Wash. Post's Weisman, Shear repeated GOP's false claim about Obama and Israel without providing context showing it was false
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear wrote that "Republican surrogates" trying to portray Sen. Barack Obama as "anti-Israel ... pluck[ed] one sentence out of an extended interview with the Atlantic Monthly to accuse him of calling Israel 'a constant sore' that infects U.S. foreign policy." However, Weisman and Shear did not provide the context of Obama's "constant sore" remark to show that the GOP's attack is false.
In a May 14 Washington Post article, staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear wrote: "Republican surrogates have relentlessly tried to portray [Sen. Barack] Obama as anti-Israel, just this week plucking one sentence out of an extended interview with the Atlantic Monthly to accuse him of calling Israel 'a constant sore' that infects U.S. foreign policy." But Republicans did not "pluck[] one sentence" out of the Atlantic interview; they plucked out two words, and Weisman and Shear did not provide the context in which Obama used the words "constant sore" to show readers that the attack is false. Indeed, in his May 12 interview with Atlantic magazine national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama used the words "constant wound" and "constant sore" in referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not Israel. Further, Weisman and Shear did not note the Obama campaign's or Goldberg's responses to the Republican attacks, both of which noted they are false.
Indeed, Washington Post "fact checker" Michael Dobbs noted on May 14 that "a fair-minded reading of Obama's remarks shows that his comment has been taken completely out of context ... It is pretty clear from this passage that Obama is not calling Israel a 'constant wound.' Indeed, he specifically says 'no, no, no' when asked whether Israel is a drag on America's international reputation. He is referring to the overall Israeli-Palestinian problem, including continued Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory." Weisman and Shear did not mention Dobbs' "fact check."
Additionally, Weisman and Shear wrote that Republican strategist Scott Reed said that "[p]ersonal attacks ... may work when times are good, but in an election year marked by economic recession, an unpopular war and an unpopular president, the candidate waging a frivolous campaign could face a backlash." As evidence, the Post cited "the sacking of McCain's convention chief, Douglas M. Goodyear, after his past ties to the military junta in Burma came to light." But as Weisman and Shear themselves noted, Goodyear was "sack[ed]" for his ties to the "military junta in Burma," not "[p]ersonal attacks" during a political campaign. Moreover, in purporting to note McCain's stance on personal attacks, Weisman and Shear did not report that the McCain campaign suspended a staff member who reportedly distributed a video -- titled "Is Obama Wright?" -- that, as the Politico's Jonathan Martin reported, "splices together the most inflammatory language of [Obama's former pastor] Jeremiah Wright with a series of other issues that have arisen in the campaign" and "includes footage of Malcolm X, the U.S. Olympians who raised their hand in the black power salute and the song 'Fight the Power.' "
Further, an April 24 article in The Hill reported that McCain asserted about a controversial ad by the North Carolina Republican Party attacking Obama and Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore: "I'll do everything in my power to make sure not only they stop it but that kind of leadership is rejected." The Hill added that McCain claimed "he has communicated his wishes 'in every possible way.' " However, as the blog Think Progress noted, Linda Daves, chairwoman of the North Carolina GOP, asserted during an interview on the April 24 edition of NPR's All Things Considered that she had not had "a conversation with John McCain about" the ad. FoxNews.com reported on May 1 that McCain stated that "he wouldn't have run the GOP ad, 'but I am not going to referee, I am just going to run my own campaign.' "
From the May 14 Washington Post article:
The McCain campaign has been less organized than Obama's in its efforts to counter the [527] groups, but the senator from Arizona has made clear his antipathy toward them -- without much effect.
"We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy," promised Chris LaCivita, one of the Republican strategists behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry in 2004. LaCivita added: "At the end of the day, every individual has a right to participate in the political process whether John McCain likes it or not. It's their constitutional right."
But so far, such groups have been remarkably silent, in part because of the signals Obama and McCain have sent to donors to steer clear.
"Obviously, McCain would prefer that people give money to him and the RNC and let us run our own campaign," said senior campaign adviser Charles R. Black Jr., referring to the Republican National Committee. "It's an issue of who is going to control your campaign."
To be sure, that has not prevented spokesmen for either candidate from accusing the other side of negative campaigning. Democrats say McCain shattered the truce when he said Obama is the candidate of Hamas. Republican surrogates have relentlessly tried to portray Obama as anti-Israel, just this week plucking one sentence out of an extended interview with the Atlantic Monthly to accuse him of calling Israel "a constant sore" that infects U.S. foreign policy.
Obama himself blurred the lines last weekend in Oregon, when he suggested that McCain's association with the Keating Five savings and loan scandal in the 1980s would be fair game in the general-election campaign. Republicans say Obama and the Democratic National Committee distorted McCain's words and record with ads showing him saying he would be all right with U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 100 years and praising the economic record of President Bush.
[...]
Conservative organizations say their donors have had no direct contact from the McCain campaign or its surrogates, but Republican operatives such as David Bosse and LaCivita, who have promised to hit Democrats hard, have so far been silent.
Instead, what operatives have seen is the firing of an Obama adviser, Samantha Power, for calling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) "a monster," and the sacking of McCain's convention chief, Douglas M. Goodyear, after his past ties to the military junta in Burma came to light.
Scott Reed, who managed Republican candidate Robert J. Dole's campaign in 1996, said those signals have been extraordinary -- and for good reason. Personal attacks such as George H.W. Bush's tarring of Michael S. Dukakis in 1988 as a weak-kneed, unpatriotic liberal may work when times are good, but in an election year marked by economic recession, an unpopular war and an unpopular president, the candidate waging a frivolous campaign could face a backlash.















There was some call that the Forestal fire was Johns fault. I bit on it myself. This has been proven to be untrue.
Plenty of other true things that do not make the dwellor on The Sweet Moma Express my candidate.
well, at least cindy's beer fortune is legal. that's not true for the kennedys who smuggled booze during prohibition, and who still live off whiskey royalties.
there's nothing there on the keating five, that's been beaten to death. can't pin the whole s&l crisis on old john.
"well, at least cindy's beer fortune is legal."---SANDSS
From---- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley ----as to the business dealings of Cindy McCain's father and his brother/partner:
----------------
Following his discharge in 1945, Hensley and his brother went back to work for Marley in his United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson.[3][2] In 1948, both brothers were prosecuted by the federal government and convicted of falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations.[9][5] Jim Hensley received a six-month suspended sentence while his brother received a year in federal prison.[9] In 1953, Jim Hensley and Marley were charged by federal prosecutors with falsifying liquor records.[9] Defended by future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, they were acquitted.[9][5]
In December 1952,[2] the Hensley brothers bought into the Ruidoso Downs racetrack in New Mexico, with Eugene running it and Jim returning to Phoenix.[3] In a May 1953 hearing before the New Mexico State Racing Commission, the Hensley brothers concealed the existence an equal partner, Clarence "Teak" Baldwin, who had been banned from any ownership role due to illegal bookmaking activities.[10] A 1953 New Mexico State Police investigation found further that Kemper Marley was a financial backer for bookmakers and had connections with Baldwin and with the bookmaking operations of organized crime,[10] a conclusion echoed decades later by the Arizona Project investigative reporting team.[11] The Hensley brothers gained their Ruidoso Downs racetrack license in 1953, as no New Mexico law barred convicted felons from race track ownership,[12] although in 1955 new Governor of New Mexico John F. Simms would say he was "appalled" by the previous administration's decision to do so.[12]
Ouch, I almost kind of feel bad for Sands. That is a take-down of epic proportions, and will probably leave a mark.
OK, I don't feel bad anymore. Awesome fisk!!
The Kennedy comparison is not a valid one, SS. Mrs. McCain is not the politician and she is the one with the money. The Kennedys were the ones with the fortune and the ones running for office. Maybe you should compare Mrs. McCain to Mrs. Kerry.
If you really want to parse out family dynasties and their fortunes, why not disclose all of Bush's grandfather's dealings?
"childish comment", "ignorant person", "total moron".
Typical wingnut , because you can't argue the position your attempt at castigation substantiates nothing.
"So you tell me, where the hell do you see Obama getting a pass by the media"
I never stated he was getting a "pass"....now did I.
"go back to Hannity" Sorry, don't listen to him...why do you?
If you care to discuss issues please let me know with adult talk next time.
Oooh, one example! And how much media play did that get? How much media play was given to the McCain campaign's explanation of that comment and how it was unfair to take it out of context? I'd guess more than actually used the line without clarification, unlike the parroting of the smears on the Democratic candidates have been.
Yes, the 100 years line is being used out of context and unfairly by opponents of McCain. That doesn't even come close to the absolute and complete lying about the words of Obama being done by McCain, his surrogates and compatriots in the Republican Party and his cheerleading section in the media. This isn't a case of two wrongs not making a right, it's closer to hundreds of wrongs being justified by one.
The "100 years in Iraq" comment is actually something McCain hasn't been questioned about enough, and I don't think he'd like the context brought up. It was "100 years in Iraq, as long as soldiers aren't dying". Well, soldiers ARE still dying, Senator, and your best plan to stop that has failed. The escalation (surge) reduced troop deaths for a while, but they've gone back up. So what is your plan to stop deaths of our troops.
But nobody has asked him that yet.
Of course Obama is correct...the Israel-Palestinian conflict has been a "constant sore" for too long. It is the primary source of our problems in the Middle East. But, conicidentally, I heard this morning that Bush is back in Jerusalem. He did absolutely NOTHING to address the Israel-Palestinian conflict for seven years and now that his administration is coming to an end he's going to solve the problem in a few months? What an idiot...!
i only wish i could vote for him again.
Tell me - was it painful when you had that frontal lobotomy? :-)
four more years!
Maybe he has Tourette's syndrome...... :-)
Maybe some people just enjoy rectal probes... ;>)
You mean Eric Cartman from "South Park" posts on MMFA? :-)
Above Irony101 said bush was elected. Actually, he stole both of the elections he was involved in. One with the help of the Supreme Court. The other with the help of the Secratary (sp?) of State of Ohio and Diebold.
Which is why I have never used the office titles when referring to Bush or Cheney. As far as I'm concerned, our last legitimate president was Bill Clinton; the next one will be Barack Obama. Bush is just a tragic mistake - an illegitimate squatter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
DEMINTX wrote: "Normally, a father would defend his son, so you may have something there regarding the illegitimacy."
IRONY 101 wrote: "Apparently not as painful as the rectal probe Bush has subjected the country to... ;>)" and "
Anyone who voted for Bush twice is clearly a menace to society... ;>)"
WZWRITER wrote: "Bush is just a tragic mistake - an illegitimate squatter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
Is it still possible to have an intelligent discussions about issues in this country? What I see is the increased use of the ugly and childish remarks by many in the web/blog community.
There is a way of presenting your arguments without resulting to the embarrassing urge to throw comments that are utterly counterproductive.
Take note that as long as the Republicans and Democrats (and now even Democrats vs. Democrats) keep chunking insults and obscene posts/comments at each other, the problems we all face in this country collectively will remain unresolved.
Everyone, just keep judging people by their race, the "R" or "D" after their name, their sex etc. and see just how much progress will be accomplished.
Again, if you have any beef with Bush, Obama, Hillary, McCain or whomever, try to form your arguments without stereotypical, speculative or degrading comments.
It is a little harder to base your point of view around facts but in the end you end up with a little more intelligent outcome.
BTW, I did not vote for Bush in 2000 nor in 2004 for that matter.
Take care
The price of fuel that you and I pay at the pump does not solely depend on Bush and the Republicans (nor Democrats for that matter).
If anything, this Administration (however much some may despise Bush) has proposed plans in the past that would have alleviated the price of fuel in the future.
I understand that some view drilling in the Alaska, building more refineries, investing in the nuclear and coal energy etc. as environmentally unfriendly and controversial, however, these plans have been put forth by the Administration and each time they have been slapped away by the Democrats and some Republicans.
Short term there is very little that Bush, Obama or Clinton Administration can do to drastically reduce the pain at the pump. Any promise that either of them give to you or me right now should be judged with a big grain of salt.
We are not alone in the market anymore (have not been in a long time) and thus we need to adjust our consumption and our resources towards the Global Market and not expect the Global Market to adjust itself toward our needs.
We simply need to increase our resources and supplies. It would be nice to see people drive less but we live in a growing economy and for some of us, driving less is just not an option (I also live in TX and my work is 47 miles one way, then I go to college which is 35 miles the other way), so people like me are just stuck paying in excess of $200.00 per week for fuel alone.
I argue that the fuel problem did not start with this Administration, I would even argue that it did not start with Clinton Administration, I think that it started long time ago and that the Mid East crisis, the growth of China and India etc. only exacerbated the problem.
We simply put all of our eggs in one basket and we did not think that we need to invest into another basket or to find more eggs.
I suspect that the similar thing will occur few years from now when the Social Security funds go completely flat. We just keep bickering amongst ourselves and we consistently fail to address and eliminate the problems whenever they are in the growing stages.
It is easier and less troublesome to prevent a problem then it is to fix and heal the consequences...
Anyway, I am off to pay $4.35 for a gallon of Diesel here in DFW.
So now that Clinton political obituary is pretty well complete, the Right Wing Propaganda Machine is turing its power against Obama. Gee, and you allthought that Barack Obama had a chance. He was put up to destroy Clinton in the primaries, and now he will be destroyed himself in the general.
We will have another 4 years of right wing neo-fascist reactionary draconian government. American will not only bleed but scream with pain.