About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

USA Today's Page repeated McCain's false assertion that Obama "suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan"

February 21, 2008 1:49 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: In a USA Today article reporting on Sen. John McCain's "critique" of Sen. Barack Obama, Susan Page wrote that McCain was "ridiculing comments Obama has made" and quoted without challenge McCain's false assertion that Obama "once suggested bombing 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."

73 Comments

In a February 21 USA Today article reporting on Sen. John McCain's "critique" of Sen. Barack Obama, Washington bureau chief Susan Page wrote that McCain was "ridiculing comments Obama has made" and quoted without challenge McCain's false assertion that Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." In fact, 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 -- a fact missing from Page's article. Obama made any action against "high-value terrorist targets" inside Pakistan conditional. Nor did he specify what action he would take in that event. He did not mention "bombing" in general nor "bombing our ally, Pakistan." He said only that he would take action against "high-value terrorist targets" -- not "Pakistan" or its government -- if there were "actionable intelligence" and "Musharraf won't act."

Page also did not mention reports, including one in The Washington Post 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" from 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." Post staff writers Joby Warrick and Robin Wright reported that on January 29, "relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants," the agency used the Predator to fire 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."

According to a February 21 Post article, when asked about the Post's February 19 report about U.S. strikes against Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, McCain "declined to comment."

From the February 21 USA Today article:

McCain's critique of Obama:

•It's not age, it's experience. The 71-year-old Arizona senator sought to turn around criticism that his age could give voters pause, particularly in contrast to the 46-year-old Obama. "My friends, I'm not the youngest candidate, but I am the most experienced," McCain said. That's given him knowledge about how to deal with Congress, what to demand from the U.S. military and "how the world works."

•Obama is "naive" on national security issues. McCain mentioned challenges brewing with Pakistan, Cuba and Venezuela that could carry serious consequences for the United States. Without mentioning Obama's name, he unmistakably targeted him, ridiculing comments Obama has made.

"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?" he asked.

He also disparaged Obama's soaring rhetoric, warning against "an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history."

A few minutes later, Obama was using that rhetoric to electrify an overflow crowd of 12,000 in Houston, and to take on McCain. He began with the sort of praise -- "I revere and honor John McCain's service to this country" -- that might be heaped on a longtime employee being given a gold watch and retirement papers. Then came his own critical appraisal.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 1:58 pm ET)
         
      Good to see that McCain is now channeling the RightWing talking points. Is it plagiarism when he repeats Rush Limbaugh's bullsh*t without giving him credit? Just wondering.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 21, 2008 2:15 pm ET)
           

        I would be OK with Obama's fictional comment regarding the bombing . But only if I had hard facts that Musharaff didn't always feel really proud of Pakistan during his adult life.

        If you can't tell,with this post, I'm defending both Obama and Musharaff, and am clearly anti-bombing. Ask RINOHunter.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
             
          Why bomb pakistan? Everyone knows it's really the gay's fault!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 2:28 pm ET)
               
            not that there's anything wrong with that ;)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Clevenative (February 21, 2008 2:46 pm ET)
               

            OMG! Just what the world needs - A Jewish Pat Robertson.

            Could you imagine what the world would be like if the right wing of Christians, Jews, and Muslims controlled the world? Oh wait, we’re already there! Everyone now, to the tune of “California Here I Come”…  follow the bouncing bomb … ‘Ar-ma-ged-on here we come...’.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 21, 2008 3:13 pm ET)
                 

              That's silly. Everybody knows it's goblins having a sock hop under the Earth's core that causes earthquakes.

              Is the 3rd century almost over?

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:17 pm ET)
                   
                I'm not sure, but I believe I see a bunch of Spaniards in priest flocks gathering. Something about ink solution? inqui situation? Ah, forget it. Probably not a big thing anyways.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (February 21, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
                   
                Arm a gedding out of here.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
                     
                  Well, before you go you better get rapture ready!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eweston8542983 (February 21, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
                       

                    Gonna have to give that a good look after work Snoop.

                    Jesus' General is supposed to give a public appearence arround the end of the month. That should put a cherry on the top of my rapture.

                    Report Abuse
    • Author by Sueelldd (February 21, 2008 2:10 pm ET)
         
      Obama never said that yet McCain spews this lie daily. The USA Today is disgraceful also, stop repeating lies without investigating them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by JimLehrer (February 21, 2008 2:38 pm ET)
           

        Unfair,

        Well obviously Obama was suggesting we would take some military action in Pakistan if we had information on where Bin Laden was hiding. What I believe Obama was referring to was a special forces operation or maybe some selective airstrikes, not an ALL OUT invasion/bombing campaign.

        But unfortunately both sides of the political aisle like to take things out of context when it suits them to do so.

        .

        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 21, 2008 2:43 pm ET)
             

          JL,

          While both sides may do this, doesn't a news organization have a responsibility to print the statements that McCain was referring to for clarification?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by JimLehrer (February 21, 2008 2:44 pm ET)
               

            Since McCain didn't mention Obama by name (even though we all know that's who he meant) they don't technically have to correct anything.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 21, 2008 3:04 pm ET)
                 

              You are giving USA Today a pass for letting McCain "technically" lie and not correct the statement?

              Show me when a Democratic candidate got a misstatement by his opponent reported as news.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by DorisRussell (February 21, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
                 

              Jim

               The USA Today is wrong, they allowed McCain to lie.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (February 21, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
             
          WOW, Jim! Maybe you're not just another right-wing squawkbox after all - Please excuse my assumption in an earlier thread.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
             
          I think that was a good analysis of the situation. I dont see however why you think what Sue said was unfair. It WAS a lie. Obama never said it and USA Toady is repeating it shamelessly.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
         

      So what does Crazy Grampaw think about the Bush administration bombing our 'ally' Pakistan?  Oh, right, Bush is a hero.  But when Obama does it, he's naive. 

       Awww, isn't that cute!  Crazy Grampaw thinks he's gonna be Pwezident!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (February 21, 2008 2:39 pm ET)
           
        This is off topic but I just saw "our hero" dancing again at the close of his African trip.

        It was truly amazing. I've seen better dancers at Grateful Dead shows.

        Somehow, I just couldn't imagine Lincoln, Jefferson or even Dick Nixon doing this for all the world to see.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 2:46 pm ET)
           
        McCain was asked about this and his answer was that it was not the policy it was the way Obama chose to broadcast it the way he did that he felt showed is inexperience.  I have made similar complaints so I can't really knock the reasoning but I think a case can certainly be made that in McCains original comments it certainly sounds like he was knocking the policy itself.  
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 3:22 pm ET)
             

          Funny, I don't recall McCain criticizing bush at all during late 2002-early 2003 when Bush was beating his war drums and calling on his coalition to come fight Iraq.  Wouldn't the best strategy then have been to take Iraq by surprise, capture Saddam and secure the 'WMDs' before the Iraqis knew what happened?

          Oh right, that McCain was actually a different person.  I am still wondering what happened to the McCain that ran for Prez in 2000.  What have they done with him?  And who is this guy who's about to get the Republican nomination?  Where the heck did he come from?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
               

            Maybe you should Ask Rush, he'll tell you!

            The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. […]

            There’s a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson and understand who his friends are and who his enemies are. He’s had that backwards for way too long.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:43 pm ET)
               
            I admired McCain personally but when he cozied up to the far right wing and went back on his previous views the very ones I admired him for he lost a lot of the respect I had for him regarding his politics.  Even when I didn't agree with his stand on issues I did respect how he arrived at them.  I would never vote for him for president because I have concerns about where he would take us on foreign policy and I do not want any more conservative judges on the SC at this time.   Having said that I didn't check my own values, ideas, and sense of fair play at the door when I endorsed the democratic platform...I am simply calling it as I see it.  I think Obama made a mistake when he made that statement and when others including McCain called him on it I assumed they did so for the same reason I did not because they didn't also believe in the policy. 
            Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 2:34 pm ET)
         

      I'm curious why these Obama lies get so much airtime, yet we now have a story about a possible affair between McCain and a lobbyist, and all I hear are crickets? Where's the sanctimonious outrage and indignation the right likes to throw around?

      Or how about the US Embassy in Serbia? A mob broke in and are burning it to the ground. A deliberate attack on US sovereign soil, but I haven't heard any shouts demanding retribution coming from Fox news. Why not?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 2:38 pm ET)
           
        If all you are hearing is crickets about the McCain story then I think you need to turn up the volume on your TV or Radio.  It has been none stop coverage since NYT put the story on their website last night. 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
             
          The crickets I'm referring to is the right wing howls. You know, the kind of howls they gave when Bill Clinton was wettin' his cigar?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 2:55 pm ET)
               
            You mean when everyone suspected it, he lied about it, and then admitted it? That's the same thing as no names as sources, no evidence, and no accusations of anything further "spending too much time together"?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
                 

              Exactly. See, the right will claim it's about the law, but it was clear it was never about the law. I believe Ken Star's report was x-rated!

              But there is a clear double standard. Guliani? No one cared on the right. Now McCain? "He's an honorable man, I take him at his word". Larry Craig? Still in office. I guess family values are only for democrats.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
                   
                Snoop, my position is that I can completely agree with you on Giuliani and Craig, and still hold that there is absolutely nothing to this story that even comes close to Bill C's, Giuliani's, or Craig's scandals.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:13 pm ET)
                     
                  Personally, I'm actually gonna wait and see, but do think the larger story behind this is his lobbyist ties that he repeatedly denies on the campaign trail. But forgive me, I do like to see the right squirm. They've been doing it a lot lately!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
                       
                    I can absolutely understand. Frankly I'm worried that those on the left who were not previously as looney as wingnuts and moonbats may be driven to by the smell of blood (McCain's to be specific). While they're no better than the Rove smear machine for doing it, can you blame them after how 2004 went?
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (February 21, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
             
          Yeah & St Keith broke into Hardball last night with this Breaking News story. I swear Keith was hyperventilating he was soooooo excited.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 2:54 pm ET)
           

        The non-story about McCain (here's an article about a rumor from unnamed sources about a possible issue with McCain maybe spending too much time around a particular female lobbyist) is getting a ton of press, Snoop.

        I agree with you about Serbia.

        And if BillO gets away with it (doesn't get fired or at least forced to say "my B yo, now muddafugga, get me some ice tea!"), it will be one of the biggest journalistic integrity scandals of this decade, IMO.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
             
          As for McCain's "non-story", I wonder if we'll ever know the truth. So far, I've heard several Right Wing talking heads on TV dismissing it as "innuendo, rumor and conjecture with no real evidence". Hmmmm.... I remember when a story broke on Drudge about 12 or so years ago about the President having a fling with a White House intern. At the time, there was no evidence to support it. Did our stalwart Press Corps express healthy skepticism? Some did, but for the most part, they made it the lead story every night for months, long before the stained dress proved the rumor true.

          Now, the question is, will the "Liberal Media" embark on a similar feeding frenzy regarding John McCain's alleged affair? Somehow, I seriously doubt it. I predict that this story will go away within a week.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dazedandconfused26 (February 21, 2008 2:40 pm ET)
         

      I dont beleive the affair with the lobbyist thing, I mean McCain is like 103. What did she do, give him a sponge bath?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (February 21, 2008 2:48 pm ET)
           
        I hear it was just a "Happy-Ending" massage.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (February 21, 2008 2:53 pm ET)
             
          Wonder if Tommy will get that one?:)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (February 21, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
               

            I would have to be a porn addict to have any idea what you're talking about. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
                 
              Or at least read the WashPo's sports section's block ads. OOOOOH SNAP
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (February 21, 2008 3:17 pm ET)
                   
                I don't get the WaPo, so I'm not sure what you're snapping.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:28 pm ET)
                     

                  Towels, perhaps? Thongs, maybe? Bra straps?

                  Oops, I used my outside voice again, didn't I?

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
                     
                  Some other paper called out the WashPo's sports section for carrying a rather large section of Asian "personal massage" parlor ads. It was embarrassing for them and I'm not sure if they even post them anymore, but when I was in college they got almost a 1/4 page.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (February 21, 2008 3:38 pm ET)
                       
                    Wow, those places must have been making pretty good money to cover that advertising cost.  I'd never heard about that, that is pretty embarrassing.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
                         
                      Good point Brab, I never thought about the expense that must've caused them to run daily likely that, even though they were only 1x1 display ads.
                      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (February 21, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
         
      McCaw's marital problems are his, and his family's business. Mr. Straight talks chumminess with lobyest's deserves some exposure. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 3:30 pm ET)
           
        I agree. However, we've seen that the "values voters" don't really seem to care about financial scandals, or dishonesty from their leaders. They only get worked up when sex is involved. If McCain can deflect the sex accusations, he's home free with the Troglodytes.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (February 21, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
         

      These fopaws are fodder for candidates on either side.  

      Obama stepped in it when he thought at the time, he was saying something that would make him look stronger on defense.    

      However, saying something like this is like lobbing an underhand toss over the plate to Barry Bonds. McCain will keep hitting it out of the park until  election day or some other other statement, like his wife saying she only recently became proud of the U.S., comes along. 

      Obama has done the same to the Clintons. And no doubt will do the same with McCain.

      Sound bite politics rules the airwaves. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
           
        Ya know, you're right about that. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, it's too hard to understand for a lot of pooples.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 3:39 pm ET)
           
        You may be right about the "taking action" against Pakistan part. The Troglodytes will continue to mischaracterize that statement until it becomes this season's "invented the internet". However, the "talking to our enemies" part may not play that well for McCain, since Colin Powell agreed with Obama on that one.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (February 21, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
             

          Nerzog,

          Remember, McCain is not Bush III.  Should he win, I think his straight talk express probably will take him on more than a few backroom detours.  

          Lefties should be ecstatic. They'll have a Liberal in the W.H. no matter who wins.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 3:54 pm ET)
               

            You're right, McCain is not Bush III.  I was hoping he'd be better than Bush II, but apparently he's worse.

            Even Bush II realized that Obama was right, and we needed to 'take action' in Pakistan without the approval of their government.

            If McCain can't understand a concept that's simple enough for Dubya to get, how do you expect him to lead this country?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 4:03 pm ET)
               

            None of the current Presidential candidates are liberal.

            http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

            This link shows that every single one of them are moderate right, with Obama being the most liberal OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.  However, his voting record does indicate he is more authoritarian than the other two.

            So yeah, liberal? hardly.  It'll be a cold day in H-E-double hockey sticks before America elects a true liberal.  

            And just to give you some perspective, Kucinich would be a centrist in Europe.  Yet here, he's a "crazy leftist wacko." 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (February 21, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
                 

              DB,

              Whom do you consider a liberal in Congress besides Kucinich?  

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
                   
                I cant speak for DBeden. For myself I would consider, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy to be outright liberals and John Kerry, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Russ Fiengold to be middle of the road liberals. That isnt an exhaustive list but DBeden Is correct in Europe I would be considered center right or maybe five degrees left of center at best.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
               
            I question McCain's "liberality". One thing I feel sure of... if he wins, we'll get one, maybe two more neanderthals on the Supreme Court. We'll be screwed for a generation.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (February 21, 2008 4:18 pm ET)
                 
              and if Hussein wins you won't? 
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (February 21, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
                   

                Saddam can't win, he's dead.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
                     
                  Snoopy - I think AA is referring to King Hussein of Jordan, our close ally.  I didn't know he was running either, though.  I thought he passed away in 1999.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (February 21, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
                   
                If a Democrat wins, we may be screwed, too.... but we KNOW we'll be screwed if Gramps McCan't wins.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 21, 2008 7:22 pm ET)
                   
                Why do you insist on being so stupid?
                Report Abuse
        • Author by lostlogic (February 21, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
             
          See this is how everyone spins each others words...the same thing MCain is being criticized for.  Contrary to what Obama claims his other opponents (Clinton and MCCain) do believe in talking and using diplomacy they just don't agree with Obama's position about the president himself meeting personally without conditions when he takes office.  We can debate which is the responsible position but Obama misstates Clinton's on the record position that she does believe in diplomacy and negotiating with the enemy.  Of course the only person I have ever seen call Obama on this is Dan Abrams who correctly points out Obama's "misstatement" of Clinton's position on negotiating.  I don't think any of the candidates is above "spinning" and "corrupting" their opponents positions for their own political gain.  We as the observers should take it all with a griain of salt and try to find out for ourselves what each has really said and what tehre real position is.  Sad that we can not look to our journalists for this...I would have thought that was there job but I guess such is life these days.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
           
        AA - that's a great analogy.  McCain is just like Barry Bonds in many other ways, too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 21, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
             

          I know, if you close your eyes when McCain talks, you could swear he was an African-American record-breaking baseball player that hates the press.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (February 21, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
               
            All I see is a gigantic head.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 21, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
                 
              Well, they both enjoy lying, and they both have very little shame.  Also, public opinion of both Bonds and McCain has been plummeting steadily since 2000.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 21, 2008 5:14 pm ET)
                   
                The difference is that Bonds , even with his "little helpers", had to actually hit the ball out of the park. McCain only has to lie that he hit a homer, and suckers like AA go for it.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 22, 2008 2:02 am ET)
           

        AA, are you promoting soundbites? It sounds as if you're criticizing the impact of them, but most of your thoughts seem to be built on nothing but.

        BTW, I read this thread earlier today, and could not figure out "fopaws". I finally read it out loud and got it. Is this a French boycott thing?

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.