ABC News blog post about McCain touting Obama's "near gaffe" ignored McCain's repeated misstatements related to Al Qaeda
SUMMARY: An ABC News Political Radar blog post stated that Sen. Barack Obama made a "near gaffe" in saying, " 'Al Qaeda is not in Ir -- ' ... at which point he caught himself and finished the sentence by saying: 'the key Al Qaeda leadership is not based in Iraq,' " and also noted that the statement was "quickly seized on by aides to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain R-Ariz." But the blog post did not note that McCain himself has repeatedly made actual misstatements regarding Al Qaeda.
Reporting on comments made by Sen. Barack Obama during an April 10 speech in Gary, Indiana, an April 11 post on ABCNews.com's Political Radar blog stated: " 'Al Qaeda is not in Ir --' said Obama at which point he caught himself and finished the sentence by saying: 'the key Al Qaeda leadership is not based in Iraq.' " The post, attributed to "ABC News' Sunlen Miller and Teddy Davis," also stated: "The Democratic frontrunner's near gaffe was quickly seized on by aides to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain R-Ariz., who YouTubed the remarks and emailed them to reporters covering Obama." But Miller and Davis did not note in the post that McCain himself has repeatedly made actual misstatements regarding Al Qaeda.
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, McCain made the admittedly false claim that "[i]t's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." McCain made the misstatement twice during a press conference on March 18 and also the previous day while being interviewed by nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt.
Further, as Media Matters documented, during Gen. David Petraeus' April 8 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain asked Petraeus: "Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?" Petraeus replied: "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago." McCain then asked: "Certainly not an obscure sect of -- of the Shiites all -- overall --" Petraeus replied, "No," as McCain said: "or Sunnis or anybody else?" In fact, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Sunni group, not a Shiite group.
The ABC News post went on to uncritically repeat McCain's assertion that "[i]f we left [Iraq]" Al Qaeda in Iraq would "be taking a country":
Thursday is not the first time that the McCain campaign has hounded Obama on al Qaeda in Iraq as a way of casting the freshman senator as too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.
When Obama said at a Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, that he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda formed a base which threatened the U.S. or its interests, McCain scolded the senator who is 25 years his junior.
"I have some news," said McCain while campaigning the next day in Tyler, Texas. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq! It's called al Qaeda in Iraq."
"If we left," McCain continued, "they wouldn't be establishing a base. They wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country, and I am not going to let that happen, my friends."
In the post, Miller and Davis did not note that in "scold[ing] the senator," McCain falsely suggested that Obama had said that Al Qaeda is not currently in Iraq. Indeed, Miller and Davis appeared to be echoing McCain's false suggestion by writing in the first sentence that Obama "came close to once again saying that al Qaeda is not in Iraq while speaking Thursday in Gary, Indiana."
Moreover, commentators, including a former director of the National Security Agency, have asserted that the scenario McCain describes is unlikely. Indeed, in his written testimony for an April 2 Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing, former National Security Agency director and retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom stated: "The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw [from Iraq] is utter nonsense." Discussing local Sunni sheiks in Anbar province, Odom added, "The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq."
Further, in a February 27 post on Time magazine's Swampland blog, columnist Joe Klein wrote of McCain's "they'd be taking a country" remark:
They'd be taking a country? Last time I checked, Iraq has a Shi'ite majority. McCain thinks the Shi'ites -- the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps (and yes, the Iranians) -- would allow a small group of Sunni extremists to take over? In fact, as noted above, the vast majority of indigenous Iraqi Sunnis aren't too thrilled about the AQI presence in their country, either. (The usual caveats apply: AQI is barbaric, dastardly and intent on violating the Qu'ran by engaging in the annihilation of innocents. We can't get rid of them fast enough.)
Al-Qaida (the group headed by Osama bin Ladin, that committed 9/11) barely has a presence in Iraq. It has so little presence in Iraq that one might as well say "al-Qaida is not in Iraq".
However, a separate, distinct, different group, called "al-Qaida in Iraq", was founded in Iraq as a resistance group against the American occupation of the country.
One should try not to conflate these two groups.
*****
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/
Perhaps one should try to stick to the abbreviation AQI when referring to "al-Qaida in Iraq"?
At the very least one should avoid referring to them as simply "al-Qaida".
During my tenure, journalists would be mandated to speak solely about the issues
Yeah who needs that 1st amendment anyway, what's it ever done for anyone.
Media Matters (very little) is once again finding a member of the vast right wing conspiracy under every rock that could ever be turned over.
The ABC site has balance over the recent months that I reviewed. I don't think that anyone there is doing a hit job on Obama. They seem to be equal opportunity slammers.
But then again, I'm just a hayseed, caught up with religion and guns, so what do I know Mr. Obama?
so what do I know Mr. Obama?- proudconservative
Mr. Obama isn't here, can I take a stab at it?
You know how to bowl, you don't ask for fancy fruit juice at a restaurant,and you know how to completely ignore the point of items on a website so you can whine about your imaginary pet peeves.
How'd I do?
Buckprivatechickenkiller,
Oh you got it baby! It seems like the tepid interest of the general public about these 'gaffs', even here at Media Matters (very little) these threads get very little attention. That's why I'd rather hear how 'Bowling for Combines' Obama is doing with those bitter, angry, non-elitest, flown-over Americans that he may have offended. Or would we like to hear how the media has ignored this McCain story for the umpteenth time?
Well ProudMORON what we dont need is another in your LOOOONG line of look over there troll attempts to derail the thread.
That's why I'd rather hear how 'Bowling for Combines' Obama is doing with those bitter, angry, non-elitest, flown-over Americans that he may have offended.
You haven't been listening for the past six months? He's talking about dismantling the republican economic policies which has caused this bitterness. He's going to give them economic security, something republicans failed to do in their zeal to appease their base - the haves, the have-mores and corporations.
But then again, I'm just a hayseed, caught up with religion and guns, so what do I know Mr. Obama?
And here I thought you were doing well under Bush's economy. You need to stop voting against your best interest and vote Democratic. Republican policies are the cause of your economic woes.
You need to stop voting against your best interest and vote Democratic.
Thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. Why in the world would anyone do anything if it wasn't in their best interest. I sure as hell wouldnt.
So let me understand this, and correct me if I am assuming what you did not mean....
The republican policies are the main fault for people buying homes that they could not afford, and not doing their own due diligence before signing the dotted line? Its the republican policies fault that companies can operate cheaper overseas than in the US? Its the republican policies fault that companies keep increasing prices and decreasing employment to raise profit for the shareholders, much do to the costs of corporate taxation?
If any of those are answered as a yes, then you have a better chance of trying to convince me that global warming is responsible for the California fires.....or trying to convince me that having children is bad due to the additional "carbon footprint" that they'll leave in the world.
bringerofdiseasestothenativesin1492,
Word to the wise, as long as you make sense in your posts expect to be lambasted with terms you haven't heard since junior high. If you persist in attempting to seek reasonable dialogue, the thread will end or be expunged to the nether-world via flagging.
So hang in there and have fun. Remember, the best way to drive a liberal crazy is to encourgae people to take responsibility for their own lives and decisons, get a job and be happy.
The part about being lambasted for making sense was funny, Proudcon. Hypothetically, is that what you think would happen?
And why would it drive liberals crazy to promote liberal values?
http://www.responsiblelending.org/
PC & 1492
While I can understand what you attempt to claim.... that many shouldn't have signed on the dotted line...... bear in mind.... the banks and mortgage companies were refrained from doing this type of practice with those pesky little laws called ..... regulations!
Remove those restrictions and we can now see what happens when profit over doing the right thing takes over.
Lets go back to FDR's New Deal...... several great ideas, some not so great..... but the important ones were the new government regulations that he created that put a cork in the sieve of greed..... hell, there were several large businesses that were happy that FDR did this.
What happened? People like Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand happened...... Milt Friedman and Reaganomics happened.......
Many in the Democratic leadership are part of this too..... but since they seem to be all we have to vote for......
Both of you guys do realize that we might have more in common than you know??
My guess is that the leadership of both parties don't have either of our interests at heart...... and yet you come in here defending their official stance(s)? Why?
I failed to mention my thoughts from the other side......
My wife and I are one of the millions that signed on that dotted line in Dec 05.... our credit wasn't great but we were approved, I had just taken a job as an over-the-road truck driver in June...... In Nov 05 I broke a rib on the job.... took three months off .... went back out.....we were doing fine until 9 months later when the truck I was driving in broke down in Laredo, TX in mid-August 06...... eight days later, truck fixed.... run to Cooksville, TN.... truck breaks down again..... I go home... get in another truck... solo this time..... turns out not a great idea
Basically, in a matter of 2 1/2 months....every dime we had saved was gone and we were at that point a month behind....
Took local job that paid 1/3 what I made over the road..... suffice to say.... I have a CDL with 8 years experience and I couldn't find anything local that paid enough..... as a result.... we are slatted to lose our house on May 22, 08
I have now resigned myself to the possiblity that I can't stop this... I have cut back on everything possible to try and save the house..... but since it is hard to say.... I am now full time college student to save my families future since the present might be out of reach?
With this said..... and I'm plenty sure that there are several more Americans that can say about the same as I tht what is happening to them isn't simply...their fault!
When I look back when we had gotten approved for the mortgage.... I wish they had said... wait six months..... but my wife and I were desperate to own a home..... they knew it, because we said as much and took advantage of it!
So who to blame? The mortgage brokers with financial backing and stability and old laws that they knew didn't exist anymore or the couple with three kids and $1000 to put down on a house who were dreaming that American dream?
There is more than enough blame for everyone.
People should know the limits of their situation -- which unfortunately most will find out soon enough. The industry that begged for deregulation after the S&L fiasco should have policed themselves and not expect to be bailed out -- which they will because if the little guy loses his house who cares (even if it could be on the order of $10's but the banks will take the economy with them or so the theory goes) and they have friends and money. And the politicians should protect the "general welfare" and those that allowed it should be escorted from office in handcuffs because I am will to bet those that voted for deregulation had deep pocket contributions from the banking and loan industry.
In the process of just generally lying his sorry butt off, Stephen Hadley flat-out confused Nepal with Tibet on this week this morning and Georgie just let it slide.
McCain can't tell Sunni from Shiite or fact from fiction and Hadley can't tell Nepal from Tibet yet all we hear about is bogus Obama Madrassa Meshugass.
He did squeal like a little stuck gop pig.
SOLON AND MARY59, keep up the good work. You are so right with your comments. And Mary, yes these lenders want the taxpayers to bail them out. Why not, we just bailed out Bear Stearns!
And did I read a comment about someone not taking responsibility for their own lives or not getting a job? What I see are these huge Wall Street corps and banks wanting us, the taxpayers, to bail them out. Talk about not taking responsibility for one's actions or one's life!
And who, under George W. and Dick Cheney, got the largest tax breaks? Not the hardest working, not the middle class. And what about the skyrocketing oil prices? Dick Cheney's oil policy was done behind closed doors, with the oil companies right in the middle of it. What else do we expect with oil men in the White House???