McCain, the Surge, the Awakening and CBS

[MovieMogul]

@China Guy

Much as I dislike McCain, IMHO it’s pretty difficult to get all the facts and timelines correct all the time on every possible interview subject. Especially as a nominee with 24/7 focus. It’s hard for me to get outraged by something that ends up on the cutting room floor from a talking head interview.

I think Andrew Sullivan put it pretty well:

Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it. I should be especially careful to do this before I say something like this about someone who got it right: “I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.”

[Jophiel]

@China Guy

Much as I dislike McCain, IMHO it’s pretty difficult to get all the facts and timelines correct all the time on every possible interview subject.

Dumb stuff like Iraq/Pakistan I write off to too much coffee and not enough sleep. But when you’re scolding someone on a topic such as the Awakening or McCain telling the press to go research Al’Qaeda & Iran then you’d damn well better know what in the hell you’re talking about and get it right the first time.

[Tenebras]

@Greg Charles

As far as CBS’s role, I don’t think a news organization should be required to show every second of a raw interview, but it was suggested in the link that they left in the question, and then spliced in McCain’s answer to an entirely different question. That doesn’t sit well with me. Is there any truth to that statement?

That’s exactly what they did. They broadcast one version of the interview on television, and then put the full version of the interview (with transcripts) on their website. The answer that was broadcast on television is a pastiche of two different answers to two different questions.

Here are three links, followed by some transcripts.

Link 1 This video contains the broadcast version of the part of the interview in question. It begins at 0:42 in the video. Unfortunately this is the best version of this I have been able to find.

The full interview is available on CBS’s website. The corresponding question begins at 2:59.
Link 2 This is a direct link to the video on the CBS website.
Link 3 This is a link to the transcript with embedded video on the CBS website.

Broadcast version of interview. Go to 0:42 for video here.

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

McCain: Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.
<snip: Notice that they cut to images of Petraeus and soldiers bashing in doors to cover the edit>
Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

Unedited version of interview. Go to 2:59 for video here.

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?

McCain: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn’t make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

The part of the answer about Senator Obama wanting to lose the war to win the campaign comes from the first question of the interview.

Couric: Sen. McCain, Prime Minister Maliki and Sen. Obama seem to be on the same page when it comes to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2010. Are you feeling like the odd man out here?

McCain: Prime Minister Maliki, General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen and the other leaders in Iraq have all agreed that it’s conditioned-based. Sen. Obama said the surge would fail. He said that it couldn’t succeed. He was wrong. He said he still doesn’t agree that surge has succeeded now that everybody knows that it has succeeded. I said at the time that I supported the surge. I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

There are two parts to this story. The first part is that McCain whiffed on his signature issue, the Surge and Iraq, getting the timeline completely backwards. McCain is claiming that the Anbar Awakening (when the Sunnis in the Anbar province began rising up against al Qaeda) happened as a result of the surge strategy. In fact, the Anbar Awakening was one of the reasons that the surge was supposed to work. That is, Anbar was used to justify beginning the surge. This isn’t splitting hairs, this is McCain reversing cause and effect in order to claim that Obama has no idea what’s going on.

To make an analogy, this is like Obama saying “it’s true that Reagan did many things to end the Cold War, but I think that, with the changes in the Soviet government like perestroika and glastnost, that type of change was inevitable.” And then McCain fires back with: “I don’t know how to respond to such a false representation of history. If Reagan hadn’t ended the Cold War, perestroika and glastnost would never have happened!”

The second part of the story is that CBS took this error, which since it is one of McCain’s signature issues one could argue is the most important part of the interview, and edited the error away. At least for the television audience.

[elucidator]

Still, nothing about this really make sense. If they intended to cover up for McCain, why post the real transcript where we could find it? Clearly, they didn’t intend to give us the straight skinny, but shit, if you’re gonna lie, lie! For something like this to happen, seems like somebody with some clout would have to sign off, but why?

Maybe somebody ordered the editing, but somebody else posted the real stuff, knowlingly or no? But if somebody ordered the editing, they’d pretty much have to have Katy C. on board, or she’d rat them out. Or would she?

Damned if I can figure this out.

[descamisado]

@Oy!

I just have a sneaking suspicion that the answer to a different question thing happens all the time, even in mainstream media interviews. I absolutely hate that, but we know it has even happened that sometimes the person doing the interviewing in reality wasn’t even the person who was doing it when we were seeing it.

You know, most of the flubs or gaffes we’ve seen, both McCain’s and Obama’s, have been what I’d call the oral equivalen of typos, up to and including Czechoslovakia and Auschwitz . . . . They might have been forgiveable in just anyone, but in someone who is trying to bill himself as the Great Foreign Relations and Military Guy[sup]TM[/sup]?

Where does McCain’s recent statement that Pakistan and Iraq share a border fit in? (This, alluding to the fact the such a situation adds to the work we have to do in Afghanista under his expert guidance.)

Regarding CBS, it’s one thing to edit an interview for length or even somewhat snip answers, as long as the gist of the original question and answer remain. It’s another thing entirely to alter, air and then not speak on the fact of an interview being shown with one question followed by the answer to an entirely different question.

Like others in this thread have posted, one has to wonder why CBS would do this.

[Squink]

@elucidator

But if somebody ordered the editing, they’d pretty much have to have Katy C. on board, or she’d rat them out. Or would she?

I’d don’t think it’d be too hard to convince Ms. Couric that the edited version was somehow ‘meatier’.
She’s not the brightest bulb in the world of broadcast journalism.

[holmes]

My question is, will this get any real traction? Will this be the straw that breaks the hold that McCain seems to have over the press?

[Oy]

I think the Iraqi/Pakistan border was an oral typo.

I think the altered televised interview was an unfortunate instance of what network news considers SOP. I don’t know why it’s considered standard or non-deceiving, but I think it is. I don’t think there was any idea of covering up for McCain; I doubt anyone at any high level at CBS said “Hey, wait a second, the Awakening happened six months before the surge, better not mention that on the news.” Much as the networks like a close race, they like a good juicy scandal or gotcha even better.

[Tenebras]

The official line from CBS is as follows:

As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night’s Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates’ major differences. The full transcript and video were and still are available at cbsnews.com.

This statement is available from various places. CBS is sending it response to all inquiries, apparently.

[descamisado]

@Oy!

I think the Iraqi/Pakistan border was an oral typo.

I think the altered televised interview was an unfortunate instance of what network news considers SOP. I don’t know why it’s considered standard or non-deceiving, but I think it is. I don’t think there was any idea of covering up for McCain; I doubt anyone at any high level at CBS said “Hey, wait a second, the Awakening happened six months before the surge, better not mention that on the news.” Much as the networks like a close race, they like a good juicy scandal or gotcha even better.

All public figures who speak at any length over time are going to misspeak, McCain included. I just hold him to a slightly higher standard when he talking about something that he’s selling as his area of expertise, especially when his statements are being used to bash his opponent.

In terms of McCain’s strategy regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s amazing that he mixes up so many facts so much of the time. Even in speaking about the impact of Pakistan and/or Iraq in any strategic terms he might have, a shared border between the two does not enter into the equation, unless it’s possible that McCain seriously thought there was one, hardly expert knowledge, in my opinion.

McCain may very well be more qualified to lead us through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than Obama is. But too many of the things he has said regarding that region have been “misspeaks.”

[descamisado]

I think the SOP may be as you characterize and that would be, indeed unfortunate. For then, where can we get accurate information if candidates and other public figures can say anything they want, even if untrue or they contradict themselves and, even where consistent, the news outlets can alter it under SOP? Again, I’m talking about interviews that substantially match up to what was asked and answered not those that were judiciiously snipped due to time constraints.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@CBS

As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night’s Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates’ major differences. The full transcript and video were and still are available at cbsnews.com.

Our sense that the above is a bogus response seems backed up by CBS itself:

Here’s what CBS has to actually say about it: CBS manuel—CBS NEWS STANDARDS….SEC111-5….EDITING:

<snip>

If a question to an interview subject is used, the answer must be to that specific question. The question and the answer may be edited, but not in a way that would distort the meaning of either. Answers to different questions may not be combined to give the impression of one continuous response. In short, we cannot create an answer merely because we wish the subject had said it better.

SOURCE: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/23/cbs-spokesman-distorts-standard-of-editing-on-couric-mccain-interview-heres-the-proof/

[Tenebras]

@Whack-a-Mole

Our sense that the above is a bogus response seems backed up by CBS itself:

Busted.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Now the McCain camp is asserting that McCain made no gaffe and that the Anbar Awakening would have failed without the surge:

In a conference call Wednesday, McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann told reporters that the Arizona senator had not misspoken — that he had intended to tell Katie Couric that the troop surge, which began in 2007, had enabled the success of the “Anbar awakening” of major Sunni sheikhs against Al Qaeda, which began in 2006.

“There is no doubt whatsoever that had there been no surge, the awakening would have been defeated,” said Scheunemann. The situation in late 2006 in Anbar was bleak, he said and a leaked Marine Corps intelligence report that November found that the U.S. military was no longer capable of defeating insurgents in Western Iraq, or confronting the rising popularity of Al Qaeda — largely because Sunnis thought they couldn’t depend on them to stay in the country until it was stable.

“That’s in November 2006. The surge was announced in January. Troops started flowing to Iraq in February and March [of 2007],” said Scheunemann. “Some of the first forces were moved into Anbar. They enabled Ramadi to be first cleared and then held. And that enabled the awakening to not only survive Ramadi but spread throughout Anbar and ultimately Iraq. It would not have happened without the surge, and Sen. McCain has been very very clear about that.”

So once again, the SURGE is the WINNAH!

ETA: Here’s a couple of omments posted on this piece:

What about us Marines that were in Al Anbar before the surge? Is John McCain saying that we failed and only under his guidance did we then succeed?

The commanders in charge of ground troops argued against the surge in November of 2006 saying it would not add to our ability to achieve success in Iraq because we want the Iraqis to do more, and that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. Apparently McCain feels that our commanders who were in Iraq in 2006 are inexperienced and don't know how to win wars. I thought he listened to our generals on the ground? McCain needs an awakening.

[Oy]

It goes beyond this. You can read a summary of McCain’s comments here, but it’s much better to watch the #5 video to get the full impact (you will get a brief commercial first, about 15-20 seconds).
Btw, apparently the sheik who initiated the Awakening in 2006 was assassinated in 2007, during the surge. Which is not to say that there was no synergy between the Awakening and the Surge; I’m sure they complemented each other quite well, as did the standing down of Shi’ite militias.

[Billdo]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

Now the McCain camp is asserting that McCain made no gaffe and that the Anbar Awakening would have failed without the surge:

The amazing thing is that after his campaign said this, McCain gave an impromptu interview in the cheese aisle of a Pennsylvania supermarket in which he largely incoherently explained that the surge in fact began before the actual surge of troops was announced and that all counterinsurgency is part of the surge, or something nearly as incoherent.

From an AP Report:

He told reporters during an unscheduled stop in a super market that, what the Bush administration calls “the surge” was actually “made up of a number of components,” some of which began before the president’s order for more troops.

It’s all a matter of semantics, he suggested. . . .

McCain asserted he knew that and didn’t commit a gaffe. “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.”

I saw the whole statement on Countdown (ETA: it’s linked by Oy! above), and it is really rambling and what he is trying to say is barely intelligible. It’s sort of like a Clintonesque definition of what ‘is’ is, or a Kerry statement about how he voted against the bill to vote for the bill. If this gets traction, it could be a real problem for him.

[Oy]

At least when we’re talking about what ‘is’ is, I at least can make sense out of it (I’m assuming it refers to past versus present tense), whereas I have no idea what McCain was trying to say. If he was trying to say that MacFarland (or however you spell it) let him in on a plan well before the Awakening, how does that do him (McCain) any credit?

[Fear_Itself]

@Billdo

McCain asserted he knew that and didn’t commit a gaffe. “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.”

Yeah, civilians are too stupid to understand the complexities of war. Better just leave it to the generals. Support the Troops!

[Frostillicus]

To me (and 99% of the rest of the world) the surge means the escalation of troops into Iraq. Now I find out that the surge is far broader and means an overall counter-insurgency employed against the bad guys. As Olberman called it tonight, its really a secret surge that preceded the actual surge. And the best part: only John McCain knows about it! How about them apples?

[Squink]

@Frostillicus

How about them apples?

Small and green, with little worms in em.
IMHO, the watermelons in the community garden patch next door make a more tempting display.