CNN's Crowley repeated accusation that Obama "distort[ed]" McCain's "100 years" remark, without reporting what McCain actually said
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.
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Candy Crowley stated that Sen. Barack Obama "accus[ed] [Sen. John] McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for another 100 years." She then reported "that is a distortion of what McCain said, and they push back very hard -- the McCain campaign -- when they hear this." In fact, during a January 3 town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain said a U.S. military presence in Iraq for the next 100 years would "be fine ... [a]s long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
During the April 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political correspondent Candy Crowley stated that Sen. Barack Obama "accus[ed] [Sen. John] McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for another 100 years." She then reported "that is a distortion of what McCain said, and they push back very hard -- the McCain campaign -- when they hear this." Without pointing to a specific statement by Obama, Crowley claimed that he distorted McCain's comments by saying, in Crowley's words, that McCain "want[s] to be in Iraq for another 100 years." In fact, during a January 3 town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain said a U.S. military presence in Iraq for the next 100 years would "be fine ... [a]s long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed":
QUESTIONER: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.
McCAIN: Maybe a hundred.
QUESTIONER: Is that how long --
McCAIN: We've been in South Korea -- we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans --
QUESTIONER: So that's your policy?
McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it's fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.
QUESTIONER: By the way, I forgot to say that I hope that you kick Mitt Romney's butt back to Massachusetts --
McCAIN: I knew there was a reason I called on you.
QUESTIONER: -- or Utah or Michigan or wherever he is. That man does not -- cannot lie straight in bed. But I want to go back to Iraq. I want to go back to Iraq. Now, 50 years? What if U.S. soldiers are being killed at the same rate, one per day, four years from now?
McCAIN: Well, I can't tell you the ratio or what it is, but I can tell you I understand American public opinion, sir, and --
WOMAN: [inaudible]
McCAIN: Yes, ma'am. And so I understand what's at stake here. That's why -- and I understand that American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed.
QUESTIONER: So what I hear is an open-ended commitment. That's my last [inaudible]. An open-ended commitment?
McCAIN: I have a, quote, "open-ended commitment" in Asia, I have an open-ended commitment in South Korea, I have an open-ended commitment in Bosnia, I have an open-ended commitment in Europe. I have an open-ended commitment everywhere.
QUESTIONER: Thank you for going on record. Thank you.
According to an April 1 post on the FoxNews.com blog Embed Producers, McCain responded to Obama's criticism of his "100 years" remark by touting the role of the postwar U.S. military presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany:
"(He) either hasn't read or (doesn't) understand ... the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace -- and that's through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. Our troops in Japan maintain a military presence in Asia. Our troops in Japan and South Korea maintain stability in Asia. The same thing was true after World War II about our troops in Germany."
An April 1 FoxNews.com article reported that McCain, responding to Obama's criticism, again compared a U.S. military presence in Iraq to that in South Korea, Japan, and Germany:
"We fought a war with Japan and Germany. Afterwards we maintained a military presence there, which we are doing today. We fought a war in Korea, we maintained a military presence in Korea, which we are doing to this day. The first Gulf War, we threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and we have a military presence there to this day," McCain told reporters aboard his campaign plane.
"So he [Obama] doesn't either, hasn't read or understand ... the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace.
Further, during her April 1 report on The Situation Room, Crowley stated: "Hillary Clinton went after McCain on the economy, saying -- repeating his phrase from a long time ago that he doesn't really know much about the economy, and she said he is proving that now by blaming homeowners for the mortgage crisis." However, as Media Matters for America previously documented, The Boston Globe reported that McCain said as recently as December 18, 2007: " 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got [former Federal Reserve chairman Alan] Greenspan's book.' "
From the April 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
[begin video clip]
CROWLEY: At least on the trail, it has mellowed out a bit. And you get the sense they have heard the worry of party leaders that, while the two of them battle it out to the final delegate, John McCain is getting a free ride.
OBAMA: Senator McCain has been saying, I don't understand national security.
[end video clip]
CROWLEY: Now, what both the candidates did was go after McCain. Barack Obama, after McCain's policy in Iraq, accusing McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for another 100 years. As you know, John, that is a distortion of what McCain said, and they push back very hard -- the McCain campaign -- when they hear this.
Hillary Clinton went after McCain on the economy, saying -- repeating his phrase from a long time ago that he doesn't really know much about the economy, and she said he is proving that now by blaming homeowners for the mortgage crisis -- John.
JOHN KING (guest host): Candy Crowley for us in Pennsylvania.
And I'm guessing by the tone of that, Senator McCain's not invited to the bowl-off.
Candy, thanks very much.
This type of *reporting* really bugs me. Candy should be a professional and AT LEAST show what McBush REALLY said- it's that simple. IF she actually DID hear what McPain said then maybe she could expand on the topic of how the neo-conservatives are invested to the hilt in occupying other countries militarily.
"McCain is getting a free ride."
She got that part right. She even paid the fare.
As an actual Obama supporter I have to say that this claim about McCain seems highly questionable.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html
The Pinocchio Test
A more honest line of attack for the Democrats against McCain would be his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whether or not he has a clear strategy for winning the war, and the feasibility of a long-term occupation of a Muslim country by the United States. Instead of attacking him on these grounds, they have twisted his words, by claiming that he "wants" to fight a 100-year war.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html
There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love Obama - but this kind of smear against McCain is going to hurt his credibility in the general election.
Go Obama!!!
McCain wants to be there 100 years and without violence but has no plan to end the violence. You and Candy are kinda sticky with your truthiness.
Your "go Obama" slogan is the only good part of your posts.
Translation: I'm a lying sack of poo, still pitifully trotting out the "As an Obama supporter ..." line in the hope that someone will actually believe it. Nothing he says or does is right, which is why I am pretend supporting him.
Now that the translation is over, what would be a better idea for all concerned is examine what it is about the little "kerfuffle" in Iraq that indicates to Senator McCain our keeping a presence there would be accepted as it has been in South Korea or Japan. I don't remember a lot of insurgent attacks against our troops in those nations, which makes the comparison a little optimistic (stupidly so, I would argue) for McCain to talk about this sort of arrangement.
But the wingnuts have a point, that Gramps never (to the best of my knowledge) said that he "wants" endless war, only that he would "be fine" with it.
So, it's not so much wanton bloodlust, as polite indifference to war. Much better.This distinction is from the same pinheads who don't think Barack Obama denounced his pastor with enough gusto to satisfy them.
"But the wingnuts have a point, that Gramps never (to the best of my knowledge) said that he "wants" endless war, only that he would "be fine" with it."
What McCain said is that he'd have no problem with a 100 year occupation, like S Korea.
Colonel...
Knowing you are a respected man of military prowess, would it be correct of me to say that there is a treaty in place in Korea, Germany and Japan! I guess Sen. McBush is referring to "non-hostile events" during the next 100 years after we secure a peace treaty with.....wait a minute-- isn't this a global war of terrorism. Maybe we can get the world terrorists together and forge a treaty in Iraq...wait another minute---maybe we should get the factions in Iraq to forge a treaty first. Boy is this easy..OK Mr. McBush this should take a bout 50-100 years at what cost to the lives of our troops? Seems like you are using the Hula-Hoop ploy of keeping us in Iraq...
If we lose troops we stay..to protect the rest of the troops
If everyone is safe, we stay to protect the troops.
ROUND AND ROUND WE GO
Col. - I think the truce can be established as soon as we get the official flag of the United States of Islamofasciastan made up.
Check - http://www.1115.org/archives/new_iraq_flag.jpg
We were lied to. Our trust betrayed by our own damn government in the run-up to the shock and awe invasion and now mealy mouthed McCain is fine with perpetuating this lie.
The escalation has failed to provide any meaningful political progress.
And John, you don't get to tell me what I ought to be fine with. In fact, Congress gets to tell you what is fine.
It's not fine by me. The US occupation created the very breeding ground it's attempting to eliminate and it did so under false premise of forcing democracy onto a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to the US. The longer we're there, the worse it will get.
This is yet another reason I've stopped reading MMFA on a regular basis. At no point did MMFA ever state that the main criticism of Obama here is that he left out that McCain said we could be in Iraq for 50, maybe 100 years...as long as Americans aren't still getting killed. The MMFA spin on that isn't surprising; they focus on McCain's words instead of tracking down what Obama said.
Obama should have mentioned McCain's full statements, THEN criticized McCain for living in a dream world for thinking American troops could possibly be in Iraq for 100 years without being shot it. That is how Clinton and Obama should be attacking McCain. That's how they (and especially Obama) can avoid the MSM criticism (fed to them by McCain) that they are "distorting" McCain's words.
Elsewhere, this item is fine and rightly points out that Candy Crowley is a lazy reporter. I wish, however, MMFA would've made an item about Crowley, Anderson Cooper and Randi Kaye not doing their HW last friday night on AC360, where they didn't do much to prove that Obama has bi-partisan credentials and has worked with Republicans on numerous occasions, including with Tom Coburn and Dick Lugar (and even McCain) in his 3 years in the U.S. Senate. Crowley said last friday that since Obama left the Illinois state senate, he hasn't worked across party lines. All she had to do with look at Obama's Wikipedia page and she'd see she's dead wrong! But I digress.