Will pundits who blasted Howard Dean in 2003 over troop-numbers response question McCain's fitness following his Iraq troop-level falsehood?
SUMMARY: During a May 29 campaign appearance, Sen. John McCain falsely stated that U.S. troops in Iraq "have [been] drawn down to pre-surge levels." As the Associated Press reported, "[T]here are 17 brigades in Iraq" right now, as opposed to the 15 brigades in place before the increase. In 2003, then-Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean was criticized in the media for his response to a question about the number of active-duty soldiers, with Tim Russert and others questioning his fitness to be commander in chief. In light of McCain's troop-surge falsehood and numerous national security gaffes, will the media similarly question his suitability to be commander in chief?
During a May 29 campaign appearance, Sen. John McCain falsely stated of the Iraq war: "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." As the AP pointed out on May 30, U.S. troop levels are not at "pre-surge levels." The AP reported: "There were 15 combat brigades in Iraq before the increase began. Five were added, and the United States has been reducing numbers since December. As of Friday, there are 17 brigades in Iraq, another brigade will depart in June and the plan is to pull out another in July, returning the level to 15." In 2003, then-Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean was criticized in the media for his response to a question about the number of active-duty members of the U.S. military.
On the June 22, 2003, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Dean: "[H]ow many men and women do we now have on active duty?" After Dean responded, "I can't tell you the answer to that," Russert said, "But as commander-in-chief, you should know that." Dean responded: "As someone who's running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don't know the exact number, and I don't think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary." Dean later said, "For me to have to know right now, participating in the Democratic Party, how many troops are actively on duty in the United States military when that is actually a number that's composed both of people on duty today and people who are National Guard people who are on duty today, it's silly. That's like asking me who the ambassador to Rwanda is." Russert replied: "Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Not if you want to be commander-in-chief," later adding: "If somebody wants to be president of the United States, have a sense of the military." Dean replied: "I do have a sense of the military," adding, "I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty." A June 23, 2003, New York Times article about the exchange reported, "According to the Pentagon's Web site, there were 1.4 million as of March."
In the wake of his Meet the Press appearance, several media figures, in addition to Russert, suggested that Dean's response raised doubts about his candidacy or his fitness to be president. Their response to Dean raises the question of whether, in light of McCain's troop-surge falsehood and numerous other national security gaffes and falsehoods, they will similarly challenge McCain's fitness to be commander in chief. In addition to Russert's assertions, instances of media criticizing Dean include:
- On the June 23, 2003, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Mike Barnicle introduced a clip of Dean's response by stating, "[P]art of the interview, I think, resembled the sound and the sight of a man crashing his candidacy into a bridge abutment." Chicago Tribune managing editor Jim Warren later said: "[I]f he keeps blowing questions like that, people can legitimately raise questions about his whole grasp on details and his precision if he were to be put in charge of the White House." In addition, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley claimed Dean's "statement [was] fairly embarrassing that he didn't know roughly the size of our military."
- On the June 23, 2003, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough said: "[I]f Dean wants to have any chance of getting into the White House, he needs to learn some basic facts about our country. On NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, the Vermont governor wasn't even able to tell Mr. Russert the number of American service men and women in uniform."
- On the June 26, 2003, edition of Scarborough Country, Scarborough called Dean's performance on the June 22, 2003, Meet the Press "ugly," adding, "I cannot believe anybody running for president of the United States would not know how many American troops are in uniform."
- On the June 27, 2003, edition of Scarborough Country, Scarborough again raised the issue of Dean's performance, asserting: "I said if Dean wants to be president, he would [be] well served learning some basic facts about our military."
- On the June 23, 2003, edition of MSNBC's Buchanan & Press, National Review White House correspondent Byron York asserted that Dean "was absolutely embarrassing on the issue of the U.S. military when he was asked how many people are in active military service and he said well basically, I'm a Democrat running for the nomination. I don't need to know that stuff. I've got people to tell me that kind of stuff."
From Dean's June 22, 2003, appearance on NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Let's talk about the military budget. How many men and women would you have on active duty?
DEAN: I can't answer that question because I don't know what the answer is. I can tell you one thing, though. We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now. I supported the president's invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the president's doing there now. We need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords in the hope that we're one day going to have the democracy in Afghanistan. And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations, because our troops on the ground deserve better support than they're getting.
RUSSERT: But how many troops -- how many men and women do we now have on active duty?
DEAN: I can't tell you the answer to that either. It's --
RUSSERT: But as commander-in-chief, you should know that.
DEAN: As someone who's running in the Democratic Party primary, I know that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two million people, but I don't know the exact number, and I don't think I need to know that to run in the Democratic Party primary.
RUSSERT: How many troops would have in Iraq?
DEAN: More than we have now. My understanding is we have in the neighborhood of 135,000 troops. I can't tell you exactly how many it takes. General [Eric] Shinseki thought that we were undermanned by roughly 100,000. Maybe that's the right attitude.
Tim, you have to understand, and I know you do understand, that as you run a campaign and as you acquire the nomination and as you go on to be president, you acquire military advisers who will tell you these things. And, no, I don't have a military background. Neither did Bill Clinton. George Bush had a National Guard background. Ronald Reagan did not have a military background. I will have the kinds of people around me who can tell me these things. For me to have to know right now, participating in the Democratic Party, how many troops are actively on duty in the United States military when that is actually a number that's composed both of people on duty today and people who are National Guard people who are on duty today, it's silly. That's like asking me who the ambassador to Rwanda is.
RUSSERT: Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Not if you want to be commander-in-chief. But we now have 9,000 troops --
DEAN: So your perception -- your position is that I need to know exactly how many people are on duty today in the active military forces --
RUSSERT: Well, have a sense --
DEAN: -- six months away from the first primary?
RUSSERT: If somebody wants to be president of the United States, have a sense of the military.
DEAN: I do have a sense of the military.
RUSSERT: -- of how many people roughly --
DEAN: I know there are roughly between a million and two million people active duty. I know that we don't have enough people in Iraq. I know that General Shinseki said that we need 300,000 troops to go into Iraq, not 200,000 troops, and I'm prepared to assume the burden and have the proper people around me advising me on what needs to be done.
RUSSERT: All right, Afghanistan, we have 9,000. You would bring it up to what level?
DEAN: Well, I believe that we need a very substantial increase in troops. They don't all have to be American troops. My guess would be that we would need at least between 30,000 and 40,000 additional troops. They don't all have to be American because we have got to start taking over the security functions from the warlords in order to prepare the way for a unified Afghan police force that's a national police force.
RUSSERT: There is concern about your awareness and positions on national security. You must acknowledge that?
DEAN: Sure there are. Because just like President Reagan, President Clinton, and President Bush, I do not have extensive experience in national security.
Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Will the media allow the falsehoods and misstatements of John McCain be less challenged than those of Howard Dean? If they do, then they are allowing news and commentary that is not accurate to be pushed, and that forwards teh conservtive agenda.
...news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
The basic "truth" is that the surge has worked - From the Washington Post:
The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.
Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page B06
So - did McCain or Obama make some verbal gaffes? Who cares. We need to have good judgment about what is going on in Iraq right now! The right-wing and LEFT-WING noise machines should care more about the truth.
The right-wing and LEFT-WING noise machines should care more about the truth.
Your first sentence shows that you wouldn't recognize truth if it slapped you across the face while wearing a button reading, "HI! My name is TRUTH!"
Will the national media allow McCain's national security credentials to go unchallenged? Yes. Here is an example: Do they not know what recent Democratic Party presidential nominee, Senate colleague -- and sometime poltical firend and ally, John Kerry, just said on this subject? Or are they deliberately choosing to ignore it? At least The Boston Globe is on the story: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/31/mccain_takes_hit_from_obama_on_iraq_progress?mode=PF
Will the mainstream media question his suitability to be commander-in-chief? Based on what we are seeing so far, the answer is 'No.'
Falsehood? Not hardly. A misinterpretation? Perhaps.
The chart found on this link shows that troop levels in Iraq today are the same as they were at the end of January 2006, which was before the "surge". To the extent that this is true, McCain's statement is true. Does this mean the January 2006 levels are representative of the entire three years prior to the surge? No it does not, but McCain never said anything about that.
If we wanted to be technical about this whole thing, MMFA has asserted a falsehood by claiming MMcCain's statement is a falsehood, as the actual troop level figures over the last 5 years clearly prove.
MMFA has done its usual superlative job of making mountains out of molehills and in the end, demonstrating how hopelessly out of touch with reality liberal/progressive ideology is.
Again, not true. Before the surge, troop levels were at 130,000. Now they are at 155,000.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and neither does John McCain.
On the other hand, maybe we should give McCain more credit. Maybe Straight Talk really does know the numbers, but is just misleading the public again.
It is the NARRATIVE that "our MEDIA" has been following for over a decade now.
The least verbal misstep by a Democrat is promoted as ample evidence to disqualify them from public service.
Verbal missteps by Republicans are excused away, defended, minimized, and even speculated to show some admirable trait ... like being an "ordinary guy" who "makes mistakes, like most of us."
It's a blatant double standard, and it is as predictable as it is BIASED.
We now have a solidly RIGHTWING MEDIA. They are on the payroll to promote the rightwing agenda, and to get Republicans elected. Sadly, this nullifies the obligation of the press to properly and with "balance" inform the American public. We, the People, are now routinely LIED TO, manipulated, and fed propaganda by a media whose combined agenda is to promote the goals of their corporate ownership. And corporate owners favor Republicans who routinely lavish every advantage on the well-to-do, while ignoring the needs and problems of the rest of America.
Bush's reign has unapologetically demonstrated this elitist/aristocratic mindset in its every action. McCain will continue this skewed favoritism, where every decision is measured by how much it will benefit the very richest. Everyone else? The GOP prescription is for us to shut up and depend on "self reliance" ... a self reliance that is crippled a thousand ways every day by LOBBIESTS who skew our government's decisions FOR the wealthy and AGAINST ordinary Americans and workers and families.
In the Rightwing's formulation of "Christian" thinking, CASH equals VIRTUE. The more cash you have, the more virtuous you are. If you have no cash, it's a result of moral failure, your own unworthiness. If your kids suffer, it's not the government's or anyone else's problem. The government should bail out huge corporations, subsidize corporations with no-bid contracts and "depletion allowances" and other taxpayer-funded handouts, and this is OK because corporations are virtuous.
Every single decision made by the Bush Administration ... including things like lax border security and the mushrooming DEBT and the Iraq War ... are based on this formula of advantaging the already very wealthy, and saying the hell with everyone else.
So, with this KNOWN narrative, will McCain EVER be given proper scrutiny by the Media, or anything resembling equal treatment to that given the Democrats? It will not happen in the current atmosphere.
But today on a conference call with reporters, the McCain campaign tried to dismiss this factually inaccurate statement. “So what?” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a strong McCain supporter. “What does that amount to?” He added that McCain just “misspoke.”
That in a nutshell is republican values. They can screw up all day long, as long as they are in control at the end of the day all is forgiven.
..."Reminded that troops in Iraq currently number 155,000, well above the pre-surge level of 130,000, McCain refused to acknowledge on Friday that he had misspoke....
The problem, however, was that this was not McCain's only gaffe. During the same Thursday conference when he misstated troop levels, he also argued that conditions were "quiet" in Mosul. That same day, three suicide bombers killed 30 in the city. "
MMFA's assumption here is that all brigades contain the same number of people. According to this source
www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
the number varies, so it would be possible for 17 particular brigades to contain fewer members in total than 15 other brigades. I do not know the numbers for the brigades in question.
It's not that McCain was right. He was wrong.
According to the US Military, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4156
Q General, coming back to Iraq and the troop numbers, so what you're saying is by the time we get to the end of July, we're going to be at 140,000, which looks to me like we're still talking about significantly higher than pre-surge levels in Iraq. Am I reading that correctly?
GEN HAM: Yes
. We started the surge at about 132 in January of 2007. So with the surge forces that went in, we've focused principally on the five brigade combat teams, but it was much more than that. There was an additional division headquarters, additional aviation, military police, logistics, the detention. The transfer of responsibility for detention operations has not progressed as rapidly as we would like to the Iraqis, so there's a need to have that force sustained as well.So, yes, it is bigger. It is, by the end of July, bigger than when we started this surge. That's for sure.
Bottle,
The troop numbers you cite are the proper reference for discussions. Thanks.
I do not know the numbers for the brigades in question.
Neither does John McCain, and that's why neither you nor he know what either of you are talking about.
EZ:
Maybe you mistakenly find it "easy to refute" people because YOU don't know what YOU are talking about!
The number of brigades involved was and is an indirect measure of troop levels. I stand by that statement.
Bottle has the right idea, going directly to a military source for troop level info.
I stand by that statement.
Then you stand by nothing. Number of brigades was not an issue. Number of troops was. And neither McCain nor you got it right.
EZ:
MMFA used the number of brigades to call McCain incorrect. Simply read the first part of the summary:
Summary: During a May 29 campaign appearance, Sen. John McCain falsely stated that U.S. troops in Iraq "have [been] drawn down to pre-surge levels." As the Associated Press reported, "[T]here are 17 brigades in Iraq" right now, as opposed to the 15 brigades in place before the increase
As I already posted, a military source for the number of troops is a proper input for challenging McCain, not the number of brigades. I think you are being obtuse on purpose.
This is why most media bias studies are crap.
The Russert-Dean exchange would go down as an example of liberal bias because the guest was a democrat. But bias is all about what media members say on air, not about what politicians say on air, or about what media members say in private or do outside of work or did in the past.
Did Russert ask any republican about troop levels? Did the republican then get blasted for giving the correct answer?
The true and real quailifications to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, are not found in having at your fingertips, the exact numbers of U.S. Troops in any theatre or field (or even Brigade) at any exact moment... I think I understand what's being asserted here: but it's obvious, that what did not truly disqualify Mr. Dean (his not knowing an exact number of U.S. Troops in Iraq), does not truly disqualify Mr. McCain either.
I know, they jumped on Mr. Dean back then, and unfairly claimed his answers reflected on his qualifications to perform that role of Commander in Chief (when in fact they did not disqualify him), and so we jump on Mr. McCain... but I needn't remind you what it is, that two wrongs don't make.
I'm not a wet blanket in these things, though... I don't mean to diminish the talk in this matter, but to fire it up! ...just more on point is all.
The qualification to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, of being able to properly assess just what is and is not a National Security threat to the American People, and therefore requiring the Services of the U.S. Armed Forces, in Invasion Battle and War...
That qualification, to assess what are the true National Security threats to the American People, that makes the knowledge of just exactly how many Troops are in any place at any time, seem like a matter of mere Accounting.
Because to know the exact number of Troops, but to be ignorant of whether or not their Mission truly involves the National Security of the American People, is likely to waste those Troops lives, in a matter that involves not the National Security of the American People...
And that is why We have a U.S. Armed Forces: for the National Security of the American People... a National Security objective found nowhere in Iraq: not now, or at any time before.
And this is what Mr. McCain is ignorant of, and this is why he threatens to sacrifice more lives of more U.S. Troops in Iraq: because he, like his brother George W. Bush, pretends to us that there is a U.S. National Security objective being served by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when there is none... We having known that all along, from the start.
This is the point to aim at.
The true and real qualifications to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, are not found in having at your fingertips, the exact numbers of U.S. Troops in any theatre or field (or even Brigade) at any exact moment.
But, if you are a candidate for President, and you state that you can look someone "in the eye" and make a statement that shows ignorance of the facts, then later on state that said ignorance is no big deal, you have no business getting a pass from the media about it.
All John McCain has proven is that he can lie through his teeth while looking someone directly in the eye. And he doesn't care that he does it.
Obama's 57 states crack was so obviously a joke it amazes me that anyone is stupid enough to think he meant it.
Maybe some people simply became too accustomed to WPE Bush snickering at his own jokes that they don't recognize a deadpan delivery when they hear one.
Of course not, because he didn't say he saw dead people. That's simply a dishonest paraphrase of a clumsily worded statement on his part.
For the record, I am amused by the paraphrase. Obama did structure his statement carelessly and as a public figure he fully deserved some good-natured kidding over it. Just as long as his critics don't try to overstate it as faulty knowledge or dishonesty on his part.
I did a quick search of WPE Bush's Memorial Day speeches. The first three I found (I didn't search any further) all had passing praise and/or mention of those currently serving and/or veterans, as well as those who have died. In addition, each of those speeches had a self-serving praise for/defense of his "war on terror."
How many here doubt that we'd find similar references to current and veteran servicemen in virtually all Memorial Day speeches of presidents, vice-presidents and other government official? I'm confident we'd find them in almost all of their speeches.
The bulk of Obama's speech was an appropriate tribute to those who died in service. You're just using a nothing issue to take a pathetic partisan pot-shot at him.
You're just using a nothing issue to take a pathetic partisan pot-shot at him.
When that's the only ammo you've got....
Was he joking when he claimed that he saw dead people on Memorial Day?
Was he looking directly at you when he said it?
RH,
Are you equating these two statements? I thought you would be concerned, since you are now anti-war, about a candidate who knows so little about what we are actually doing there. Was I wrong?
"My point is that both Obama and McCain have made numerous gaffes already in this campaign, and the media haven't really been dwelling on them." - RH
McCain, who claims to be the sole bearer of wisdom in Iraq, doesn't know the troops levels in Iraq, is comparable to Obama's "57 states" comment (as in 57 TRIPS to states, not 57 DIFFERENT states). That would be true if there was ANY policy Obama could enact as president that would impact the "57" states verses Grandpa Munster's inability to READ reports readily available from government sources, and pretend there are less troops DYING in Iraq than there are.
Apples to oranges? No. More like apples to everything that has never been and never will be apples.
Randy
So you weren't against the invasion and overthrow of the government, just the occupation? I suppose once we create the power vacuum that we should just leave the country in violent chaos as people fight to fill that vacuum. That would seem tremendously irresponsible, to say the least.
The situation after the invasion was very predictable. It had to be a factor considered beforehand. Even if we were greeted with flowers, even if there was no insurgency, there's going to be an internal fight for power. So that's our responsibility to handle, to at least some extent.
If we really had a strong enough case to overthrow a sovereign country, then it's not "nation-building". If there was enough evidence about connections to 9/11 and WMDs to truly justify our actions, then the occupation goes along with that. If there wasn't, then it was always nation-building, from the very moment we took over.
I did support the Iraq War at the beginning when I thought that Saddam had WMD's
That's where you went wrong. Even in 2000 most of the country knew that Bush was an inept, serial failure. But it took his biggest failure of all to bring you around.