Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
“I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.
Was this another example of McCain not actually knowing something basic about the area he claims to be most expert at? Or was it just a badly phrased statement that he wouldn’t take resources away from Petraeus without confirming Petraeus could do without them?
Given his track record I’d think it was the former, but I’m getting rather tired of both sides parsing out every specific phrasing anyone uses. This focusing on particular word choices is a result of both political campaigns becoming nit-picky rather than issue-oriented and politicians not being questioned on what their positions actually are.
Couldn’t whether McCain was being clueless or misspoke be resolved easily with a really simple follow up question?
Or it could have something to do with the fact that the speculation is Petraeus’ next command will be that of US Forces in Europe, which is also responsible for NATO. If Petraeus were to become the NATO commander then he would be responsible for US operations in Afghanistan.
“Or it could have something to do with the fact that the speculation is Petraeus’ next command will be that of US Forces in Europe, which is also responsible for NATO. If Petraeus were to become the NATO commander then he would be responsible for US operations in Afghanistan.”
Given McCain’s ‘confusion’ lately, this seems a stretch. It is much more likely that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Gotta agree with CSS. That seems far too subtle and forward-looking an interpretation to ever get credited to McCain.
Pending confirmation from the Senate, General Petraeus has been named to replace Admiral Fallon as the commander of CENTCOM, which is repsonsible for US operations in Afghanistan as well as the rest of the region. So John McCain was about two weeks premature in suggesting that GEN Petraeus should be consulted regarding redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. I suppose that whether you think McCain was having a “senior moment” or was being insightful during Petraeus’ report is a matter of your party affiliation.
Did McNovocain know something we didn’t when he said that?
Hmmmm. Conspiring minds wanna know.
Honestly, if a personnel sergeant in the Army Reserve is aware of the scuttlebutt regarding Petraeus’ next assignment a member of the Armed Services Committee would probably have a good idea as well.