Big deal. Obviously Crocker knew what he meant.

Everyone makes little slips of the tongue from time to time.

I heard that too.

Yes, he did mispeak - but I find it amazing that he corrected it without a beat within the same Q/A set:

"that Iran's government has assisted in arming special groups that are doing harm to Iraqi security forces and undermining the Iraqi government"

Not that I thought he doesnt understand the difference, which would be a ridiculous notion.

make mistakes, both our candidates know the difference.  John McCain is a whole other story.  He continues to make the same error, which is scary.

In his speech in North Carolina today, Obama noted McCain's confusion yesterday between Sunni and Shiites, and said that McCain is focused on tactics to the exclusion of strategy.

In his sharpest passage, he suggested that McCain's misunderstanding of the Middle East is why he supported the war in the first place -- a sharp jab, though not really a serious contention:

Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.

Maybe that's why Obama was against the AUMF; he thought it was about Iran?

This is the best you can hit Obama with why don't you check out the diary insisting he is unpatriotic.

Not for Obama supporters I guess.  

I thought Obama was unkind in his remarks about McCain.  He should be able to campaign against McCain without snot remarks, campaign on merits, not misstatements.  

Of course, the rep on Obama is that he never goes negative, but then anyone who is willing to SEE with their eyes and HEAR with their ears knows better.

According to the Huffington Post blog, Obama was addressing a crowd of fundraisers in San Francisco on Sunday when he began talking about his choice for vice president, and said he would choose someone who adds to his expertise.

"I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more commander in chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain," Obama reportedly said.

Yes, and I see your point.  If McCain is criticized for saying Shia when he meant Sunni, then Obama can be criticized for saying Iraq when he meant Iran.

Clinton's questions we're much more poignant.

For months, Clinton has been an outspoken critic of President Bush's negotiations with the Iraqi government over a long-term security pact, primarily because President Bush is not required to submit the pact for Congress' approval, despite the fact that Iraqi officials intend to submit the pact to their own parliament. Clinton asked Crocker why the President does not plan to include the Congress in the negotiations.

"We do not anticipate that the agreements will have any elements within them that would require the advise and consent procedure. The intent to negotiate is as an executive procedure," Crocker said.

"Well Ambassador Crocker," Clinton responded, "it seems odd to Americans who are being asked to commit for an indefinite period of time the lives of our young men and women in uniform, the civilian employees - whom you rightly referenced and thanked - as well as billions of dollars of additional tax payer dollars if the Iraqi parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement and the United States Congress would not...I would urge you to submit such an agreement to the Congress for full consideration."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/08/ politics/fromtheroad/entry4001861.shtml

Oh, come on, now. This is ridiculous. The man misspoke. Can you imagine how tired he is? He and Hillary hardly sleep. Surely there's something better for us Clinton supporters to complain about.

Heh, I actually read it as not a mis-speak. Iran sending aid into Iraq to the various militias and that aid is distributed by the Iraqi government that is Iranian-controlled, in other words, that Maliki is a tool of a Iran.

But considering the context it is more likely a mis-speak.

this has become a web sit that defends mccain on numerous occasions, and many here are quite immature

this is troll bait.

OBAMA: Do we feel confident that the Iraqi government is directing these -- this aid to these special groups?

Actually in the context it appears that Obama said exactly what he meant say, and that he was trying to get Crocker to admit that certain low levels of the Iraqi government are, in fact, directing (or least tacit about) what is claimed to be Iranian aid to "Shiite" extremists.

But Crocker instead chose to refocus blame onto Iran and the Quds.

One thing of interest is that Obama later referred to the "Maliki" government, instead of saying the Iraqi government.

In any case Obama did a great job of getting some real answers out of a dedicated servicemen and a dedicated diplomat, without belittling them or even harshly confronting them. I thought it was very wise that Obama made it clear that he was not laying blame at their feet, but that the decision to invade from the beginning had been wrong. And that it was powerful how Obama outlined a realistic goal for departure from Iraq in a bi-partisan way. Obama made the best comment when he made it clear that everyone there wanted Iraq to be a success.    

My favorite part was when Obama asked a 'rhetorical' question, then demanded an answer.

Petraeus should have said "you need to look up rhetorical in the dictionary, senator".

Frankly, I don't think that McCain's mixup is any worse or better than Obama's. You can't believe how many people get Iran and Iraq mixed up and Sunni and Shia mixed up. Harping on this stuff makes the other candidate look elitist. The voters out there are saying to themselves "Yeah, I can understand getting this stuff mixed up. I get it mixed up too".