AP uncritically quoted McCain attacking Obama over national security experience, economics
SUMMARY: The Associated Press' Libby Quaid wrote that Sen. John McCain "dismissed Democratic rival Barack Obama as having zero national security experience," quoting McCain as saying that Obama "obviously has no national security experience, and therefore that's reflected in his judgment on a number of those issues." Quaid did not challenge McCain's accusation, nor did Quaid note that Obama has been involved in several bills and initiatives related to national security.
In a May 5 Associated Press article, reporter Libby Quaid wrote that Sen. John McCain "dismissed Democratic rival Barack Obama as having zero national security experience," before going to on to quote McCain as saying, "Senator Obama obviously has no national security experience, and therefore that's reflected in his judgment on a number of those issues." Quaid offered no challenge to McCain's accusation that Obama lacks national security experience. In fact, Obama -- a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- worked with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) on the "Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative" to secure unguarded weapons stockpiles in foreign countries -- which became law in January 2007 and for which the Senate Appropriations Committee provided $48 million in June 2007. Obama also introduced several bills related to national security, including The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), which would "provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology;" legislation that would have required the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq; and, with Sens. Lugar and Tom Harkin (D-IA), a bill "[t]o promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the rise of alternative fuels and new technology."
Further, in January, Obama reportedly discussed Kenya's post-election violence with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and at her request taped a radio broadcast that aired throughout the country, urging "Kenya's leaders to call for calm, to come together, and to start a political process to address peacefully the controversies that divide them." During the conflict Obama also spoke with then-presidential candidate and opposition leader Raila Odinga and reached out to President Mwai Kibaki. In 2005, Obama also introduced legislation with Sens. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Mike DeWine (R-OH), "to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo," which President Bush signed into law on December 22, 2006.
Noting a similar comment made by McCain on April 3, in which he said Obama "has no experience or background at all in national security affairs," a PolitiFact.com item evaluated McCain's claim and judged it to be "false," stating:
McCain is exaggerating, too. In his three years in the Senate, Obama has dealt with substantial issues such as nuclear proliferation as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and also participated in debates on the Senate floor and within the Democratic caucus on the war strategy.
The May 5 AP article, Quaid went on to report:
McCain, who also questioned Obama's credentials on the economy, was asked if he thought Obama had experience in any areas. Probably, McCain said, "I think on many issues, (but) certainly not on the level of mine."
But in writing that McCain "questioned Obama's credentials on the economy," Quaid failed to point out that McCain has cast doubt about his own "credentials on the economy." Indeed, as Media Matters for America documented, McCain was quoted in The Boston Globe and Time magazine as saying, "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got [former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan] Greenspan's book." Further, a November 26, 2005, Wall Street Journal interview quoted McCain as saying, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
WoW....according to MMFA:
"Obama has been involved in several bills and initiatives related to national security."
I feel so much better now.....now that I know he has all that experience.
Where did he get his expertise?
HELP AMERICA and THE WORLD with his ideas that even REPUBLICANS co-sign on
So 2 or 3 repubs signed onto a bill with his name on, just as a dem or two have signed onto repub bills. Whats your point? You act as if typical republicans support, much less back, his ideology.
Yeah, and for all his vaunted experience, McCain doesn't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Back when he was a POW he probably didn't know the difference between the Chineese and the Russians either, figuring that all commies must be working together.
McCain may have more experience, but that is only a by-product of haveing lived longer. Unfortunately his "experience" hasn't led to better judgement. Wisdom sometimes comes with age, but in Sen. McCain's case age has come alone.
MCCAIN: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
UNIDENTIFIED SMART-ALEC: Then sir, on the military/foreign policy front, which of Iraq's foreign neighbors is it that you think funds and equips, and even provides the manpower for, the thing that calls itself "al qaeda in Iraq"?
MCCAIN [Looking a little confused] "...um, Iran?"
SMART-ALEC [Shaking head, and frowning]
MCCAIN: "...er, Afghanistan? Pakistan? North Vietnam... those scumbags again?"
SMART-ALEC: "Sorry sir, no... sunni saudi arabia is the answer."
MCCAIN: "OK, I'm going to be even more honest: There's a thing or two I might be a little confused on, when it comes to military and foreign policy stuff... but at least it's mundane, unimportant and trivial stuff, right?"
ALEC: "Sure sir, if you characterize the threat to the stability of Iraq's democratically-elected majority Shia government, and the threat to the lives of U.S. Troops in Iraq... if you call that mundane and trivial and unimportant stuff, then sure sir, you're right."
MMFA's point seems to be that talking about national security is the same as actual "experience" in national security.
In other words, McCain served in the Air Force, but Obama spoke about it. Same thing, according to MMFA!
>>I would rather have Obama, who might make a decision based on something other than macho swaggering, than McCain who sings about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran.
He could make us miss Ashcroft's singing.
He could make us miss Ashcroft's singing.
"Let the eagle soar,
Like she's never - soared before....."
The clip of Ashcrooft singing that song he wrote was one of my favorite parts of "Fahrenheit 9/11". That and Wolfowitz licking his comb before running it through his hair..... :-)
While it is true that Sen. Obama has only so much experience in whatever it is that people mean, when they say National Security in these matters, it is just as true that the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, stands not alone in these things... far from it... he (or she) is so far from being alone in that capacity, as to say they are literally surrounded by quailified people whose sole job is to advise the President on matters of National Security... to list them all is tedious, but it suffices to list only the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Navy and Air Force, and the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, as uniformed career Military Officers who stand to brief and advise the President on any and all matters of National Security within the domain of their positions as Chiefs of Staff... and the entire U.S. Armed Forces are under the direct and indirect Command, of those Joint Chiefs.
Sen. Obama needs nothing like experience in these matters, as much as he requires an open mind, attentive and listening.
The only sins that he could then commit, would be either to refuse to listen to the expertise that surrounds him, or to otherwise surround himself with less than expert advisors.
George W. Bush has committed these two sins so often and to such a great degree, that they mark his entire Presidency with the stigma of them, and for this he is condemned now as the absolute worst Commander in Chief the U.S. Armed Forces have ever had.
And Mr. McCain shows all of the same marks as does George W. Bush, and he shares all of the same National Security opinions, and surrounds himself presently with all of the same type advisors (I say same type, but you can be sure that there are Bush administration DOD and National Security advisors presently advising Mr. McCain, and will serve him if he is elected President... again, the same Bush gang overlaps the MCcain gang, now at the present time, and when and if the man is elected President).
The single most compelling evidence of all of this, is Iraq.
quoting McCain as saying that Obama "obviously has no national security experience
LOL
Who was the man who set the "gold standard" for Republicans? You know the one Republicans love claim they are "identical" to. That man that is the measure of a greatness by Republicans. How much national security experience did the actor turned Governor turned President have before becoming President? How much freaking experience did the great Ronald Regan have BEFORE he became President?
Answer: NONE! And being Nixon's envoy doesn't count!
And for those who choose to vote for McCain be prepared, you won't get to do your cheer-leading from the sidelines, your butts will be on the front line in our 100 years in Iraq or after we "bomb bomb bomb Iran".
Pearl
Reagan was a governor for 8 years, and at least had some experience. Your 100 year war in Iraq comment is a joke. You know McCain never said that. I thought you at least tried to be honest in your posts. I guess you are above and honest approcah. And finally, if necessary, I want a president who is not afaird to do what needs to be done in Iran.
POV...first, "By contrast, during a January 3 town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, a participant said to McCain: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years -- " and McCain interjected: "Maybe a hundred. 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 -- 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.""
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090010?f=s_search
Second, and more importantly, you posted "I want a president who is not afaird to do what needs to be done in Iran." What exactly needs to be done in Iran? I would state that only one of the candidates is actually prepared to do what needs to be done, which is TALK to Iran and find a solution that doesn't involve war. That sure seems like a better option than adding death and violence to the Middle East.
What exactly needs to be done in Iran?
Bomb the **** out of them, take our their military, and steal their oil.
Columbus, are you gonna lead that charge or cheerlead in your recliner?
Ann [Coulter], is that you?
My, you've done a great job hiding that adam's apple...
Reagan was a governor for 8 years, and at least had some experience. Your 100 year war in Iraq comment is a joke. You know McCain never said that. I thought you at least tried to be honest in your posts. I guess you are above and honest approach. And finally, if necessary, I want a president who is not afaird to do what needs to be done in Iran.
I'm honest, you just don't like my honesty. I lived in California when Regan was Governor and he was no prize. Sure Republicans loved his him but he was simply a actor favored by conservatives because he said what they wanted to hear and he could a least read a teleprompter. He was a pander to rights's so called "states rights", code word for we can do to anyone whatever we want, we do not have to follow the government;s rules. In 1980 Regan announced his run for President in Philadelphia, Miss. The only other political event to take place in Philadelphia, Miss was the killing of three civil rights workers. Regan reached out and embraced the racist apartheid government of South Africa through his policy of so called "constructive engagement". Regan's solution to the de-industrialization of America was to build the prison industrial complex. His centerpiece was a racist so called "War on Drugs" while his friends in the CIA used narcotics peddlers as "assets" And then then Regan's El Salvadorian Contra buddies began bringing in crack. The list goes on about the so called "great communicator". If this level of incompetence is what Republicans consider great leadership, no wonder this country is in so much trouble.
Sorry POV, McCain DID say 100 more years in Iraq would be fine with him.
If McCain thinks that Iranians won't support their country if we attack them, he's dumber than Bush and I didn't think that was possible. Even Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said that he agrees with the position, stated mainly by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.
"Absolutely," said Scowcroft, when asked by The Huffington Post whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's hard to make things better if you don't talk."
You keep on believing McCain and that all volunteer army will be requesting your appearance at boot camp and they will not take no for an answer.
Pear
McCain did say 100 years would be fine with him.....NOT a 100 year war like you said in your first post.. What you said was dis-honest, and not at all what McCain said.
So now Reagan is racist because of the war on drugs?? Wow....Now that ya mention it, I do remember Reagan making minorities take drugs and all. In fact, I remember him passing them out like candy. You really look for any reason to label a conserative racist dont ya. Do you recall at all what the violent crime rate was in the early 80's Pearl? Do you have any idea what the conenction was between drugs and violent crime....or are you going to tell me that is racist to?
States rights is a code word? Seems likes states rights was a major reason this country was founded. The power of the federal govt is supposed to be limited. Thats why we have a thing called the bill of rights. Ever heard of it Pearl, or is the bill of rights and the constitution racist as well.
Finally, Reagan DID NOT make his announcment to run for president in 1980 from Miss. He made it from NY NY. http://www.4president.org/speeches/reagan1980announcement.htm
Your version of the truth is very lacking Pearl. Why dont you try a little truth, a little honesty, and stop seeing everything as a racist issue. So lets see...........your lied about where Reagan made his annuoncment, you liied about McCain. Anything else Pearl??
McCain did say 100 years would be fine with him.....NOT a 100 year war like you said in your first post.. What you said was dis-honest, and not at all what McCain said.
I'm afraid both you and McCain are delusional. If Iraqis don't want us there for the 5 years we've been there, they damn well don't want us there for 100, peace or no peace. The majority population of Iraq is Shia, Iran's majority population is Shia. Somehow I can't imagine them wanting McCain's 100 whatever.
So now Reagan is racist because of the war on drugs??
Where did I call him a racist for the war on drugs? I simply stated facts about Regan's so called "war on drugs". You seem to have a problem with the truth. You throw that "racist" tag around like you have a freaking clue what racism is all about. Ronald Regan pandered to the Republican right. The Republican who left the Democratic party because of blacks and civil rights. The same Republican party that wanted "states right" so that they could treat certain Americans any damn way they wanted.
Finally, Reagan DID NOT make his announcment to run for president in 1980 from Miss. He made it from NY NY.
I'm sorry, Ronald Regan began his campaign in Philadelphia Miss., who's only claim to fame was the slaughter of 3 civil rights workers. THAT still does not change the fact that Regan was elbow deep in race baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater. Regan was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were murdered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the MLK Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation. Congress overrode that veto.
ANYTHING ELSE POV?
Pearl
Anything else??? Are you kidding. You were wrong on everything you said.
You totally changed your position on the 100 years comment, and then act like you were right all along. Now you have all kinds of reasons, that had nothing to do with what you orginally said.
"States rights" has nothing to do with treating people "any damn way they want" It is a political philosophy....which I guess is way to complicated for you to understand.
You actually asked me where you said the war on drugs was racist. Well Pearl, I guess i got that from this comment you made..."His centerpiece was a racist so called "War on Drugs" I guess I got it from that comment Pearl.
Then, you totally backtrack on Reagan for your stroll down memory lane and events of the 60's.
Anything else you ask? Well,,,,,maybe, once you address the first error filled dillusional post you made. Of course all you did was follow up your first set of lies with more lies. You have made me think twice about McCain however, I am more worried about his age now than I was before.
I'm sorry, Ronald Regan began his campaign in Philadelphia Miss., who's only claim to fame was the slaughter of 3 civil rights workers.
THAT was my apology for misstating Regan's announcement.
POV, 100 years in Iraq is 100 years in Iraq. HE SAID THAT! Why would you try to explain McCain's flippant comments. He said them and then realized exactly how stupid they sounded and THEN added the rest.
I was the questioner at the January 3 Town Hall Meeting in Derry, NH, who McCain called Ernest Hemingway and who asked him what he hoped to accomplish in Iraq and how long it would take. When I pressed him for a time frame and cited George Bush's figure of fifty years, Senator McCain shocked me by saying "Maybe a hundred".
While splitting hairs over the meaning of campaign rhetoric, all ignore the fact that McCain advocates an open-ended presence in Iraq, and the consequences that would follow from such a commitment.
McCain's words left little room for interpretation. By saying that he was fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he made clear his commitment to staying the course and, further, to remaining in Iraq for years after the country is pacified, assuming that's ever possible.
Everyone who was there that night got it: we weren't getting out anytime soon.
YOU cannot handle the fact that your lame candidate made a stupid remark that has come back to bite him in the butt! GET OVER IT!
Pearl
Every time I think you cant sound more irrational, and more insane you suprise me. Each time I point out the many mistakes, lies, and fantasies you post about, you simply change course and lie again. Maybe it is your age..........you guys love to attack McCain about his age. Maybe you are just so bitter and blinded that you can not be objective anynore.
I see you are not denying call Reagan and the war on drugs racist. First you did, then you did not. When I quote you......you simply deny it again and dont talk about it anymore.
You quote McCain, but leave out the part about him not wanting a 100 year war.the part of him talking about korea and how we are still there. Maybe the meals at the nursing home have you feeling a little testy. You need to listen to more "uplifting" sermons from racist Wright, and get yourself in a better mood.
LOL
You corrected me on the fact that Regan announced his candidacy in New York but he gave his first campaign speech in Philadelphia, Miss where he shouted "I believe in states rights". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_eTDP-CSg
Your funny, you cry racism when the truth about Regan bites you in the butt. Regan was a Southern strategy Republican. He wanted to follow in Goldwater's footsteps which meant "state rights". Google might help you understand the meaning of states rights. Ronald Regan was a lousy President and McCain will be lousy by following in his footsteps.
You can get over the fact that McCain said 100 more years in Iraq would be fine with him. You can't accept the fact that everyone knew exactly what he meant and your really wish that no one would mention what McCain said since according to Rasmussen poll:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of Americans want the troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That number is down three points from last month’s total of 65%. That figure was the highest ever recorded since Rasmussen Reports began regular tracking of this question last August.
Can you refute the things I said about Regan?
Your wasting my time.
POV,
I do think she misspoke on RR's announcement for President. However, his first major campaign speech was in Philadelphia, Mississippi, but not his announcement. Isn't this an odd statement to make in the town where Civil Rights leaders were murdered:
"I believe in states' rights ... [I] believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia,_Mississippi
As far as the war on drugs goes, have you seen these statistics:
The 67-page report concludes that a black man is 11.8 times more likely than a white man to be sent to prison on drug charges, and a black woman is 4.8 times more likely than a white woman.
The study found that, since 1980, the rate of drug arrests for African Americans increased by 225 percent, compared to 70 percent among whites.
In nearly half of the cities, the odds of arrest for a drug offense among African Americans relative to whites more than doubled, the report said.
The study found that, since 1980, the rate of drug arrests for African Americans increased by 225 percent, compared to 70 percent among whites.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_050608L.shtml
In nearly half of the cities, the odds of arrest for a drug offense among African Americans relative to whites more than doubled, the report said."
It might not been a racist policy on its face, but in practice, it has been.
This whole "experience" thing is a horrible JOKE! Our collection of "experienced" white guys in the White House and Congress had all the experience needed to make WRONG decisions about everything. Thousands of people are dead because of their "experience" and extensive knowledge of the Middle East and its culture. Since when is knee-jerking a n aspect of experience? Their experience is so valuable that Osama bin Laden slipped by our "expert" military minds and so-called intelligence agencies. Their experience at the task of gathering accurate information about WMD was so lacking we are now in a war with someone who didn't attack us. Their experience at handling catastrophic domestic emergencies allowed thousands of New Orleanians to rot in the Super Dome and live in trailers to this day! Why do we have a mortgage crisis? Why are so many people without medical insurance? Why are we in hock to China? Why do thousands of children go hungry? Who gave us the "No Child Left Behind" fiasco? Why do we no longer have the "experience" of Donald Rumdumb to guide us concerning Iran? Never fear! We have John McCain, who, if the MSM has it's way, will save us from these inexperienced individuals threatening our "security".
An experienced fool is still a fool with seniority.
>>And finally, if necessary, I want a president who is not afaird to do what needs to be done in Iran.
That's true. Dubya's plan of ignoring them and bombing a country that didn't have weapons proved to be an abysmal failure. It would be nice to have a president who pays attention and isn't afraid to try diplomacy first.
POV,
If we do "what needs to be done" who is going to fight it? Are you for a draft? How are we going to pay for it? We can't afford a third war when we can't even finish our first two.
"Nuke the Tehran and show them what their quest for nuclear power will do for them."
But that is NOT a call for "peace through strength"...it is a call for "peace" through violence.
Columbus,
You are truly a disturbed individual.
Um...better check your google again Jawill.
It was president JFK that helped the Baath party rise to power. Reagan was only only on the set of DEATH VALLY DAYS then!
Hussein became President of Iraq in 1979 and Reagan became President in 1981.
Yes, I misspoke.
What Reagan did was supply him with all those weapons of mass destruction during the Iran-Iraq war.
Col,
Isn't it ironic that the Republicans credit Clinton's economy to the Republican Congress, but Reagan won the Cold War despite the Democratic one? Anyone else see Charlie Wilson's War?
I loved Charlie Wilson's War. Great, funny movie.... but that final scene was quite sobering.
Yeah,
I wish we would have listened to him. Did you see the DVD? On 60 Minutes, they said something like:
Wilson warned that if the infrastructure, schools etc., aren't rebuilt, it is very likely Afghanistan will fall under another terrorist regime. Spooky.
If the movie is accurate it was actually Gust Avrakotos that gave that info to Charlie.
I wont go so far to give Charlie all the credit for winning the Cold War as a poster above did, since there were many operations like his, Charlie's just happened to be the biggest and most successful!
It's too bad we don't have more dems like Ol' Good Time Charlie...
I didn't give Charlie the credit for winning the Cold War, just noted his role in it. You know what's a real shame? That we don't have more conservatives who warn of the evils of the military-industrial complex, that we don't have more conservatives who stay out of a woman's body and out of our bedrooms, that we don't have more conservatives who believe in non-interventionist foreign policy, that we don't have conservative young people who practice what they preach.
Four dem talking points in one post! Good show ol'chap!
In case you didn't notice, I was kind of agreeing with you...kinda. ;)
Columbo imagines himself as Patrick Swazie from Red Dawn.
WOLVERINES!
Apparently, MMfA would prefer that Libby Quaid be an activist rather than a reporter?
She's covering McCain for a wire service, reporting what he says. If she does that accurately, that's her job. Period.
Other reporters following other candidates should be getting responses/reactions to McCain's statements.
It's hypocritical to complain about the spin at Fox and then complain AP does not spin.