About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media report that McCain now insists on respect for U.S. allies -- but ignore 2003 smears of Germany and "aging movie actress" France

March 27, 2008 1:55 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Several media outlets reported Sen. John McCain's assertion, in his March 26 foreign policy speech, that "[w]e need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," without nothing that, during the run-up to the Iraq war, McCain made statements that suggested the opposite of "respect" for the views of U.S. allies. For example, in February 2003, McCain likened France, which opposed the invasion, to an "aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it."

127 Comments

In reports on Sen. John McCain's March 26 foreign policy speech, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and NBC's Nightly News reported all or part of McCain's assertion: "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them." But the reports did not note any of the statements McCain made during the run-up to the Iraq war about France, Germany, and Belgium, which suggested that McCain did not "respect" their "collective will" and was not "willing to be persuaded by them." Indeed, as the blog Think Progress noted, in a February 16, 2003, appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, McCain asserted that the French "remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it," adding, "[T]he cynical role that France is playing proves that if -- if you are not -- you cannot be a great nation unless you have great purpose."

Similarly, in a February 10, 2003, interview on CNN's Inside Politics, McCain asserted that then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the invasion was a case of him "us[ing] an anti-American card to get reelected." McCain continued:

McCAIN: And what I say is both the French and Germans and Belgians have vetoed, for the first time in history of the alliance, a planning for the emplacement of defensive weaponry in Turkey. I mean, that is unheard of. It's so far over the line that we've never seen anything like it. They've made clear their intentions to use whatever means to block our military action in Iraq no matter what we do. So they have to be, I think, treated for what it is, a -- an election ploy on the part of the German leader. And in the case of French, simply kind of classic French misbehavior.

Also, in a February 13, 2003, speech, McCain asserted that "Gerhard Schroeder's Germany looks little like the ally that anchored our presence in Europe throughout the Cold War. A German Rip Van Winkle from the 1960s would not understand the lack of political courage and cooperation with its allies on the question of Iraq exhibited in Berlin today." In that speech, McCain also said of former French President Jacques Chirac: "President Chirac, who once approved the sale to Iraq of a nuclear reactor knowing that in a country floating on a sea of oil it could have only one real purpose, today says he sees no irrefutable proof of Iraq's WMD program." In a February 8, 2003, speech, McCain said:

McCAIN: The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self-interest -- a very flawed calculation, I fear -- to a routine American request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For nearly three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is.

[...]

Foreign Minister [Joschka] Fischer recently warned against "primitive anti-Americanism." I thank and commend him for his statement. But I am concerned, we should all be concerned, not only with the "primitive" anti-Americanism of the street that resents America's successes, exults in our misfortunes, and ascribes to us motives that one must be a fool or delusional to believe. We should also be concerned with the "sophisticated" anti-Americanism, or perhaps more aptly, the "cynical" anti-Americanism of political leaders who exploit for their own ends the disinformed, "primitive" hostility to America voiced in some quarters of their societies; to further their ambitions to govern or to inflate perceptions of their international influence.

Just as some Arab governments fuel anti-American sentiment among their people to divert them from problems at home, so a distinct minority of Western European leaders appears to engage in America-bashing to rally their people and other European elites to the call of European unity.

Moreover, in a February 13, 2003, article, The New York Times reported that McCain said: "The Lord said the poor will always be with us, and the French will be with us too. ... This is part of a continuing French practice of throwing sand in the gears of the Atlantic alliance."

In addition, in a March 27 article on McCain's speech, The New York Times reported: "[A]nother [McCain] adviser, Richard S. Williamson, an assistant secretary of state under Mr. Bush's father and a former representative to several United Nations bodies, said Mr. McCain recognized that in relations with allies, there was a 'need to exchange views, not just bludgeon people with our own views.' " But the Times did not note McCain's previous comments about France and Germany.

From the Post's March 27 article:

In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a "global compact -- a League of Democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade.

"We need to listen -- we need to listen -- to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."

Bush's foreign policy approach has moderated significantly in his second term, with greater outreach to European allies and a willingness to strike deals with countries such as North Korea. In essence, McCain suggested he would embrace Bush's policies on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan while extending his willingness to meet allies halfway.

From the Los Angeles Times' March 27 article:

Recalling his military experience -- and that of his father and grandfather, who were admirals -- McCain declared: "I detest war. ... It is wretched beyond all description." When Americans believe military or diplomatic action is needed, he said, "we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we in return must be willing to be persuaded by them."

He said the struggle against terrorism was not primarily about military force, but instead about winning over moderate Muslims through development aid, diplomacy and trade.

From the AP's March 26 article:

Republican John McCain on Wednesday called anew for the United States to work more collegially with democratic allies and live up to its duties as a world leader, drawing a sharp contrast to the past eight years under President Bush.

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the likely presidential nominee said in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain added.

Coming days after his trip to the Middle East and Europe, McCain's speech was intended to signal to leaders abroad -- and voters at home -- that he would end an era of what critics have called Bush's cowboy diplomacy. McCain never mentioned Bush's name, though he evoked former Democratic Presidents Truman and Kennedy.

From the March 26 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:

BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): Now to the McCain campaign. While the Democrats engage in this back-and-forth hand-to-hand combat, John McCain can aim for the general election audience, explaining who he is and who he's not. That's what he tried to do today. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell traveling with him in Los Angeles tonight.

Kelly, good evening.

O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. Part of John McCain 's goal today was to take on two big perceptions about him: his views on the war and his ties to President Bush. He continues to support both, but much of what he said was really aimed at voters beyond the Republican Party base.

[begin video clip]

O'DONNELL: There was something different about John McCain today in Los Angeles. Known for his continued support of the Iraq war, McCain revealed a part of himself seldom seen in public.

McCAIN: I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are.

O'DONNELL: More emotional words intended for those who want a swift end to the war, and also those with loved ones in uniform. McCain recalled the long absence of his father after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

McCAIN: My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed as commander of a United States submarine. I rarely saw him again for four years.

O'DONNELL: And described the sudden loss when his grandfather returned from World War II.

McCAIN: Came home from the war exhausted, from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day.

O'DONNELL: Acknowledging the costs, McCain then argued for the current U.S. strategy, and against what he called a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

McCAIN: We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq.

O'DONNELL: Beyond the war to America's role in the world, McCain claimed he could improve the nation's standing. While McCain did not criticize President Bush by name, clearly he set out to distance himself in key areas, rebuffing what critics have described as "cowboy" diplomacy.

McCAIN: Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want.

O'DONNELL: Trying to appear more aggressive than Mr. Bush on climate change.

McCAIN: The risks of global warming have no borders.

O'DONNELL: And more measured on the treatment of detainees.

McCAIN: We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured.

O'DONNELL: Though McCain has voted to permit the CIA to use some harsh techniques.

McCAIN: We need to listen. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.

[end video clip]

O'DONNELL: As for those allies, McCain says that Russia no longer deserves to be considered a big industrial democracy. And he encouraged Western nations to really be wary because of the changes in Russia to view that as a potential threat. All part of what could be McCain doctrine -- Brian.

WILLIAMS: Kelly O'Donnell in Los Angeles.

From the February 16, 2003, edition of CBS' Face the Nation (transcript from Nexis):

DANA PRIEST (Washington Post staff writer): What do you think it will -- will mean for a post-Iraq reconstruction if we've so alienated the French and the Germans, who, after all, make up three-quarters of the peacekeeping forces in the Balkans? Are they going to be willing to help the United States in the long reconstruction in Iraq, do you think?

McCAIN: I'm sure they will because it's in their interests to do so. The French have a long commercial connection with the Iraqis, and let -- let me just say a word about the French. They remind me of an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it. The cynical role -- the cynical role that France is playing proves that if -- if you are not -- you cannot be a great nation unless you have great purpose. And they've lost their purpose. And it's very unfortunate, and perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt made a very serious mistake when they decided to give France a veto in the Security Council, following -- when the United Nations was organized.

PRIEST: So you don't think that people who disagree with the administration can have legitimate differences of opinion over, for instance, the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein? There seems to be a lot of people who have questions about that. Are you totally convinced with the administration's position?

McCAIN: I'm totally convinced of one thing: Given Saddam Hussein's record of using weapons of mass destruction, of slaughtering his own people, that there's not a doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein would give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist organization, because they have common cause in trying to destroy the United States of America. So there's no doubt in -- in my mind as to what he would do. I don't know the connection that exists right now between the two, but I know they have common cause.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DorisRussell (March 27, 2008 1:58 pm ET)
         

      Coming to the White House soon..... Bush II

      Starring- John McCain.

      Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (March 27, 2008 5:09 pm ET)
             
          oh my, clever moniker, strange one.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tman418 (March 27, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
             
          Yes, they indded had political scandals. But what proof is there that those scandals are related to the Iraq War? Gazprom was 2005 and the Japanese Bank Account was set up when Chirac was mayor of Paris is the 1990s. While there were controversy and rumors about this bank account in the 1990s, it didn't really hit the spotlight again until 2006-2007ish.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by onionhead (March 27, 2008 7:00 pm ET)
             

          I am not a fan of France, Germany, or Russia.  For whatever reason, they were right not to invade; we, of course, were wrong. 

          Let me translate:

          .gnorw erew ,esruoc fo ,ew ;edavni ot ton thgir erew yeth ,nosaer revetahw roF  .aissuR ro ,ynamreG ,ecnarF fo naf a ton ma I

          Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:05 pm ET)
         

      Obviously the only way MMFA could make its case here is to use the word "smear" in describing McCain's criticism of Germany and France, which is ridiculous.  Why not just use "criticisms" instead of "smears"?

      Must you editorialize through hyperbole to make your point here, isn't what you've laid out quite enough?

      Curiously, apparently not. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
           
        Tommy, you were the one who complained because you thought I was discriminating against McCain age by calling him Gramps and now when it's shown that McCain smeared those countries who wouldn't blindly follow us into Iraq by calling them "aging movie actresses" you're willing to give him a pass? This is also a smear of aging movie actresses.

        I'm just some clown with a keyboard. McCain is running to be the leader of the free world.

        Why does he get a pass for making derogatory remarks about age but I get criticized?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
             

          I never said he should be given a pass, I said it was not a smear, the word MMFA chose.  He criticized Germany and France, but he did not smear either one.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (March 27, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
               

            so France really is an aging movie actress? 

            *Meryl, France just auditioned for your part, and you're out of the movie.* 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:24 pm ET)
                 
              See my response below.  Smear is hypoerbole to enhance this criticism of McCain by MMFA, not hard to see.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dbeden4153 (March 27, 2008 2:29 pm ET)
                   
                Tommy, how is the aging movie actress quip a valid criticism of a sovereign nation?  Smear may be the wrong word, but criticism is also the wrong word.  How about "hyperbolic non-sense."  Would that be a better phrasing?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by onionhead (March 27, 2008 7:07 pm ET)
               

            I will agree: it is not a smear.  But saying something like that doesn't build many bridges.

            A follow-up question for McCain:

            "Knowing what we know today [more the facts we disregarded then], do you concede that the French, Germans and the UN were right not to invade Iraq?"

            Report Abuse
            • Author by onionhead (March 27, 2008 7:09 pm ET)
                 

              forgot the word "like" in the bracketed part.

              Speaking of Brackets...

              Go Michigan State!

              Report Abuse
            • Author by BottleBlonde (March 28, 2008 12:45 am ET)
                 

              But it is a smear.

              The difference between criticism and a smear is the lack of respect.

              Comparing France, a country that has a right to hold its own opinions about invading Iraq, to a has-been movie star who doesn't have the right stuff anymore and shouldn't try to get away with perks and privileges reserved for real celebrities is showing a lack of respect. France had sufficient standing to disagree with us, and it turns out that they were right and Bush was wrong!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by MissDee (March 28, 2008 8:54 am ET)
                   
                What I find amazing is this- anythng that a conservative says that is critical of antyhing near and dear to the hearts of the looney left (i.e. Frnace) is vociferously called a smear by those who love to pick fly poop out of pepper at MMfA. In the converse, the most twisted things said by MMfA have to be right- things like France has the right to have their opinion (true) while saying that McCain should have no right  to call them for being ill-supportive of the US and awash in scandals in their own governments AT THE TIME HE SAID IT...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (March 28, 2008 10:43 am ET)
                     

                  When you hear "aging movie actress", what comes to mind?

                  For me, it's Norma Desmond.  A person once popular and respected but is now sad, pitiful, marginally delusional, and stuck in the past.

                  And that, my friend, IS a "smear".

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:10 pm ET)
                     
                  What I find amazing is that morons like you are willing to pretend that describing a country that was right, that has troops RIGHT NOW IN AFGHANISTAN, an aging movie actress isnt a smear. I guess nothing a conservative says is a smear if you are stupid enough
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 27, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
           
        I'd agree if he had not used that ridiculous "aging actress" analogy.  That, for my money, is where criticism turned into a smear. 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
             
          It is not a smear, perhaps it's a silly descriptor, but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation, I don't believe that anyone would actually think that France is an aging movie actress.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dbeden4153 (March 27, 2008 2:24 pm ET)
               
            I do, therefore it's a smear. ;)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (March 27, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
               

            ...but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation...

            Using YOUR DEFINITION, Tommy, what was leveled against Germany and France for not blindly followin Bush into an illegal invasion of another soverign nation was indeed a smear campaign.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by doggone-ga (March 27, 2008 2:56 pm ET)
               

            "It is not a smear, perhaps it's a silly descriptor, but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation"

            Why in the world

            Report Abuse
          • Author by doggone-ga (March 27, 2008 2:57 pm ET)
               

            "It is not a smear, perhaps it's a silly descriptor, but a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation"

            Why in the WORLD do otherwise intelligent people insist on giving THEIR "definition" of a word and expect the rest of us to accept it without question?  There is such a thing as a dictionary, you know...and the dictionary SUPPORTS MMFA's usage of the word "smear":

            "to sully, vilify, or soil (a reputation, good name, etc.). "

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
                 

              So comparing France to an aging movie actress sullies their good name?

              Gosh, I had no clue the damage that did, or how fragile their "good name" is, apparently. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jawill11 (March 27, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
                   

                Just because the smear was laughably ineffectual doesn't mean that it was not a smear.  The intent was to sully the name and reputation. 

                I routinely wonder if you are aware of the gigantic logical holes in your arguments and you just go around in circles for fun, or if you really believe that you have a logical point.  Just curious.  I ask mainly because you regularly post comments here and it is about 50-50 whether they make perfect sense or if they are all the way in left field.  There is rarely anything in between.  Maybe there are 2 Tommies. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 27, 2008 5:25 pm ET)
                     

                  I ask mainly because you regularly post comments here and it is about 50-50 whether they make perfect sense or if they are all the way in left field. - jawill11

                  A minor point, but more likely "right field" =>

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (March 27, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
                     
                  In conservative circles if you can present a coherent, consistent argument around half the time you get a radio or television show along with a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by wzwriter (March 28, 2008 10:14 am ET)
                       

                    In conservative circles if you can present a coherent, consistent argument around half the time you get a radio or television show along with a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract.

                    And if you're totally incoherent, they nominate you for president.  :-)

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (March 27, 2008 2:18 pm ET)
           
        Tommy get with the program - Democrats criticize, republicans smear.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (March 27, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
             
          "typical Dems_Sol response"
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
             
          Great response Dems....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 2:27 pm ET)
               
            Are you guys always about two steps behind? How is missing the joke, then repeating it, a great response?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:28 pm ET)
                 
              I would say you're the one trailing here Col, so carry on.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
                   
                You'd have to give me your definition of "trailing", but I'm sure it makes everything you say true. I will carry on.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:14 pm ET)
               

            No it wasnt, it was stupid. McCains comment is rightly described as a smear. Dem doesnt even TRY to make sense just slam the left. Ignorant doesnt become good because you agree with the sentiment.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (March 27, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
             
          Democrats criticize, republicans smear.
          • - DEMS_SOL / Thursday March 27, 2008 2:18:41 PM EDT

          By George, I think he's got it! Democrats have been critical of Bush's invasion of Iraq, for example, and have been smeared as unpatriotic for that reasonable criticism.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 2:19 pm ET)
           

        I don't know Tommy, criticisms would seem to me to be more along the lines of "I don't agree with France or Germany and here is why...", which is kinda what I would expect from a person who is saying "we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them."

        Calling one ally "an aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it" seems to fall under the definition of "smear" to me.

        Barring that disagreement, this is further information detailing the kind of President Sen. McCain would make...and further it details the fact that many major media outlets reported on the Senators speech without providing citizens with any context.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (March 27, 2008 2:27 pm ET)
           

        Why not just use "criticisms" instead of "smears"?

        It's a common practice in journalism to use the shortest words possible in headlines, Tommy.  I believe this is why MMFA chose the word it did.

        Besides - if you recall, all the criticisms leveled against France and Germany back around the beginning of Bush's illegal war in 2003 was part of an all-out effort to smear these two long-time allies.  Or have you conveniently forgotten about "Freedom Fries"????

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
             

          Oh, so smears was used instead of criticisms because it has 4 fewer letters?

          I should have known, sorry. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (March 27, 2008 2:32 pm ET)
               

            Oh, so smears was used instead of criticisms because it has 4 fewer letters?

            I should have known, sorry. 

            There are a lot of things in this world you should have known, Tommy....

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
               
            No because it more accuratly described the smear
            Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (March 27, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
               

            With the elections of Merkel and Sarkozy, Germany and France are finally worthy of respect.

            Wrong-o.  It it the US of A that is unworthy of respect, and shall remain that way until George W. Bush is driven into shame-filled retirement.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
               
            Something familiar about the thinking... but.. the name... seems encrypted in some sort of impenetrable code...must get to the lab!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MickD (March 27, 2008 5:58 pm ET)
                 
              Holy anagram-like, Batman!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (March 27, 2008 6:05 pm ET)
                   
                The coding Clydesdale is having its hooves bleached. Is the anagram Apalosa sufficient Col?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
                 
              Yeah, fire up the ole UNIVAC for that one...or maybe just a get a mirror. :)
              Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (March 27, 2008 8:26 pm ET)
                 

              Her Gent's Art?  The rest rang?  The stern rag?  Get rent rash?  Ear strength?

              Trash regent?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (March 28, 2008 10:17 am ET)
                 
              Wow! It only took the racist all of 6 weeks to figure out how to get back on this site! That's gotta be a new record!
              Report Abuse
      • Author by BottleBlonde (March 27, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
           

        The difference between criticism and smear is respect.

        The very thing McCain is demanding.

        Criticism does not mean there's a lack of respect. Smears mean there's a lack of respect.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by August Heat (March 27, 2008 2:09 pm ET)
         
      In all fairness to McCain he at one time said the confederate flag should be left to the states to decide whether or not it should fly on a state building.  He later admitted that sentiment to be a mistake.  Maybe he's had another revelation and realizes with the dollar plummeting faster than Hillary Clinton's likability polls, we actually do need the rest of the world powers in order to deal with Iraq.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (March 27, 2008 2:11 pm ET)
           
        I don't think McCain really cares much about the other world powers...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 2:15 pm ET)
             

          Man,Snoop, that Krauthammer is not the guy you want in the room when you're going over the top secret plan. Whatta blabbermouth.

          And I take offense at McCain's description of France as an "aging" movie actress. If I wanted hateful ageism, I'd read Worrierking's bigoted posts.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
               
            Damn, WK, you got that in one minute before me!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
                 
              I blame the tubes on this damned poopsite.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 2:29 pm ET)
                   
                "poopsite" was a typo for the Gods. You can't take that away from me, even with your comment-deleting tubes.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (March 27, 2008 6:00 pm ET)
           
        You're gonna have to knock off on the Hilary hating before her goons stationed at MMFA come after you. Of topic but if this is true, she truly is a piece of work according to the article below. It also reaffirms my belief that Hilary believes it's her turn to be president. She and the deep pockets that think they own the Democratic party and have the right to dictate to it’s members are fuming mad.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-littman/now-team-hillary-goes-af_b_93645.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/clinton-campaign-stands-b_n_93749.html  
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (March 27, 2008 7:14 pm ET)
             

          Lynn

          Ohhhhhh Nooooooo I'm not thinking about Hillary, I'm in my happy place. Thinking about Hillary makes me leave my happy place.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by iowalib (March 27, 2008 2:18 pm ET)
         

      "Why not just use "criticisms" instead of "smears"?"

       I believe smears is a better choice of words here, as criticism implies a thoughtful analysis. In reading McCain's remarks, I got more a sense of  smear ( to make untrue and harmful statements about) than criticism (an essay evaluating or analyzing something).

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (March 27, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
         

      Too little, too late, John.

      A few words here and there are not going to erase seven years of you, Bush, and all your fellow Republicans and enablers giving the world the finger. 

      If you really want it that bad, you're going to spend all four years working to get the global credibility of America back, and I think even that's not going to be enough time. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:25 pm ET)
           
        Pete, I would not disagree with you at all.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DEMS_SOL (March 27, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
           

        I actually think it was France and Germany giving US the finger - we were just showing them the mirror.  Mr. Sarcozy has rightfully extended the olive branch which is being received.

        Please do not mistake me for a supporter of McCain - but this flip-flop is a logical one.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (March 27, 2008 4:09 pm ET)
             
          France and Germany were given the finger in return for honest, reasoned assessments.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jawill11 (March 27, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
             
          I would argue that France and Germany were giving us the slowly-backing-away-from-the-raving-lunatic-holding-a-grenade.  That may have been perceived as the finger to those lunatics holding the grenade, but to the rest of the sane world it wasn't. 
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:19 pm ET)
             
          No thinking involved. Both France AND Germany helped us in Afghanistan that is hardly giving us the finger just because they didnt follow us into Bush's folly in Iraq. They arent bad just because they have their own opinions and dont bow, scrape and mindlessly do whatever we tell them
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Euro (March 27, 2008 2:42 pm ET)
         
      McCain's comments are clearly smears, and not criticisms. He is clearly implying that France and Germany opposed the US stance for selfish and cynical reasons (such as for electoral reasons, for economic reasons or past ties with Saddam, conveniently omitting that the US also had ties with Saddam in the 1980s), and denies that they might have had legitimate reasons to oppose the Bush administration. He then used questionable metaphors to try and belittle both countries. If thats not a smear, I dont know what is.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
           

        So criticizing their decision to stay uninvolved is a "smear"? 

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (March 27, 2008 3:16 pm ET)
             
          it is if you belittle them.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
             

          No, Tommy, likening one of the nations that helped us gain our independence to an aging actress trying to get by on her looks is not a criticism.  A criticism involves some sort of reasoned argument.  Sen. McCain is trying to compare France to Norma Desmond.  If this is a criticism, which should supply the critized with some guidance for improvement, what should France do?  Go get some plastic surgery?

          Criticizng their decision and supporting that with a reasoned agrument is fine...that is not what Sen. McCain did.  He didn't provide anything other than "commercial connections" in the whole discussion with Face the Nation...then he took off into a tirade against France.  He never came back to tell us why France should follow the US into the war in Iraq.  If that is an indicator of his diplomatic style, OKTHXBAI.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
               
            Helped us gain our independence?  How about a little more recent history for ya, like WWII?  
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 3:43 pm ET)
                 

              I agree, Tommy, we liberated France in WWII.  So?  Does that somehow change the remainder of my argument?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by archfiend (March 27, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
                 
              That's your reply?

              Oh well, at least you didn't "smear" him.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (March 27, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
                   
                In case you can't follow, I was simply responding to his assertion that France helped us gain our independence, and I responded with a far more recent example of our involvement in keeping them from being under Nazi rule.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
                     

                  Yup...now please explain to me how comparing France to Norma Desmond is criticism?  Please help me understand how Sen. McCain's analysis on Face the Nation did anything to advance the dialog or understanding between nations?  You were concerned about the word smear, you wanted to substitute criticism...I think we both accept that the context provided by MMfA helps us better understand this candidate.  So what's up?  When do we get back to the semantics of smear v. criticism?  Or should we move on to France's involvement in the Far East and our subsequent involvement in Viet Nam? :)

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by doggone-ga (March 27, 2008 5:35 pm ET)
                       

                    "So what's up?  When do we get back to the semantics of smear v. criticism?"

                    Do you really want to go there?  Just a heads up: this is the guy who thinks "creating" and "inventing" mean the same thing!

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by archfiend (March 27, 2008 4:37 pm ET)
                     
                  Oh, I followed your agument fine, Tommy. I was just astounded that, out of a thorough deconstruction and dismantling of your "criticism vs. smear" argument, the only piece of DTF's extensive post you chose to address was his use of history.

                  This was quite a minor piece of his rhetorical puzzle, yet for some reason, it was far more important to you than the criticism of your argument.

                  I wonder why that is?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:28 pm ET)
                 

              OK how about 2002? When they saved American missionaries and their children in the Ivory Coast??

              http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020926/ai_n12648698

              ABOUT 300 US special forces soldiers landed in Ivory Coast yesterday as French troops rescued 100 American children who had been cut off at an isolated mission school by a military uprising.

              Yesterday about 100 French soldiers broke through to Bouake's outskirts to reach the American-led academy. Two hundred foreigners, including about 100 Americans, had been trapped at the white-washed mission compound.

               

              Report Abuse
        • Author by archfiend (March 27, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
             
          Yes, if that "criticism" relies on childish insults rather than a substantive and honest analysis of their position.

          Oy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:22 pm ET)
             
          So describing France as an aging movie star from the 40s still trying to dine out on her looks is criticising its decision to remain uninvolved?????? Please tell me you are kidding and havent lost all touch with reality.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 27, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
         
      Vey!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
         
      Freedom Fries, anyone?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (March 27, 2008 3:49 pm ET)
         

      Here is another smear campaign against those who don't bother to check who is paying for their trips or where the money is coming from:

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/jim_mcdermott_we_dont_mind_bei.asp

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 3:58 pm ET)
           
        How lame is that? The Republicants must really be desperate to bring up crap like this. Never mind that these guys were RIGHT about the WMD. I guess that doesn't matter, huh? Were we at war with Saddam at the time? Wasn't Bush assuring us that we would do everything possible to avoid war? (Which we now know was a big fat lie) Shall we revisit the whole "Scott Ritter is a traitor" garbage again while we're distracting the electorate?

        What a joke.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by doggone-ga (March 27, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
             

          "(Which we now know was a big fat lie)"

          True for most...but I knew it was a lie from the getgo.  I wanted to personally shake every Congressperson who voted yes on that stupid "authorization to use force" bill because I KNEW Bush would abuse it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 6:01 pm ET)
               
            I strongly suspected it as well, though I didn't realize the extent of the deception until later. At the time, I was posting regularly on a local newspaper's online forum. I was vilified by the Right Wing jingofascists who dominated the site for questioning Bush's claims. I was called a traitor, a Communist, a Saddam lover, a terrorist tool, etc. Some even implied that they knew where I lived (I was naive enough to use my real name, since I wasn't ashamed of my opinions) and where my children attended school. I haven't posted there since, even though it would be fun to go back and say "TOLD YA SO!"
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 4:02 pm ET)
           

        Ha ha! Those guys sure took Saddam for a ride. Took a vacation on his dime, and the guy ended up killed anyway. Chump.

        I wonder how a simpleton like Saddam Hussein was able to sucker Bush into spending a few hundred billion of his own money, not to mention thousands of lives, to go over there?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
             
          Isn't it funny.... the Bush apologists shrug off the fact that Bush lied about the war, and that no WMDs were found, and that there were NO ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Now they expect us to get all frothy over who paid for a diplomatic junket before the war, by three guys who were RIGHT about the WMDs?

          This is pretty ballsy, even for the Flying Monkeys. Can't wait to see how hysterical the Troglodytes become over this one.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
               

            I caught this on Hugh Hewitt's show driving home from work yesterday.After listening to Hewitt hyperventilate on this for quite a while, calling the congressmen dupes and useful idiots, a caller suggested execution for treason. Hewitt, seeming to realize that his audience is as stoopid as he is, had to talk the guy down to resignations and apologies.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 6:06 pm ET)
                 
              The fact that this is even being treated as a real scandal speaks to the shamelessness of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
           

        You know what the cool part was about that piece, PC?  They self-referenced and old report on the very same subject and referenced it in their story.  If the media outlets highlighted in this MMfA thread had done some background work, they may have been able to provide us with the context.

        But I didn't see any smears...looked like criticism to me.  The author explained what was done, why it was a bad idea, provided some guidance to preventing the mistake in the future, and then offered a nice little closing using the subject's own words.  Nicely done. :)  Criticism.

        Subject-wise, OT.  Concept-wise, these three Reps should have known better.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
             
          Personally, I don't give a rat's ass who paid for their trip.... they were attempting the diplomacy that President Numbnuts should have been doing. I'm more concerned about Dickless Cheney jetting around the Middle East, kissing the rings of the Saudi Princes on our dime.

          I fail to see what the big deal is. Saddam flew them over there to make his case about the WMDs, since the Numbnuts Administration wouldn't listen to reason. Like it or not, Saddam was not guilty on the WMD charge.

          This smells like one more manufactured scandal.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (March 27, 2008 5:20 pm ET)
           

        proudconservative wrat:

        >> Here is another smear campaign against those who don't bother to check who is paying for their trips or where the money is coming from:

        The funny thing about the author who accuses Democratic congressmen and Scott Ritter? It is the inestimable Steven Hayes, who insisted that there were WMDs in Iraq, who ridiculed those who didn't agree with him. He also argued for a connection between Saddam and Al Quaida. But the funny thing is that the book in which he makes this argument is now selling for 1 cent. Yes, as in $.01.

        link 

        Apart from that, I would doubt anything Steven Hayes says.

        Also, see:

        link 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 5:47 pm ET)
             

          Thanks, FMP!  Ain't context grand? :)

          I guess I'll have to stand by my previous "kudos" to the author, he did make a nice '"criticism"! :)

          Report Abuse
        • Author by proudconservative (March 27, 2008 6:41 pm ET)
             

          somethingfunnyinmypants,

          Nice try with the Amazon thing....

          http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Stephen%20F.%20Hayes

          the same could selling price could be listed for any author....

          http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-8254224-0698250?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=al+franken&x=15&y=19

          Remember that most of the western world believed that Hussein had or was working to obtain WMD.  It is a nice trite saying that Bush lied, people died, but there was no reason for him to claim something that was going to prove him a liar.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

          http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (March 27, 2008 6:51 pm ET)
               
            But there was every reason to believe he should have done everything possible to ensure he had the right info before he made his decision. Instead he just jumped the gun and came off looking like the C student he is.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 7:05 pm ET)
               

            Sorry, PC, but Snoopy is right...it makes more sense from any position to do EVERYTHING possible to avoid war prior to engaging in war.  Even Sen. McCain said something to that effect yesterday.

            Pres. Bush failed to let the inspectors complete their work, he failed to listen to any voices of dissension, he failed to listen to his own advisors in some cases.

            And yeah, the Amazon thing is funny and all, but come on...OT and the argument that these Reps might have known they were being paid for by anyone other than the charity is debunked by the Department of Justice.  See the Scarborough thread on MMfA. :)

            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (March 27, 2008 8:37 pm ET)
               

            proudconservative wrat:

            >>Nice try with the Amazon thing..

            I don't know what your links are supposed to be showing. I didn't find any books from Al Franken that are selling for 1 penny! Further, Hayes was making the claim that there was a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq long after it was proven there was not one.

            Regarding Bush's lies, it is well-documented how many lies the Bush administration made:

            link

            Last, most of the Western world did not believe that Hussein was a threat. The UN inspectors, who were in Iraq more recently than any other inspectors, did not believe Saddam had WMDs. In fact, El Beraidi, in charge of finding any evidence of a nuclear program, flatly stated there was no evidence of such a program. In contrast, Bush ignored or denigrated the UN. Who turned out to be right?  

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
               

            There is no question Bush lied. I have proven it over and over on this site. France was one telling us there were no weapons programs in Iraq and Germany was telling us to listen to France

            http://www.sundayherald.com/34271

            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (March 28, 2008 5:32 pm ET)
           
        Do you EVER come in here and talk about the topic TROLL? Is derailing the thread your ONLY motivation for coming here? Have you ever ONCE added anything to a single discussion here? All you do is drop in and post something contemptuous of Dems or the left hardly EVER remotely relevant to the conversation. This WEAK look over there BS is tired and boring. GO AWAY.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (March 27, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
         
      Why do conservatives seem to want to discuss everything under the sun except the matter at hand: the media giving McCain a free pass to flip-flop like a boated bass under the cover story of "straight talk"?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
           
        Well, some of us joined in, Johnny. It's pretty irresistible when the same worthless story I hear on wingnut radio is brought up the next day by one of the zombies here out of the blue and off-topic.It's magical. As I listen to the radio, I'm always asking "who the hell falls for this crap", and the next day PlowedCon or somebody volunteers to say "I do! I do!"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
           
        It's all about misdirection. I can't wait to see what sleight-of-hand they'll use to avoid talking about the new fighting in Iraq.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
         
      Now I understand.

      It's not a smear to compare a country to a washed up movie actress because we elected a washed up movie actor as our president...TWICE!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 4:23 pm ET)
           
        Do you hate thespians or old people more, King? And does each group require a separate Hate Horse?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 4:28 pm ET)
             
          I've been sitting remembering how hot Catherine Deneuve is. And she's not only an old, movie actress, but French.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
             
          Différents chevaux de haine ?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 27, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
               
            or a filly a deux?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
                 

              I shoulda taken French...I have no CLUE what that WK thing meant, I think I can fillet a duck, though.

              Gotta go fire up a babelfish. :)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by DTF (March 27, 2008 5:53 pm ET)
                   

                OK, got it.  I love Wiki! :)

                Two more, WK and you can be the Four Horseman!  One more and you can be the Three Amigos! :)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 28, 2008 12:35 pm ET)
                     
                  All the French I know I learned with the Googles. or "avec Googol"
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
         
      Does anyone else find it hilarious that McCain would make a joke about an "aging"anything?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 5:05 pm ET)
           
        I surprised that Tommy isn't on McCain's ass about making jokes about the elderly.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (March 27, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
           
        I find it more ironic that posters who rail against political correctness don't hesitate for a second to rely on it when the mood comes over them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (March 27, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
             
          Jingoism is just another form of Political Correctness.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Lynn (March 27, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, I made a joke about Viagra and John McCain and I admit it wasn't all that funny BUT I was immediately taken to task by one of the conservatives here for making stereotypes about the elderly; and then somehow he started talking about fired chicken, cornbread, and gumbo.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 6:23 pm ET)
               
            You too Lynn.

            Welcome to "The Disparaging the Elderly Time Out Corner.

            I got in trouble yesterday for calling Gramps McCain, Gramps.

            At least I didn't call him a washed up movie actress.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jamesB (March 27, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
                 
              Ya'll are too funny for words, whenever liberals are faced with their own double standards, they don't have the class to admit it and move on, so they make a joke and dismiss it off hand.  if you can't see how making disparaging remarks about someone's age is as worse as being a sexist pig, then stop looking so damn foolish by posting at all.  typical liberal hypocrisy.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (March 27, 2008 8:11 pm ET)
                   
                Bite me JamesB,

                I'm a grandfather myself!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 28, 2008 12:47 am ET)
                     
                  Settle down, Gramps. You're as worse as a sexist pig.Maybe worser.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 27, 2008 6:17 pm ET)
         
      France, shortly before shock and awe time, proposed to send an army of inspectors (20,000) To settle the WMD question. Guess who (go on guess) would not support this.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dunman1 (March 28, 2008 11:53 am ET)
         
      McCain is the King of "Washington Double Speak" He lies so much that it even offends the Republicans, and they seem pretty comfortable with lying and liars.
      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.