saw and heard several opinions on the McCain's mis-use of AQ over the weekend. More than one source is taking the position that AQ sees Sunni militias as part of the "al-Qaeda movement" and that the Sunnis see themselves in the same light. Their source for this information was imprisoned Sunnis and terrorists in the Middle East. I think it makes sense, but I would be quicker to accept it if they had said it before McCain came under fire for getting corrected by Leiberman.

Could you clarify this a bit? It's a good starting point, but I'm not sure I get what you're getting at. It's not exactly new to suggest that much of AQI is made up of Al Qaeda wannabes who have taken up that mantle, rather than actual Al Qaeda-trained members who'd been sent into Iraq. Also that they've united around the shared enemy. Part of the surge has been to pay off the Sunni militias who don't go that far and enable them to root out and kill some of the Sunnis that do.

I'm wondering, did you mean Shiite militias? That would be new, and some on the right have been pushing back on the idea that McCain was wrong. Some don't think he should have retracted, though that logic uses some of the same loose association techniques that tied Iraq to Al Qaeda in the first place.

Actually, I kept wondering when you were going to post those, Tupa.

In the last few days, however, I've seen even some diehards admitting that he misspoke, so I guess this line of reasoning hasn't been widely accepted/distributed on the right.

Yeah, I would.

You really think a militant Sunni group that does things like blow up Shia mosques and slaughter Shiite civilians is going to have substantial coordination with Iran?

That's why McCain had to retract. It's not true.

quote:

Originally posted by heckofajobBrownie:
Yeah, I would.

You really think a militant Sunni group that does things like blow up Shia mosques and slaughter Shiite civilians is going to have substantial coordination with Iran?

That's why McCain had to retract. It's not true.

Bill Maher covered this in his "New Rules" recently...basically, he said that the AQI-Iran comment was so BS, even Cheney wouldn't say it.

His point was that this was clear evidence that McCain shouldn't be president, because you can't trust someone who gets those kind of details wrong. I'm not sure I buy that argument--after all, religious differences aside, it would make perfect sense--but it does give one pause. I know, I know. McCain served in the military, so he knows more. Then again, Kerry served in the military more than Bush, and that didn't carry as much weight with many as it might have.

For the record, I think it's much ado about...well, not nothing. Much ado about not a whole lot. It was a mistake. Hopefully it got corrected. I think it's getting blown out of proportion, like Obama's relationship to Pastor "America Had it Coming" or McCain's taking endorsements from Pastor "The Jews Wouldn't Have Had the Holocaust if they hadn't Killed Jesus."

Dennis