Wash. Post repeats McCain's falsehood-laden attacks on Obama
SUMMARY: Reporting on Sen. Barack Obama's foreign-policy positions, The Washington Post repeated Sen. John McCain's false assertion that Obama "misspell[ed] 'flak jacket,' " uncritically referenced McCain's false assertion that Obama said that Al Qaeda is not currently in Iraq, and ignored the fact that McCain has made comments similar to those he criticized Obama for making about Iraq becoming a base for Al Qaeda.
A March 3 Washington Post article about Sen. Barack Obama's foreign-policy positions reported that Sen. John McCain, who "once dismissed Obama for misspelling 'flak jacket,' has also belittled his credentials, accusing him last week of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda." But in recycling McCain's attacks on Obama, the Post advanced his misrepresentations. The Post simply repeated the false claim that Obama "misspell[ed] 'flak jacket.' " As Media Matters for America previously documented, McCain responded to a May 25, 2007, statement in which Obama referred to a "flack" jacket by falsely accusing Obama of misspelling the word. In fact, "flack" is an acceptable alternative spelling of "flak" and is used in numerous materials put out by the military. Further, in reporting that McCain accused Obama of "making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda" -- a reference to a statement Obama made during the February 26 Democratic presidential debate -- the Post failed did not note that McCain was falsely suggesting that Obama had said that Al Qaeda is not currently in Iraq. Nor did the Post note that McCain himself has made comments similar to those he criticized.
Obama wrote in a May 25, 2007, statement that "the course we are on in Iraq" is not "working." Obama said that "a reflection of that [is] the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket" and other military protection when walking through a Baghdad market during a trip to Iraq in April. McCain responded: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket." In fact, the word "flack" appears on numerous official military websites. Moreover, as MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira noted at the time, Webster's New World Dictionary says "flack" is an alternative spelling for "flak." According to Dictionary.com, the American Heritage Dictionary lists "flack" as an alternative spelling of "flak" when referring to "[a]ntiaircraft artillery" or "[t]he bursting of shells fired from such artillery."
During the Democratic debate on February 26, Obama said that after he withdrew troops from Iraq, he would -- as president -- "reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." Mocking Obama over the debate comment, McCain said: "I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq." But, contrary to McCain's suggestion, Obama did not say that Al Qaeda currently has no presence in Iraq; he was speaking of the future, saying: "[I]f Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." Furthermore, the Post simply reported that McCain accused Obama "of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda" -- it did not point out that McCain made comments similar to those he criticized. For example, a September 13, 2007, Quad-City Times (Iowa) article reported that McCain said, "We cannot set a date for surrender, which would be a date for withdrawal from Iraq," and that "[i]f we leave under those conditions, you will see chaos, genocide in Iraq, and we will be back. And we will be back because it will become a base for al-Qaida activities."
From the March 3 Washington Post article:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has seized on such remarks -- along with Obama's pledge to meet with enemies such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba -- as proof that her rival for the Democratic nomination lacks the experience and judgment to lead in a dangerous world, and the two candidates engaged in a furious exchange over each other's foreign policy credentials over the weekend. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the war hero and likely Republican nominee who once dismissed Obama for misspelling "flak jacket," has also belittled his credentials, accusing him last week of making ill-informed comments about Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Far from backpedaling from his original comments on Pakistan, however, Obama incorporated the remarks into his "change" mantra and regularly uses them to highlight differences with his opponents. Their caution, he has said, stems from a "mind-set of fear ... fear of looking weak, fear of new challenges, fear of the unknown."
August,
It seems like the pot calling the kettle when we have seen the anti-semitic Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama.
I don't know who this McGee guy is so you have me at a loss. Does McGee have a large denomination? Can you tell me why he is anti-semitic? Thanks.
We had a discussion a couple of days ago regarding Obama's rather tepid denunciation of Farrakhan. Forgive me, but I don't remember if you were a part of it. I am of the opinion that Obama's words did not match his body language nor his demeanor. But others disagreed.
I was posting on that thread, AnotherAmerican. If I remember correctly, you were questioning Obama's manliness for failing to denounce and reject Farrakan with as much enthusiasm as you decided was needed.
I haven't seen your take on the McCain/Hagee situation.Strange, as one would think a presidential candidate happily accepting the support of one religious nut would bring out at least as much hand-wringing from you as a candidate denouncing another nut,but not louly and repeatedly enough to satisfy you.
Any thoughts on this?
Col.
I only learned of Hagee on another of today's threads. I am coming back to this a day later, but I addressed the issue on that thread. Let me say I agree that McCain should renounce Hagee's brand of evangelical bigotry.
Col.
Frankly I doubt he will. But you make a good point. McCain needs to do a lot more to impress me.
ps. I don't believe I questioned Obama's manhood. I just thought his spoken reply was disingenuous to the subject. To 'happily' concede a point about denouncing sounded to me that he did not have the conviction behind the words. Obama's whole argument was about what he has said in the past, not about what he was saying at the time.
McCain rightly points out Obama's disclaimer.
Is Obama saying we'll take our troops out because there is no longer Al Queda in Iraq?
This slip up shows me that Obama's position regarding the U.S. involvement in Iraq is naive and muddled.
Wolf,
Granting you that Obama has made that point, what is Obama's withdrawal position now that we are there and Al Queda is still also there?
Wolf,
Sorry to saddle you with the job of explaining Obama's exit strategy. Do you know where Obama plans to re-deploy the troops in the region once he exits Iraq?
What do you think about the pressure having troops in Iraq puts on Syria and Iran? Do you think removing the troops will embolden either country? How will our allies take our pullout? Do you think they will they see it as a defeat for the U.S.? Do you think our pullout will embolden Al Queda or the Shiite militias to try to destabilize the country?
Hi AA,
I would suggest starting here first:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
He has a bunch of links with his positions on them.
I dobn't mind engaging in a civilised conversation in the spirit of Thomas Jeffersons vision on how a democracy works.
Wolf,
Sorry to saddle you with the job of explaining Obama's exit strategy. Do you know where Obama plans to re-deploy the troops in the region once he exits Iraq?
What do you think about the pressure having troops in Iraq puts on Syria and Iran? Do you think removing the troops will embolden either country? How will our allies take our pullout? Do you think they will they see it as a defeat for the U.S.? Do you think our pullout will embolden Al Queda or the Shiite militias to try to destabilize the country?
hit the post button too fast
Wolf,
Sorry to saddle you with the job of explaining Obama's exit strategy. Do you know where Obama plans to re-deploy the troops in the region once he exits Iraq? it was reported earlier that Dhubai and the united arab Emirates would be happy to have american troops based on their land.
What do you think about the pressure having troops in Iraq puts on Syria and Iran? Do you think removing the troops will embolden either country? no
How will our allies take our pullout? difficult to answer for we don't know what goes on in secret rooms. i am sure the brits would answer differently than the russians, or the turqs.
Do you think they will they see it as a defeat for the U.S.? of course ( for news comsumption of local natives
Do you think our pullout will embolden Al Queda or the Shiite militias to try to destabilize the country? if they do, it ceases to be called Al-Quaida and becomes part of the civil war.
Mr. L,
Interesting theory. Is there anything in reality that will back up your contention now that both the U.S. and Al Queda are in Iraq?
Do you believe Al Queda will leave Iraq when the U.S. leaves?
What do you think will happen if Obama becomes prez and removes the troops forthwith?
Hmm.. I hate to keep repeating myself, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but in the spirit of a good discussion, do you have anything to back up your claim that the U.S. is in Iraq to protect the Corporatccracy? (sp?)
Having not read the book you cited, is that the author's contention? If so, can you provide an example? Thnx.
I watched a very interesting show on C-Span2 last night hosted by Peter L. Bergen. The lecturer was the writer of the book Leaderless Jihad, Marc Sageman. He has done extensive research, interviews, and studies with al-Qaeda members. He breaks down the history of al-Qaeda into 3 phases. Only the 1st phase was primarily influenced by Muslim extremism. We are in the 3rd phase which is strictly a following based on fame and hero worship and not religious fanaticism. These people just want to make a name for themselves and harm America for the sake of the fame and hero status it will bring to them. He pointed out for example that 2 bombers in France last year were actually gay – very few of the young al-Qaeda recruits in Europe for example have much faith at all, and the majority are not even Muslim extremists.
He specifically and emphatically stated that the invasion of Iraq by the USA is what triggered a new phase in al-Qaeda (Phase 3). He also predicted the election of Obama would bring a dramatic decrease in al-Qaeda recruitments and activity, because Obama’s life story – a rise through “The American Dream”, is counter to the whole stereotype and concept they have of American leaders which has been the driving “evil” behind their anarchy. He also predicted this would be short-lived (maybe 5 months or so) before some new American evil or devil could be mustered up.
Sageman also pointed out that there has been anarchy and terrorism throughout history – the FIRST car-bomb for example, was actually detonated by an anarchist on Wall Street in the 1920’s. He noted that what has basically happened to all terrorist groups is that they only disappear when they fizzle out. The nature of terrorism itself is never anything that is taken up by the masses as a growing movement, since it is so counter-productive to any society and civilization. This is not to say that the threat we face isn’t real or that there aren’t groups wanting to take America down, but he did emphasize how the overblown fear-mongering and invalidly placed hatred has only added fuel to the fire. He noted that of all the known terror-cells discovered and exposed – and there have been dozens throughout Europe and Africa especially – all have been valid concerns (I.e.: they were really al-Qaeda cells) – EXCEPT the 6 in the USA which ALL turned out to be bogus fear mongering tactics of the US government.
If anyone has a chance to see the show – it’s worth the time if you don’t mind listening to a guy with a heavy accent for 90 minutes.;)
Linden,
Having not seen the show, what do you believe is the rationale that falls apart? It seems to me that Clev was saying that a new rationale will replace the current one. Does it not make sense that these 3rd wave jihadists will still gravitate toward Iraq to destabilize what I guess would be interpreted as a U.S. puppet government?
ps. off topic - Can anyone explain why the Gaza Palestinians are still sending rockets into Israel? Are they trying to provoke another war? Thnx.
Can you imagine if a Dem candidate had criticized a Repub on a misspelling--and then gotten it wrong? The media would have mocked the Dem quite a bit, noting how petty the so-called mistake was to begin with, and noting how foolish it was for the candidate to get it wrong.
But here's the Washington Post repeating McCain's attack rather than ridiculing him.
AH, I have to agree. The default condition for our nation (world, planet, system, galaxy, universe) does not seem to be war.
What I want to know is why WaPo prefers to repeat false arguments instead of pointing out differences in policy so we can engage in an actual debate?
DTF,
Where do you get your fact basis that the default for humanity is to not be at war?
According to W.J.Durant, from 3421 years of documented history, there are only 268 years without war.
Pete,
Nice rant, but I'm afraid I cannot make any sense of it.
On a not-so-funny note... I was watching C-SPAN some bit ago (I've since decided not to pay for cable) and there was a discussion between reporters and a bunch of military/economic generals and advisors talking about the upcoming/present water shortage in the world.
The talk was going fine, varying views were expressed, all benign, until one guy asked if the U.S. military was considering places around the world they might 'intervene upon' to secure fresh water depots and as SOON as the question was answered, three guys (out of 11) mumbled 'of course not, we don't know, har-rumph!, they all immediately started shuffling papers, got up, and just walked out of the room.
The C-SPAN guy seemed to think this talk was going to go on longer because after about two, three minutes, he gets on and says 'Well, uumm, ok, well, let's see... next we have...'
Moral of the story- Look Out French Alps!! Here comes america!!
Loonz,
Is your basis for believing the war is about Corporate greed for oil - A conservative co-worker? Unless you work at the top levels of government, your anecdote, although interesting, does not in my view, carry much water. :-)
Loonz,
Is your basis for believing the war is about Corporate greed for oil - A conservative co-worker?
I told the co-worker it was my belief that Bush invaded Iraq for oil and he shared that belief.
Mr. L,
Not to be too judegemental, but are you suggesting that the U.S. would fight to get water from the glaciers in the Alps?
I've heard of various proposals to break off chunks of antarctic glacial sheet and tow it to other regions of the world. As wild as that sounds, my guess is that would be economically more practical. Speaking of practicality, issn't desalinization happening more and more?
3421 years iof documented HUMAN history, AA! Though I'll concede that for the "nation" portion of my comment. :)
I wasn't basing my comment on facts, I was basing it on my general "feel" for the way I see nature working. Left alone, life goes to a balance state. The right number of predators and prey, of food and water. Too much of anything and the others increase or decrease to return to balance.
Just an opinion in agreement with AH's comment. :)