go along with that. I guess I was being overly reticent myself about bringing a "big rotten smelly obscenity" to the table.
Oh please. reality check here: the issue isn't between "holier than thou" progressives or "me big strong gun toting" right wingers. The issue is the fact that we're living in a set of obsolete paradigms: the imperialist nation state as a viable entity, the ever growing economy of self indulgent short sighted greed, the take care of myself now and everyone who isn't my clone can go to hell...
all of it is disintegrating like the big rotten smelly obscenity it is.
What would you like me to bring to tne table? The cupboard is bare. Americans (USans) refuse to consider any option other than those "TV dinners" set before them by the very system they rail against.
The "left" (or "progressives", or "liberals", or whatever you want to call yourselves) emasculates itself with its own holier-than-thou strategic constraints and then expects some savior to appear like a deus ex machina out of the fabulously nonsensical system within which they insist on working.
Arvy, posts like that bring absolutely nothing to the table, you know that?
Now McCain invites Obama to "go on a trip with him to Iraq".
Obama should answer that it would be more appropriate for the current Commander in Chief to occupy such a plane seat alongside Senator McCain.
Thanks for bringing Obama up, adroc.
I had misgivings about him until Hillary said he didn't have enough experience. So I voted for him.
More experience in Washington DC means more corruption.
If they were all so wrong about the invasion and occupation, how are we expected to believe them when they claim that if we leave, Iraq will "descend into chaos?" Perhaps it's equally possible (and more probable) that the violence will reduce dramatically once foreign troops are no longer occupying Iraq.
People beware...a vote for McCain is a vote for the Bush regime...if youhave enjoyed the war...vote for McCain...if you think the whole thing was a sham, vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in November.
lwhut330 is correct. The perpatrators have made big bucks by being wrong, at the expense of the rest of us.
Just as there are only two possible explanations for why Hillary voted to invade Iraq, there are only two possible explanations why all of these people were wrong. Either they are dumber than those of us who clearly noticed the folly of the Iraq invasion at the time, or they are corrupt and are profitting from the occupation.
Bush's third term: McCain.
The saddest thing is that none of this long list of foolish people have lost a single thing after this long disaster. Most are still in high places, writing for major news paper editorial sections, sitting in professorships at major universities, or still very much in power. It is we, the real fools who are daily loosing our future. What will it take to throw this monkey off our backs?
^^^^ Let's not do what again? Vote for Dems as an "alternative" to establishment policies?
If he is eventually elected President, the contradiction between Obama's public anti-war face and his real pro-war beliefs will produce incredible shock and disappointment in millions of people. As for Clinton, ... Well, it's hardly worth discussing her probabilities.
"In Mission Accomplished!, our new study of the experts — people who, by virtue of their official status, formal title, academic degree, professional license, public office, journalistic beat, quantity of publications, experience, and/or use of highly technical jargon, are presumed to know what they are talking about — we once again came under attack from critics who claimed that our failure to include any misstatements by Senator Barack Obama betrayed a political bias. These allegations were quickly refuted. Everybody knows that Obama has no experience and therefore does not qualify as an expert."
Is this a joke? If so, it's not the greatest context for a joke. Really, why not include Obama in the analysis? I'm interested to see how the scope and frequency of his misstatements matches up with McCain's.
that's one hell of a lot of "senior moments"
we've already tried the retard-in-chief.
let's not do that again.