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















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.
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...’.
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?
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.
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.
.
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?
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.
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.
Jim
The USA Today is wrong, they allowed McCain to lie.
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!!
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.
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?
Maybe you should Ask Rush, he'll tell you!
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?
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.
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.
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.
I dont beleive the affair with the lobbyist thing, I mean McCain is like 103. What did she do, give him a sponge bath?
I would have to be a porn addict to have any idea what you're talking about.
Towels, perhaps? Thongs, maybe? Bra straps?
Oops, I used my outside voice again, didn't I?
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.
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.
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?
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."
DB,
Whom do you consider a liberal in Congress besides Kucinich?
Saddam can't win, he's dead.
Maybe he means this guy?
Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein (1956–), pretender to the throne of Iraq
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.
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?