Media outlets uncritically reported McCain's false assertion that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan"
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com's The Trail both quoted Sen. John McCain's false assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." McClatchy Newspapers -- apparently quoting from the prepared text of McCain's January 19 speech -- reported that McCain said Obama "once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan." In fact, in an August 2007 speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
In their coverage of the February 19 primary elections, both The Wall Street Journal and washingtonpost.com's The Trail quoted Sen. John McCain's false assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." The Wall Street Journal's Jackie Calmes wrote in a February 20 article that McCain "asked whether the next president will have the experience to counter the world's threats" and quoted McCain claiming that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan." Similarly, in a February 19 post on the washingtonpost.com blog The Trail, staff writer Glenn Kessler wrote that "McCain asked: 'Will the next president have the experience? Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate' who, he said, threatened to bomb Pakistan and would sit down with rogue dictators?" Kessler then added that "[w]hile McCain did not mention Obama, both referenced statements that [sic] have caused Obama grief in the primaries." However, neither Calmes nor Kessler reported Obama's actual comments about Pakistan, which McCain misrepresented: In an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
Contrary to McCain's assertion, Obama did not say he would take action against Pakistan -- he made any action against "high-value terrorist targets" inside Pakistan conditional -- and he did not specify what the action would be.
From McCain's February 19 speech:
McCAIN: A self-important bully in Venezuela threatens to cut off oil shipments to our country at a time of skyrocketing gas prices. Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next president have the experience, the judgment experience informs, and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals?
Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?
I think you know the answer to that question.
In a February 19 article, McClatchy Newspapers -- apparently quoting from the original text of McCain's speech as prepared for delivery -- reported that McCain said Obama "once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan." However, this, too, is false. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Obama did not say he would "invade" Pakistan. Indeed, in an August 7, 2007, blog entry, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that he had emailed ABC News national security analyst Anthony H. Cordesman to determine whether "the media (and I) overstate[d] the case by using the term 'invade' " in their reports about Obama's statement. Tapper wrote that Cordesman "told me that Obama is correct, what he's talking about militarily would not be considered an 'invasion' " [emphasis in original].
In contrast to The Wall Street Journal, the washingtonpost.com, and McClatchy, a February 19 Associated Press article by Liz Sidoti quoted McCain's attack against Obama and noted that "[l]ast August, Obama had said if the United States had actionable intelligence about top terrorist targets in Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf wouldn't act, the U.S. would."
Moreover, McCain's mischaracterization of Obama's position notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal, washingtonpost.com, and McClatchy did not note that The Washington Post reported on February 19 that the United States recently used a CIA predator aircraft to launch missile strikes inside Pakistan and that "the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval" of the Pakistani government. In a February 19 post on the blog Talking Points Memo, managing editor David Kurtz noted McCain's mischaracterization of Obama's position on Pakistan and wrote that "[i]ronically enough, the Washington Post is reporting today on just such a U.S. military strike into Pakistan." Indeed, Post staff writers Joby Warrick and Robin Wright reported that on January 29, a CIA Predator aircraft in Pakistan, "relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants," fired missiles that killed "Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander." According to the Post, "Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities." The article then stated that the "incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand."
From the February 20 Wall Street Journal article:
In his victory speech last night, Sen. McCain left no doubt which Democrat he expects to run against -- Sen. Obama. Without naming the 46-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, the 71-year-old fourth-term Sen. McCain clearly had his younger rival in mind in drawing a blistering contrast between his own national-security experience and "an eloquent but empty call for change."
Further previewing a potential anti-Obama campaign -- while ignoring Sen. [Hillary] Clinton -- Sen. McCain asked whether the next president will have the experience to counter the world's threats, or "will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate, who once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?"
Sen. Obama, already campaigning in Texas last night, used his Wisconsin valedictory speech not only to re-emphasize his message of political inclusiveness and an end to partisan gridlock, but to answer both his Democratic and potential Republican rivals.
From the February 19 post on washingtonpost.com's The Trail:
In his victory speech, McCain appeared to set his sights on silver-tongued Barack Obama as his competitor in the general election, ignoring the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton is still running neck and neck with the Illinois senator.
"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change," which McCain said "promises no more than a holiday from history."
Ticking off global hot spots, such as the elections in Pakistan, the unexpected retirement of Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's threat to cut off oil supplies to the United States, McCain asked, "Will the next president have the experience? Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate" who, he said, threatened to bomb Pakistan and would sit down with rogue dictators. While McCain did not mention Obama, both referenced statements that have caused Obama grief in the primaries.
In a line that garnered his biggest applause of the night, McCain declared, "My friends, I am not the youngest candidate, but I am the most experienced."
From the February 19 McClatchy Newspapers article:
McCain declared victory moments after the polls closed. He had no harsh words for [Republican presidential candidate Mike] Huckabee, whom he beat 55 to 37 percent in Wisconsin, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. But he wasted no time in taking a veiled shot at the Democrat who's now inescapably the front-runner to oppose him in the fall:
"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure that Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change," McCain said. Obama's crusade for change is the signature issue of his campaign.
"Will the next president have the experience, the judgment experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals?" McCain asked. "Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?"















Now I think he is nothing but a lying scumbag politician.
He has always been a lying you said the rest.
He has always been a lying you said the rest.
That's why he has an "R" after his name. All the biggest liars are Republicans.
Now, now. We must give McCain a break. He's well beyond the age of senility, and Alzeheimer's is a real possibility. Criticizing him for not getting ANYTHING right is tantamount to making fun of the handicapped.
Think back fondly to those days of yore, when it was a comforting part of your childhood to have that old fart next door yelling, "Hey, you kids! Git offa my property!"
Gee Tex, If your exact post here had been uttered by a rightwinger speaking about a leftwing politician, it would be slapped here so fast with its own thread, your head would spin.
And it would be followed immediately by a comment, most likely from you, denouncing it as not only disrespectul to anyone suffering from Alzheimer's disease, but a swipe at those that are handicapped as well. And anyone to dare come here and defend such disrespect would be pounced on pronto.
Just so you know........
I'll gladly say the same exact thing about Robert Byrd in a heartbeat, and I'm not even close to right wing.
Pounce away.
I still had an ounce of respect for McCain untill I saw this item.
What a backstabbing traitor
500 terabytes should do it...
I hope MMFA has arranged for lots and lots of room on their drives to store the deluge of MSM spew that is now just a trickle.
The teleprompter-reading, lazy-ass, ball-chasing puppies of the MSM can be counted on to do a whole bunch more "quoting from the prepared text of McCain's ... speech"
Goooood Puhhh-peees!
Maybe McCain is thinking about something he saw in a movie. Is he entering his "Reagan Years" just in time for the election?
"Reagan Years" is good; I prefer "makes new friends every day."
Is O' Bomba's water getting heavy? Who determines what a "high-value terrorist target" really is? Is MMFA's definition of said different from O' Bomba's? Who's going to define what "actionable intelligence" really is in an O' Bomba administration? The naiveté of the joiner Senator is mind boggling and extremely dangerous to the entire world. Young Barrack Whossane has absolutely no military experience of any kind, NONE! He has no idea how this world operates from an intelligence stand point, NONE! O' Bomba is just like a brand new Chuckie Cheese gold token, looks great but is absolutely worthless except for a child's game or two.
BH,
We don't know what Obama will do, but I think its fair to say he can't do much worse than Bush has. As for actionable intelligence, I expect Obama to pick a running mate who isn't a warmonger to start.
Could it be we might ask him what he would do? Might you not like his answer? Pretty scarry?
Well, let me ask you this, B, did you vote for Bush because he ran on a humble foreign policy and didn't like the idea of nation building?
I'll tell you what, if Obama says that he wants to be in Iraq for 100 or 1000 years and that there will be other wars, I won't vote for him, ok? Those are two scary possibilities.
Your honesty is admirable.
Honesty might be an unusual concept to you, hillbilly, but you should really try it some time. You might actually receive respect from others.
Did you vote for him? If you did, why would you vote for someone with no prior military experience? (His time in the Texas Air National Guard doesn't count. You can't learn anything if you're too drunk to listen.)
So yeah Bush is still relevant because, even though he's at 19% in the polls, he's still President for another 11 months.
president numbnuts had no military experience either, but hey? Since you asked, I think this is the correct rebuttal for someone who believes McCain is telling the truth.
The two things that jump out is Obama said:
If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
And on the latest strike into Pakistan:
Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.
So have a nice day, and try to rack your brain too hard trying to sound like a hick as you say Barack!
This is about O' Bomba..........not ME. Please stay on topic.
I'm sorry, it's just hard to stay on topic when you post like a punch-drunk alley-clown.
Hey guys, I think BIlly Hill used to go by another name...Remember BillyBob? Col., I know you do. What with his non-sensical paraphrasing of Obama's name, and his insistence on using terrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation, I think we have a match.
NiceGuy, Pakistan is a little more nuanced than that. Okay, a lot more, but I agree that Obama has the most forward thinking plan for Pakistan. Basically, Musharaf never really controlled the Pashtun border. He could never secure the territory, mostly because the terrain made it really hard to use any sort of military force in the area. So going after Bin Laden was not feasible from a military standpoint.
And then there's the new elections in Pakistan...whew, I don't even want to get in to it.
This was done without consulting Pakistan and without Pakistan's approval.
What's McCain going on about?
You asked "What's McCain going on about?"
His answer: "Uhhh... er.... ummm... I forgot."
Have a nice warm glass of milk now, Johnnie - tomorrow, you get to make all new friends.
John Boy's already fallin' off the Straight-Talk Express...
He knows his best chance is lie and distort and let the corporate media carry the water for him.
So the right wing hacks all worship at the altar of Reagan, seems like they should be jumpin on board the ol' straight talk express. They can have another senior citizen who by the end of his time as president wont be able to remember his own son, just like Reagan. Morons.
By Steve Holland WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT “Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government,”
Pretty straight forward to me.