Anbar Sheik Cited By McCain Was Assassinated Last Year

The major Sunni sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge and subsequently helped lead the Anbar Awakening, was actually assassinated by an al-Qaeda led group in midst of the surge.

On Tuesday evening, McCain falsely claimed that the downturn in violence in Iraq's Anbar province was a result of the surge, when in fact the surge began months afterward. Moreover, he said, if it weren't for the work of U.S. forces, the major Sunni figure leading that awakening wouldn't have had the protection he needed.

"Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks," said the Senator. "Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda," said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Sadly, that murder took place even with the surge underway. In September 2007, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik widely credited with persuading Sunni leaders to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, died in a bomb attack in Anbar. His work, prior to then, was held as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

It was in a September 2006 interview with UPI, when U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland first spoke about Sattar's efforts. "Some of the sheikhs have begun to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda," he said. His reference was Sattar, according to a Reuters article published upon the sheik's death.

Below is more from the Reuters article on Sattar's death:

"When U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, working in his Pentagon office last Thursday, heard that a tribal leader had been killed in Iraq's Anbar province, his first reaction was: "Please don't let it be Sattar."

His fears proved well-founded. A bomb had killed Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of a movement of Sunni leaders who turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, who are also Sunnis, and transformed Anbar from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

MacFarland is in a unique position to offer insights into the movement Sattar led and how it may develop without him. As a brigade commander in Iraq, he was present at the alliance's founding and worked closely with Abu Risha for months.

"I owe him a lot," MacFarland said. "He was a young guy with a great vision of the future and he was a fast friend of the United States."

Comments

[keepemhonest]

PROUD NEOCON -

Now that you know Obama sponsored the Iran Divestment Bill, and that he merely mixed up, "My Committee" with "My Bill" - I'm sure you feel a lot better.

Link to Bill:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1430

As for McCain, Man so far he has gotten so much of the Iraq war facts just flat out WRONG!

Plus, for all these months McCain has been going around leading us to think it was HIS SURGE and he masterminded the Surge ... Today McCain said Col. MacFarland had been implimenting the Surge 10 months before President Bush spoke his first word about the surge.

So, McCain's been LYING about his role in the surge all these months.

Someone should send him back to Military School so he can learn military definitions .... like the definition of THE SURGE!!!!! That all these months has been HIS SURGE.

Also, today McCain PROVED that he never cared about capturing Bin Laden or getting rid of al Qaeda who trained in Afghanistan ... McCain said, "Iraq was the first major conflict since 9/11." See .. he never did care about American's safety ... like Bush, he cares about the War for Oil.

[keepemhonest]

To PROUD NEOCON-

You're right Obama mis-spoke because in reality, the Iran divestment Bill Obama was talking about was HIS BILL, as opposed to HIS committee.

"Senate Banking Committee Passes Obama Provisions on Divestment in Iran Sanctions Bill
Thursday, July 17, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama today applauded the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee's passage of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008, which includes provisions Obama offered last year in the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (S. 1430).

The Obama provisions clarify that state and local governments can divest from companies that invest $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector and provide safe harbor for private fund managers who divest from such companies. The Committee approved the measure by a vote of 19 to 2.

"Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security priority. In addition to an aggressive, direct, and principled diplomatic effort, we must continue to increase economic pressure on Iran to convince its government to halt its nuclear program, support for terrorist activity, and threats toward Israel.

"This important bipartisan legislation will allow state and local governments and private fund managers to divest from companies that support Iran's energy sector, reducing the revenue Iran uses to expand its nuclear program and sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

"I commend Chairman Dodd for his leadership on this important issue, and I call on the Senate to quickly pass this legislation."

[ProudNeoCon]

Since we are playing gotch you:

this is an Obama statement

"Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don"t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don"t obtain a nuclear weapon."

Except Obama is not on that committee.. I will take McCain not knowing which sheik got killed vs. Obama not knowing on which committee he sits...

[Ammobob]

Gosh darn! This 'gaffe' trumps any NObama lie about the Senate Committee's he's on to drive home a point. That's it McBush, I'll just have to vote twice for you.

[japobere]

Do you know the difference between misspeaking and completely ignorance of facts?

I guess that's a redundant question, your post already answered it.

[1differentdrummer]

Hey, Blanks, are you paid per post or per word?

[demigod]

I think it's hilarious that McCain was going to fly out to an oil derreck to put the microscope on increasing oil production offshore - and then an oil tanker gets creamed in the Mississippi and there's a twelve mile slick, reeking to heaven that will cost a fortune to clean up. That's EXACTLY what the Democrats have been talking about ! And that's not even dealing with terrorists, who could blow up an offshore oil derreck so easily - the Nigerian rebels attack that nation's oil derrecks and pipelines all the time, with catastrophic results. The Republicans will do ANYTHING to paint the Democrats negatively when all they are trying to do is the reasonable thing. We need to get AWAY from oil, and coal, too. These are filthy and poisonous fuels. We need new energy technology that's CLEAN.

[ProudNeoCon]

So stop driving and heating your house and by the way stop using plastic...

[andyboy]

John is showing juist how lazy, phony, complacent and arrogant he really is now.

Just like Hillary did time after time. Fundamental errors. This is dropping bloop fly balls and booting grounders.

When you see a campaign going like this you know one thing for sure......

His cadre of high-paid consultants and political guru's know he is a joke. They also know he is going to lose big no matter what they do (just like Hillary's gang) so they hang around agreeing with everything McCain says and blow smoke up his rear end and take him for EVERY PENNY they can squeeze out of him and his super-wealthy wife.

These Charlie Blacks and Mark Penns make money literally for nothing. If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance blind 'em with your BS as my old man used to say.

This is exactly the reason I would NEVER vote for either one. The lack of leadership. The absence of any class or pride whatsoever. The total submission to easy, dirty poitics. It's unseemly and appeals only to the baser instincts. Zero uplift. Zero excitement. No hope for change.

Those factors make for a loser every time. John is going to suffer a humiiating and total defeat as will the entire Republican party this fall. He's phoning it in and deserves to be crushed and Barack will be only too happy to accomodate I'm sure.

[Sciguy]

"The major Sunni sheik who John McCain said was protected by the surge and subsequently helped lead the Anbar Awakening, was actually assassinated by an al-Qaeda led group in midst of the surge."

The surge is working! The surge is working! The surge is working!

.... sigh ....

[FlyingEagel]

It seems to me that McCain is trying to justify his misstatements about Iraq when he talks about the surge starting before the arrival of additional troops.

[torrrep]

Mr. Stein, I strongly suggest that you pick up a book and read a little history before you make stupid claims about the Anbar Awakening and the surge. You, and other liberals continue to claim that the awakening began before the surge and that is simply not true. A lecture given by Lt. Gen. Raymond T Odierno describes in exact details of what took place during the Anbar awakening. The surge is a process and not an action. This process began with changes in mindset, policy, tactics, procedures and cooperation with the locals. This process began long before the first additional boots hit the ground in Iraq. If you bother reading the lecture by the Colonel or the article written by Bill Roggio in The Long War Journal, you might learn that the process of the surge is what inspired the Anbar awakening. To state that the surge happened after the Anbar awakening is absolutely false. In fact, one of the reasons that the awakening was even able to take place is because of the changes in the mindset of the military to work with the locals in the common goal of eliminating Al Qaeda. Instead of repeating the same old lines that every other person on Huff Post is spouting you should be doing your own investigation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl1068.cfm
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/05/anbar_rising.php

[kensp]

This is same argument McCain was ineptly trying to make in the cheese aisle yesterday. I have to admit you make the case a little better than he did, but no sale. It is true that a counterinsurgency strategy was developed before the troop levels were raised, after several years of there being absolutely no counterinsurgency strategy to speak of and after months before that of denials that there even was an insurgency, but that is not what Bush, McCain, Petreaus et al have been referring to when they say "surge." The surge means the troop build up. To try to change the meaning of the term at this date is just silly and completely self serving.

To be fair, it is not McCain's fault that CBS took the incredible step of deceptively editing the interview to cover up McCain's mistake. If they hadn't and McCain were capable of just admitting his mistake quickly and moving on this would not be such a big deal. Unfortunately McCain's character does not allow him to admit mistakes even when they are blatant. This is a problem for him in my view.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"In fact, one of the reasons that the awakening was even able to take place is because of the changes in the mindset of the military to work with the locals in the common goal of eliminating Al Qaeda."

So you're saying that PRE-awakening ... the mindset of the military was NOT to work with the locals? Well, no wonder this "Global War On Terrorism" in IRAQ hasn't yet been "won".

[1differentdrummer]

How's that Iraq thing working, anyway? Troops ready to come home? Let's see, the surge is eighteen months old and the WWII ground campaign in Europe lasted eleven months, June 6, '44 to May 7, '45, Normandy to Berlin. Hmmm.

[prattvictory]

So by this argument any adjustment in strategy over this war, a war that has gone on longer than American involvement in the Second World War could be attributed to the "surge." The "surge" was the introduction of more troops. it was sold to the American public as what was necessary to create the political environment so that the troops could be withdrawn. Bush didn't say he was going to buy off the local chieftains so that they make nice. We still have more troops in Iraq post "surge" than we did before.

The bottom line is McCain has no plan for victory. If we fought Vietnam like McCain wants to fight Iraq, a war of attrition he would still be rotting in a Hanoi prison.

What balderdash.

[keepemhonest]

TORREP

YOU should read the links YOU provided. It's CLEARLY stated in BOTH links that the Anbar Awakening began BEFORE ANY TALK OF ANY ADDITIONAL U.S. TROOPS ie., THE SURGE.

YOUR Link 1: "Al-Anbar: Before the Surge"
- "In al-Anbar province, things were actually getting better,"
- "the province's tribes had already begun to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI.)"

Those 2 things ARE the "Anbar Awakening." *Author's words "BEFORE THE SURGE"

YOUR Link 2: "May 11, 2007 - The formation of the Anbar Awakening, traces back to LAST YEAR. Anbar province Sheik Abdul Sattar Al-Rishawi and his allies among the tribes and anti al Qaeda insurgent groups began forming alliances in the spring and summer of 2006. Sept. 2006, the groups established the Jazeera Council in Ramadi, and began working more closely with Coalition forces to begin securing neighborhoods in Ramadi."

*Coalition Forces is NOT equal to Surge Forces. You hear terms like Pre-Surge Troop Levels and Post Surge Troop Levels?

Surge
1. Dictionary: sudden increase: a sudden increase in something, often one that is relatively short-lived. (increase Troop level TEMPORARILY, Bush's THE SURGE)

2. Bush: Jan10, 2007 Bush said he'll be "increasing American force levels. Bush committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad"

"troop surge" phrase used for Bush's plan to increase the number of American troops deployed to Iraq War to provide security in Baghdad.

[iLogos]

You are totaly right... except everything typed in the above post.

The surge was not something that was even floated until after the Anbar Awakening. You may say it is a "mindset" but the reality is there was no change in the operations strategies of the troops in place prior to the arrival of new troops during the surging part of the surge. :P

In short you are woefully short on facts and well overstocked on partisan spin.

[torrrep]

You are ignorant of the facts. As stated above, if you think they woke up in December and decided to put boots down on the ground in January then you are just plain stupid. You don't "float around an idea for two months and then just wake up one day and decide to do it. This was something that was planned out far in advance. If you bothered to read the lecture by the Colonel that was there that I cited above then you might actually learn something. There absolutely were operational changes that began months before surge troops arrived. But I guess asking you to read something is asking too much. You call me short on facts yet you offer no facts or any source of information that rebuts anything I said. Of course I'm sure you'll resort to the "Colonel lied" spiel that you libs are so used to spouting. Partisan spin is when you make claims and then offer no supporting evidence to back it up. I've posted sources. Where are yours?

[mady]

Nice try, but Congress never debated "a change in the mindset of the military." The surge, as proposed by President Bush, was exactly "the addition of boots on the ground" and it was controversial because it involved extending the tour of troops already there and stretching the military to the breaking point.

[torrrep]

Yes it was proposed as the addition of boots on the ground. So you're saying that they just decided to wake up one day and send troops with no other changes? No preparation? No coordination? I think you need to read a book or two to learn how things are done because you are clueless.

[Bitsko]

"The Awakening." This guy is just plumb crazy.

[dolphy]

McSame can't be a member. I don't think he'll ever wake up. Too much koolaid.

[egal]

Who's surprised?

There's a reason that basically the only soldiers who buy McCain's stories are those who simply followed orders unquestioningly (internally as well as externally). The rest are far too intimately aware of his separation from reality, the gap between what he says and does versus what is prescribed and proscribed by the situation on the ground and the needs of not only the Military, but also the soldiers and the other important persons whose lives impact the situation in Iraq.

[SeattlePatriot]

And to think. McCain is the best they got......

[kellygrrrl]

we "cheeto-eating slobs" will continue to point out every gaffe
and we will make sure as many Americans as possible hear about it

get used to it

[GV97]

Sen.McCain's remark that Iraq shares borders with Pakistan was hardly mentioned !!

[Ozarks]

Maybe because Couric and Gibson thought he was in the mythical country of Czechlovolkia at the time he made the remark!! MSM gives McCain so many free passes they are really "yellow press" using misinformation, such as the Couric "cut and paste" interview with McCain , to publish propaganda always in favor of McCain. Couric is really not a journalist, she is being paid $15 million a year to entertain not report actual news

[sluggocat]

The McCain campaign is in outright panic mode. They are saying any and everything. Sad...

[levibatgirl]

Cindy, please slip mcconfused some ginkgo balboa or something.

[Huffyfan]

Ha ha ha ha ginkgo balboa ,, too funny ..

[ChiGuy]

balboa....LOL!!!