Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And the Washington Post has the story:
He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."
It took Joe Lieberman stepping forward and whispering in his ear to prompt McCain to say, "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda." I'm not sure what the difference is; Al Qaeda are nothing if not extremists. But this is the problem with such vague language and with McCain's claim to have foreign policy experience that makes him more qualified. This is a mistake that no educated person, much less a US Senator, should make.
Al Qaeda is a Sunni group; Iran is a Shiite country. There is a very big difference, and a crucial one when you're discussing the various alliances and groups fighting in Iraq. Iran does not support Al Qaeda, they support Shiite militias; in many cases, those Shiite militias are actively fighting against Al Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, Al Qaeda in Iraq has been rather busy slaughtering Shiites by the busload in that country.
Surely it's not too much to ask that a man who wants to be president understands the difference and understands the complexity of the web of shifting alliances at work in Iraq?
Comments
Our current president and everyone in his cabinet were never held to this standard. Why start now? As we all know, irresponsible nincompoops act from the gut and stay the course. This makes them more trustworthy, since you know when you vote for them that they'll never change their minds, even when they're dead wrong and the evidence is stacked up against them. Isn't that what we all want in a president?
Posted by: Wes | March 19, 2008 9:55 AM
At least McCain was willing to apologize and make a correction when he was shown to be wrong. That's better than what I usually see from the red team.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 19, 2008 10:37 AM
This should be all over the main stream media. It's not.
And I used to laugh and make fun of all those conspiracy theorist nuts.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 19, 2008 10:38 AM
Define "all over the main stream media". The story was in the Washington Post and New York Times so there's a good chance it'll make CNN and the evening TV network newscasts.
Posted by: Joe | March 19, 2008 10:45 AM
Surely it's not too much to ask that a man who wants to be president understands the difference and understands the complexity of the web of shifting alliances at work in Iraq?
*COUGH* *BUSH* *COUGH*
Posted by: Anonymouse | March 19, 2008 11:43 AM
Realizing how oblivious McCain is, I actually feel sorry for him. I mean, the poor guy wants so much to be popular that he babbles any mixture of buzz words. What's next, beware of the next Muslim Tet offensive? That he's getting a presidential nomination is downright scary!
Posted by: Rod | March 19, 2008 11:47 AM
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | March 19, 2008 12:04 PM
There is video on this as part of Olbermann's "worst person in the world" segment:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/18/countdowns-worst-persons-olbermann-murdoch-mcsame/
When I watch it I can't help thinking "senior moment".
Posted by: Taz | March 19, 2008 12:13 PM
If McCain wins the Presidency he will be almost 73 years old - is it any wonder he makes the occasional slip? Let's hope the next one isn't in The Situation Room.
Posted by: David Durant | March 19, 2008 12:39 PM
Ed, I think you've got some vague language of your own here:
"I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda." I'm not sure what the difference is; Al Qaeda are nothing if not extremists.
The way you phrase this implies you don't see what his corrected statement changes. But he's rephrasing to say that he's referring to extremist, which of course may or may not be Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda are extremists, but extremists are not Al Qaeda.
Granted, he shouldn't be making this mistake at all, no argument there.
Posted by: Aaron Lemur Mintz | March 19, 2008 12:52 PM
The part about Sunni and Shiite hating each other and fighting is no doubt true. But, one thing that does unite them is their hatred of us being over there. So to say that Iran does not support Al Queda is too general of a statement. Iran would and probably does support AQ to the hilt if they think it would hurt the "GREAT SATAN OF THE WEST".
I think Mc Cain is a Neo-Con "nation builder" to the hilt for sure and do not trust him in his foreign policy. But I am not sure trying to hit him on what you stated is really relevant even if true. I think the Democrats should focus more on attacking this whole "nation building" idea. Why do they not for the most part? Most of them are on board no matter what they say in public. The CFR article called "The Clash of Civilizations" says it all. Holy crusades
repeated.
The younger generations in these countries are being won over through ideas. All this imperialistic war crap does is embolden the status quo tyrants and elites to say, "Look I told you that these people are evil look at what they are doing." We are helping the tyrants that really do want to take over the world in the name of Allah stay in power. I really do think they are trying to establish another Caliphate but nation building and war are not they way to defeat this. Ron Paul was right when he nailed Rudy in the debate last Spring on this issue.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 19, 2008 1:38 PM
Maybe it's just me but I think the funniest (in a not funny way) bit about this is the "commonl knowledge and has been reported in the media" part. As if being reported in the media makes anything true ...
Although I certainly want our President to be pretty rock solid in his/her knowledge of global politics, I must admit that my brain fogs over when I try to sort out the Shiite/Sunni situation. It seems like one of those things where just plunking people into one or the other doesn't even remotely come close to bringing any understanding about the actions and motives of an individual or small subset group.
Posted by: Andrea | March 19, 2008 1:46 PM
(snark)
Sunni, Shiite, whatever. They're all America's enemies; if lumping them all together increases our resolve to destroy them, it's worthwhile. Kill them all; God will recognize his own.
(/snark)
Posted by: ithaqua | March 19, 2008 2:22 PM
At least McCain was willing to apologize and make a correction when he was shown to be wrong. That's better than what I usually see from the red team.
Well... he corrected himself during the speech with Lieberman present. It wasn't the first time he'd made the error, though. I don't think he's technically publicly discussed his similar statement on the Hugh Hewitt show earlier in the week:
Posted by: Coin | March 19, 2008 2:28 PM
And who whispered the corrective information in McCain's ear? A (former) DEMOCRAT FROM THE HATED LIBRUL NORTHEAST! Guess the Republicans aren't the party of competence anymore.
I
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 19, 2008 2:32 PM
Okay, the last line didn't get through. Let's try again:
I [heart] irony.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 19, 2008 2:33 PM
I might be way off base here, but McCain's mistake might be an example of something a little more insidious than mere lack of knowledge.
As a presidential hopeful, he's bound to be getting briefings about this kind of stuff all of the time, and I'm guessing he does understand that there is a difference between Shiite Iran and Sunni Al Quaeda, and that sectarian loyalties are pretty strong and unlikely to lead to inter-sect cooperation of this nature in the current climate. So why the error? I reckon this could be an example of getting caught up in your own political message - or of buzzwords getting in the way of genuine brain activity.
You can see this all the time when Bush answers questions (i.e. when he's got no autocued script). He ums and ahhs, which slows his speech down, but then he utters his buzzwords with little or no connecting syntax, and he repeats himself and it's almost as if these buzzwords represent a little lifeline.
"I have no idea whhat I'm saying but if I can turn the conversation back to Al Quaeda then I'm on safe ground.
Al Quaeda = Terrorist = Bad.
Insurgents = Terrorist = Al Quaeda = Bad.
Iran is funding insurgents = Terrorists = Al Quaeda = Bad."
Now, i haven't seen McCain talk much, but i would guess he's not quite as bad as Bush... but still I think that a similar thing's happening here. McCain understands the situation, but he's not applying that understanding to the garbage he's uttering - cos he's not thinking, he's steering towards talking points.
OK, this made a lot more sense in my mind before I wrote it down... still, I've done it now so I'll post anyway on the off chance someone finds it stimulating.
But there it is - my guess is it's not that he doesn't know stuff like this, it's that he can't get the party mantra out of his head long enough to avoid making a schoolboy error in a public press conference.
Posted by: James W | March 19, 2008 2:36 PM
This is a simple problem of understanding. In McCainyish, a dialect of Scarish, *all* terrorists with islamic motivations or associations are called Al Quida.
Quieda, Quida, Quiada and any other remotely similar spelling are considered equivilent.
Sunni and Shaia have no direct equivilent words in McCainyish, but both are usually translated to 'Muslim.' This means that it is impossible to express any thought that distinguishes between them.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | March 19, 2008 2:53 PM
Thanks for illustrating my point Tegumai and Coin. Avoiding admission that one might have made a mistake seems to be a driving need among most politicians and Republicans in particular. Which is why this minor adoration was noteworthy.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 19, 2008 3:15 PM
I heard a C-SPAN caller compare Obama and McCain in the following way yesterday morning.
"Well guess what, Mr. liberal Democrat, at least McCain is a real 'merican hero. Don't you know that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? He's a MUSLIM. Them's our enemies! We can't have some Muslim running the war. They'll be cheering in the streets when he's elected. This country's going straight to hell if we elect him.
Posted by: Chuck | March 19, 2008 3:55 PM
Doh! Aberration, not adoration.
Lysdexics have more nuf!
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 19, 2008 4:15 PM
My question was not merely rhetorical. Did McCain offer a correction for his vaccine/autism misstatement? I haven't seen one, but then I don't go cruising around the places where it might have been posted.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | March 19, 2008 7:38 PM
So if McCain wins we can expect to see (besides me moving to Canada) an attack on Iran with the "slam dunk" intelligence indicating that Iran has been training Al Qaeda terrorists.
And Senators Clinton and Lieberman can be expected to vote for it.
How many Viet Nams do we need to have?
Posted by: BaldApe | March 19, 2008 7:38 PM
To my knowledge, McCain has not offered any correction to his vaccine/autism comment.
Posted by: Ted H. | March 19, 2008 8:34 PM
This little episode offers an insight into a little-known fact. No-one can understand foreign policy. Now McCain shouldn't have made the mistake, but there is no way any one person can know enough to develop sensible ideas on foreign policy alone.
This is why the most important characteristics a president can have are 1) the willingness to follow neutral, expert advice. and 2) the intelligence to understand and evaluate this advice.
If you want good foreign policy, then that, rather than experince, is what you should be looking for.
Posted by: James K | March 20, 2008 12:16 AM
The most important qualifications to get elected are very different from those to be a good president. Here are some electability qualifications:
- Tidy appearance. The voters will never elect an ugly president, regardless of his policies or competence.
- Never publicly change their mind. If they make a mistake, either deny it, or quietly downplay the issue or pretend they were right all along.
- Be certain. Even worse than making a mistake is appearing indecisive or ignorant. If they dont know an answer, never admit it - stall. A president is expected to be an expert on all issues, and must at least maintain the illusion of being such.
- Ally with a faction. You cant pick-and-mix issues in modern politics. Pick a faction, and follow them on all issues.
- Connections. While nominally a president is evaluated on their merit... the current president is the son of a former president, and one candidate is the wife of another former president. Connections are key.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | March 20, 2008 6:35 AM
I don't think anyone really knows who is fighting who in Iraq. All the reporters have the good sense to not get their throats cut, or their heads blown off, and they have little to no connection to what is happening in reality.
The military, who is runniong the P.R. show, is quick to assign responsibility for any attack to any group the administration has deemed the "bad guy" this week, regardless of the who is doing the shooting. As if you could tell the affiliations of any sniper or bomber, anyway.
And our administration has evidently armed and supported just about every side in this conflict at one time or another. Their only consistent theme is that Iran is responsible for kicking the dog.
Really, who actually knows if McCain, Lieberman, or neither got it right?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 20, 2008 9:34 AM
>> Surely it's not too much to ask that a man who wants to be president understands the difference and understands the complexity of the web of shifting alliances at work in Iraq?
OH PLEASE. I am not surprised you guys seized on this. I think McCain is a crappy candidate - let's just clear that up so you don't think I am defending him. Yeah, maybe he should have known better, but let's not forget that your boy Obama advocated invading Pakistan. Considering how little experience Obama has with foreign policy, I think I would trust McCain more - gaffes aside - to know what is going on in the world. By the way, I haven't seen as much about Obama on this blog lately. What's up guys?
Posted by: mroberts | March 20, 2008 11:03 PM
OK, at first I thought Ed was right on, but now I'm not so sure. I heard someone speaking on NPR today, and they said that in fact there is evidence that Iran has been providing some assistance to al Queada for quite a while. Problem is, I had just gotten in my car and didn't hear who it was, or the rest of the conversation, so I don't know whether it was a political hack or someone who actually knows their ass from their elbow.
Has anyone else heard more on this?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 20, 2008 11:20 PM
WMD, mobile bio labs, yellowcake from Niger, aluminium tubes to refine said yellowcake....
Sound familar?
Show me the evidence. What is the source, how reliable is the source &etc.
Until then no action. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 21, 2008 12:43 AM
I posted earlier (above), then found myself beset with two nagging realizations:
1. McCain had a senior moment (Taz mentioned that soon after my post, and I hereby second the idea).
2. Seeing him cued, that is, corrected, by Lieberman kinda reminds me that they'd be a Cheney / Bush sequel.
Posted by: Rod | March 21, 2008 6:42 PM