Citing his experience, This Week, Fox News Sunday panelists excuse McCain's Al Qaeda-Iran gaffe
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's George Will asserted that Sen. John McCain's admittedly false claim that Iran is training Al Qaeda is "[n]ot damaging at all" to McCain, "because people say it's a given that this man knows what he's talking about." Similarly, The Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman asserted that "I don't think many people believe" "the argument that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy." But neither Will nor Zuckman noted that McCain has made that error more than once.
During the March 23 edition of ABC's This Week, while discussing Sen. John McCain's admittedly false claim that "Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran," Washington Post columnist George Will asserted that McCain's error was "[n]ot damaging at all, really, because people say it's a given that this man knows what he's talking about." Additionally, during the March 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Chicago Tribune reporter Jill Zuckman asserted: "I thought the most revealing thing that happened with that comment was the Democratic National Committee jumping all over it, making the argument that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy. And like [Fox News Washington managing editor] Brit [Hume] said, I don't think many people believe that. I mean, the man has traveled all over the world and really prides himself on his relationships with foreign leaders." Neither Will nor Zuckman noted that -- as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented -- McCain made the claim more than once during the March 18 press conference in Amman, Jordan, and indeed, had made the same misstatement on Hugh Hewitt's nationally syndicated radio show the previous day.
On This Week, after airing a clip of McCain's claim, host George Stephanopoulos asserted: "[H]ad Barack Obama made that error, it would have been a -- not a game-ender, but it would have been very, very damaging." Stephanopoulos then asked Will: "How damaging is it to John McCain?" After Will responded that it is "[n]ot damaging at all," Time's Washington bureau chief Jay Carney said that McCain "had a bad week because of his error, but I think that he'll survive. ... [H]e will be the expert on Iraq in this election, I believe, and that may be a benefit or a detriment."
Likewise, after airing McCain's false claim, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Hume whether McCain's gaffe was a "big deal or just a blip." Hume replied: "I think it's probably just a blip, but it was a bigger blip than he wanted or needed at the time." Hume went on to state that "the mistake, nonetheless, raises, not the question about his knowledgeability -- we all kind of believe that he has that -- the question perhaps about his age, which is an issue. ... I mean, the feeling was not that he's a dope, didn't know his way around, that he might have had kind of a senior moment there, and I think that's unfortunate for him." Hume concluded, "But I think probably the trip was in that plus." Zuckman then stated that she doesn't "think many people believe" "the argument that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy." Wallace then asked her: "But do you think, Jill, there's a danger that if ... certainly not one by itself isn't going to do it -- but if he had two or three of these, that people might begin to have doubts, and the polls indicate there is some who already do, about the idea of a then-72-year-old man taking the oath of office?" Zuckman did not note that McCain had already made this claim three times, but rather said: "My guess is we're never going to see that happen again after this, I'm sure. I saw him do an interview when he was asked about it, and he looked really irritated that it was being brought up. That's a danger. I mean, anything can be used to show, hey, he's 71 years old."
By contrast, later during the Fox News Sunday panel, Fox News contributor and National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams noted, "[O]n the McCain thing, by the way, it's not his age; it's that he ... continues to conflate Al Qaeda and what's going on in Iraq."
From the March 23 edition of ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Meanwhile, John McCain, while this was all going on, went overseas. This is supposed to be his big selling point: national security experience. Here's an incident in Jordan, though.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known, and it's unfortunate.
[...]
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I-CT): You said that the Iranians were training Al Qaeda.
McCAIN: I'm sorry.
LIEBERMAN: You meant to say they were training extremists, terrorists.
McCAIN: I'm sorry. The Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda, not Al Qaeda. I'm sorry.
[end video clip]
STEPHANOPOULOS: George Will, had Barack Obama made that error, it would have been a -- not a game-ender, but it would have been very, very damaging. How damaging is it to John McCain?
WILL: Not damaging at all, really, because people say it's a given that this man knows what he's talking about. The problem is, he's not talking about things that people care about right now.
On the war, the country has decided it was a mistake, and they want to get out of it. And -- you know, Eisenhower said in '52, "I will go to Korea to liquidate a bad war." People want John McCain to say, "I will go to Wall Street and pound the table," or do whatever people want to be done, because, right now, they are not concerned with Iraq. They're concerned with other things.
CARNEY: I have to agree with George. He needs to -- like so many Republicans, he loves Teddy Roosevelt -- and he needs emulate Teddy Roosevelt in the malefactors of great wealth and go after Wall Street, make a strong speech on the economy, distinguish himself from this administration, stir things up. He's not done that. And, you know, it -- he had a bad week because of his error, but I think that he'll survive. He is -- he will be the expert on Iraq in this election, I believe, and that may be a benefit or a detriment.
CLAIRE SHIPMAN (ABC News senior national correspondent): I disagree. I think this was an important trip for him in terms of taking his case to the rest of the world and to people here who are watching him on foreign policy, because, obviously, everybody knows where he stands on the war, and that's going to be a problem for a lot of people. But in terms of other issues, and whether he's going to be able to repair our relationships with other countries, I think he was trying to make that case, and in a lot of ways, he didn't.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I agree. He wanted to emphasize, Cynthia, global warming when he went to Great Britain. He -- in all of his stops -- said that he would close down Guantánamo and emphasize his differences with President Bush on torture. But I wonder if that gaffe makes him seem more, in a way, Bush-like, because he's so got Al Qaeda on the brain. It just sort of comes out there and just convinces people, wait, this isn't going to be a change.
CYNTHIA TUCKER (Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor): Indeed, it does seem to amplify his connections to Bush and Cheney. It was especially the vice president who has, even now, insisted on claiming that Al Qaeda has been in Iraq all along. But it's also true he made the statements about climate change and Guantánamo abroad. He talked about the fact that he doesn't condone torture, but what our allies in Western Europe are looking for is us to say we're getting out of Iraq. They still don't like that. The current British government isn't supportive of our being in Iraq, and the French certainly are not, and he's still there. So, I don't know how that helps him much with those allies.
From the March 23 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran.
[...]
LIEBERMAN: [T]he Iranians were training Al Qaeda.
McCAIN: I'm sorry.
LIEBERMAN: You meant to say they were training extremists, terrorists.
McCAIN: I'm sorry. The Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.
[end video clip]
WALLACE: That was John McCain with a little help from his friends correcting a mistake he made while visiting the Middle East this week. And we're back now with Brit, Jill, Bill, and Juan. So, a funny thing happened on John McCain's trip to the -- overseas. While he was busy polishing his foreign policy credentials, he made a mistake about Al Qaeda and Iran and had to be corrected by his friend, Joe Lieberman, who was along on the trip with him. Brit: big deal or just a blip?
HUME: I think it's probably just a blip, but it was a bigger blip than he wanted or needed at the time. I think the overall impression of the trip was: This is a man welcomed by, knowledgeable of, and comfortable with, foreign leaders across a big part of the globe. But the mistake, nonetheless, raises, not the question about his knowledgeability -- we all kind of believe that he has that -- the question perhaps about his age, which is an issue, you know, he might -- I mean, the feeling was not that he's a dope, didn't know his way around, that he might have had kind of a senior moment there, and I think that's unfortunate for him. But I think probably the trip was in that plus.
ZUCKMAN: I thought the most revealing thing that happened with that comment was the Democratic National Committee jumping all over it, making the argument that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy. And like Brit said, I don't think many people believe that. I mean, the man has traveled all over the world and really prides himself on his relationships with foreign leaders.
WALLACE: But do you think, Jill, there's a danger that if -- and I -- certainly not one by itself isn't going to do it -- but if he had two or three of these, that people might begin to have doubts, and the polls indicate there is some who already do, about the idea of a then-72-year-old man taking the oath of office?
ZUCKMAN: My guess is we're never going to see that happen again after this, I'm sure. I saw him do an interview when he was asked about it, and he looked really irritated that it was being brought up. That's a danger. I mean, anything can be used to show, hey, he's 71 years old.
[...]
WILLIAMS: And on the McCain thing, by the way, it's not his age; it's that he keep -- continues to conflate Al Qaeda and what's going on in Iraq.
They need to bring it up until John McCain responds to it. These gaffes speak to his qualifications for office - if he's mentally confused about such basic foreign affairs issues, then he has no business in the Oval Office.
Ir was bad enough when we had Ronald Reagan experiencing the initial stages of Alzheimer's disease while in office.
WZ,
I agree with your comments regarding McCain. I do hope the Dems do bring it up, (although I think MMFA can give it a little rest.) :-) We definitely need to know if McCain has the mental acuity to be Prez.
We definitely need to know if McCain has the mental acuity to be Prez.
This is one area in which we are in complete agreement, AA.
We now know the extent of FDR's physical impairment during his final months in office - information about his sky-high blood pressure that was withheld from the American Public in the months leading up to the 1944 Elections; a condition that led to his death from a cerebral hemmhorage a little over a month into his fourth term. And we have video evidence that shows that Reagan was going into decline pretty much from the day Hinckey shot him. Who knows how many vital decisions Regan made toward the end of his presidency were clouded by the onset of Alzheimer's?
We have a right to know about the physical and mental health of those to seek to lead us.
(PS - We never DID get a full answer about George W. Bush's personal history of cocaine abuse. He said at one point during the 2000 campaign thathe hadn't used drugs in X years, but never said anything about the time before that...)
In defending Mr. McCain's expressed ignorance of who it is that threatens Iraq's domestic stability, his apologists take the argument and reframe it, in terms that suit them (and Mr. McCain)...
ZUCKMAN: "...the argument that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy. ...I don't think many people believe that. I mean, the man has traveled all over the world and really prides himself on his relationships with foreign leaders.
"foreign policy" "world travels" and "foreign leaders".
Why bend the argument in that general and vague direction, when what was demonstrated by Mr. McCain was a very specific ignorance of who and what constitutes an "insurgency" in Iraq?
"foreign policy" "world travels" and "foreign leaders"?
Cool. Mr. McCain sounds qualified to be our next Secretary of State, or maybe the next Pope (he's actually too old for the Papacy gig I think).
Who cares about those vague unspecific things, when the man's knowledge of the Iraq "insurgency" is what was called into question, by his repeated "gaffes". He doesn't even know that al qaeda is financed and directed by the saudis? He doesn't know that it's saudi arabia that al qaeda crosses over to and back from, freshly manned trained and equipped?
We don't need another blind eye turned to saudi arabia, from our next President... 8 years of having an agent for the saudis in the Oval Office, has already caused enough murder death destruction and expense to us all, thank you.
Also, I know you all saw this above...
WILL: "People want John McCain to say, "I will go to Wall Street and pound the table," or do whatever people want to be done, because, right now, they are not concerned with Iraq. They're concerned with other things."
Yeah right george, isn't that the talking-point, blow up the "economy" into recession depression economic armageddon, as a way for a good Republican like John McCain to loosen the Iraq millstone from around his neck.
I wonder how many U.S. Troops driving down Wall Street have been killed by roadside Improvised Explosive Devices recently?
Corporations own the media outlets. They have short-term and long term goals. The short-term goal is to sell stuff (how many news media outlets refuse to display ads). The long term goal is to maintain an environment in which they can continue to sell stuff.
Since we live in a society that is driven by public opinion (voting and wanting to buy more stuff), the ability to shape public opinion is critical. Most people don't believe ads but they do believe the news (the assumption is that reporters try to tell the truth and describe reality).
Thus, subverting and controlling the news media is the quickest and easiest way to change public opinion and keep people buying stuff and build an environment in which the corporations can keep selling stuff and making money.
Since reporters are too uncontrollable (some of them try to tell the truth) the best way to "shape" the news is control editors/publishers and create "fake" reporters. The latter are "news commentators" that don't really investigate and report so much as just make stuff up. Having news commentators just make stuff up on a "news" channel is a very efficient way to control the message.
And it has been done....
This line of thinking reminds me of when I was working out in the field (in construction) and had to deal with these dead-ender types who have been in one trade for years, and were trained or apprenticed badly at the start.
I would point out something that was done poorly, or not to code.Unable to argue otherwise, I would often get this response from guys on my crew;
"I've been doing it that way for 20 years!"
Yup. and you've been doing it crappily for 20 years.
To which they'd respond "I have 20 years experience!"
Yep. 20 years experience of producing crap.
It would go on like this for quite a while sometimes.
I was a union rep, defending a guy who had screwed up a job that cost the company a thousand dollars.
The guy told me that in his last job he screwed up a job that cost his company ten thousand and that company wasn't on his ass about screwing up.
I really believed that that's the way he wanted me to defend his case. Lucky for him, the company only wanted him to acknowledge that he had screwed up.
Why McCain is right...
You are now free to call me an idiot.
OK, Glenn you are an idiot. Al Zawahiri is still alive and issuing toothless threats from a cave on the Adghan/Pak border , oh great pontificator.
You probably meant al Zaraqawi who spent most of his energy killing Shi'ites, whom he regarded as heretics. To give you analogy you could grasp, the Z-man looked at Shi'ites the same way John Hagee views Catholics.
Now why Iran would back a guy who is killing Iranian allies in Iraq would not seem to be a very smart strategy but I am sure you can come up with something.
You are now free to call me an idiot.
As you wish. You're an idiot.
GG,
Too late, Obama already tossed grandma under his campaign bus. :-)
Always about 3 steps behind the class.
www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/PostAnthrax.pdf
And now the prime suspect is turning on the media that protects it sources, even though no charges were ever permitted by the "unitary executive branch", proven to be obstructing justice or plotting to in the Harriet Mier experience. It's not like he's suing because now he can't get a fair trial because of the story, the FBI can't go into details why Hatfill is a person of interest and the prime suspect--they wouldn't drop the name if they didn't have his butt nailed to the wall. Munky's henchmen are untouchable, they're terrorists and belong in a prison camp where they can be tortured for what information they may or may not have.
www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/PostAnthrax04.pdf (that's zero four on the end, dot pdf)
If McCain has such vast experience, why hasn't that experience taught him the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims?
Experience is one thing. Being unable to learn from that experience is quite another. And McCain hasn't learned a thing from all that experience except how to pander to the warhawks.