SF Chronicle did not report that McCain's claim, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels," was false
SUMMARY: Reporting that Sen. John McCain "had to defend his [May 29] comments that U.S. troops are down to 'presurge level,' " the San Francisco Chronicle did not point out that McCain's statement was false. As The Washington Post noted, there are about 155,000 troops in Iraq, well above the 130,000 there before the increase. Further, in reporting that McCain "insisted he hadn't misspoken," the Chronicle did not point out that, in addition to his false statement about troop levels in Iraq, he also "misspoke[]" by misstating what he had initially said.
In a May 31 article, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Sen. John McCain "had to defend his [May 29] comments that U.S. troops are down to 'presurge level.' " However, the Chronicle did not explain that McCain's statement about the U.S. troop level in Iraq, "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels," was, in fact, false. Rather, the Chronicle only pointed to a back-and-forth over the statement between McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, writing, "Democrats immediately challenged that assertion, and Obama jumped on the comment, saying, 'That's not true ... and anyone running to be commander in chief should know better.' McCain jabbed back by questioning Obama's foreign policy credentials and insisted he hadn't misspoken. McCain's campaign called the matter 'nitpicking.' "
By contrast, a May 31 Washington Post article that reported McCain's comments also noted that "the troop level in Iraq is at about 155,000, well above the 130,000 that would mark a return to levels preceding the 'surge.' " From the Post:
In comments to reporters on Thursday [May 29], McCain said, "I can tell you that [the troop increase] is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks."
In fact, as the Obama campaign was quick to point out, the troop level in Iraq is at about 155,000, well above the 130,000 that would mark a return to levels preceding the "surge." Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in February that the Pentagon's goal is to reduce troop levels to 140,000 -- still above the pre-buildup levels.
Further, while the Chronicle reported that McCain "insisted he hadn't misspoken," it did not point out that, in addition to his false statement about troop levels in Iraq, he also "misspoke[]" by misstating what he had initially said about U.S. forces being "drawn down to pre-surge levels." As Think Progress noted, McCain was asked during a May 30 press conference, "Did you misspeak yesterday?" McCain replied, "Of course not. ... I said we have drawn down -- and we have drawn down. ... We've drawn down ... three of the five brigades. ... We've drawn down the Marines. The rest of them will be home in the end of July. That's just a fact, and that's -- those are the facts as I stated them." In fact, as Post reporter Michael Dobbs wrote on his blog, The Fact Checker, "those are NOT the facts as he 'stated them.' What he said was that U.S. forces had 'drawn down to pre-surge levels.' "
From the May 31 San Francisco Chronicle article, "Dems brace for final curtain":
McCain, meanwhile, had to defend his comments that U.S. troops are down to "presurge level." Democrats immediately challenged that assertion, and Obama jumped on the comment, saying, "That's not true ... and anyone running to be commander in chief should know better."
McCain jabbed back by questioning Obama's foreign policy credentials and insisted he hadn't misspoken. McCain's campaign called the matter "nitpicking."
But the set-to underscored how, even before the last primaries are ended, the presidential campaign appears increasingly focused on general election issues and the candidates who are likely to face each other.
I'm no scholar so I can't exactly give the proper grammatical critique. But when refer to the future in the past tense about an event that has yet to occur, I'm pretty sure you're lying.
Pretty much business as usual for the republicans, just say anything with complete disregard for the truth.
I saw the clip of Mcsame, defending his lie by stating that by July the troops "will have been home".
I'm no scholar so I can't exactly give the proper grammatical critique. But when refer to the future in the past tense about an event that has yet to occur, I'm pretty sure you're lying.
I'm sure Gramps McCain is lying - as usual. And I'm also sure that if that clown gets elected in November, by next July even MORE American troops "will have been dead" in Iraq. And that's the truth.
I'm no scholar so I can't exactly give the proper grammatical critique. But when refer to the future in the past tense about an event that has yet to occur, I'm pretty sure you're lying.
Perhaps McSame is having another senior moment and has lost touch with TIME as well as the rest of reality.
One or two incidences, O.K., but consistently? I just turned 73 and have sympathy for John. He is sort of "one of us". But I am not running for President of the United States. Let's hear more about "credentials", John. Again, I am not nitpicking. I just want to know more about YOUR "credentials", say, compared to Rumsfeld's, or so many others who got us into this HELL. To prove I am not nitpicking, I an asking about ALL of the Senators who have DECADES of "credentials" and "experience" making life and death decisiona in MY NAME! Republicans AND Democrats!
'Can someone explain for me the difference between "misspeaking" and "lying"?'
Sure. It's misspeaking when your side does it. it's lying when the other guy does it.
Very good and pointed questions Donald. If McCain is running on the war and "national defense" (as defined by him and the rest of the cabal), then he should hold himself to a standard. Apparently he doesn't hold himself to a standard but will hold Obama to a standard. No hypocrisy there. No double standard there. I hope Obama nails him in the debates (provided that any moderator asks him about this). After all there are important issues like brushing your shoulder or scratching your cheek or whether you wear a red enough tie, blah, blah, blah.
You would think the paper could have mentioned that McCain was indeed wrong. After all why bother to write the article if you don't mention that salient fact.
What if the moderator if John Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, or even worse, Bill O'Reilly? Maybe we can get William Kristol to sit in, too. We all know, and HAVE known for a long time that the MSM is full of wimps, idiots, and/or plain shills of the Bush Administration. We will never have a "fair and balanced" debate. Sorry for the cynicism.
Donald:
Cynicism? I would say "accurate observation," and there is no need to apologize for that.
"Once seen as one of Iraq's most cosmopolitan places, the southern city of Basra - founded about 1,370 years ago - was undergoing profound social changes that were making it increasingly conservative and harsh even before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Saddam's policies towards the Shia south, including the draining of the marshes, forced large numbers of people to leave Basra province and move to the city, with many settling in ramshackle and sometimes unplanned new suburbs.
Generally impoverished, the new arrivals held markedly different attitudes from those who already lived in Basra. Deeply conservative - as is much of Iraq's rural population - they found themselves at odds with the better-educated city technocrats.
The countryside where the migrants came from had always been oblivious to the guarantees of the Saddam-era civil code on marital and family law. It was a place where honour killings were still regularly carried out.
And since the US-led occupation, the main political beneficiaries in Basra have been conservative parties and militias - such as the Sadr Movement - which derive much of their following from the recently settled urban poor. In the space of a handful of years, such movements have infiltrated everything from the universities and hospitals to the police, working to overturn women's rights, attacking and sometimes killing women who refuse to conform to their dress and behaviour codes, and driving women out of the workplace.
As a consequence, it has been possible for honour killings to thrive, since the perpetrators know that it is unlikely that the police will intervene or that communities will punish them."
-From June 1 Guardian UK
here's a related article with plenty of examples. this is exactly why i did not want us to invade. we're dealing with people who are killing each other over what mohammed and his grandson said 15 centuries ago.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barbaric-honour-killings-become-the-weapon-to-subjugate-women-in-iraq-816649.html
mefirst I don't mean to offend you ,but we're killing them for their OIL,
and to appease AIPAC with a military presence in the middle east
At first I thought this whole thing was silly. Now I am beginning to wonder if McCain doesn't have the exact same faults that Bush has. An inability to just correct what would seem to be a minor mistake.
I have to wonder about the judgement of McCain if he is willing to turn this stupid incident into some sort of pissing contest when it is absolutely unnecessary and he is obviously incorrect.
At first I thought this whole thing was silly. Now I am beginning to wonder if McCain doesn't have the exact same faults that Bush has. An inability to just correct what would seem to be a minor mistake.
I've always looked upon that "fault" as one of the hallmarks of conservatism - an inability to change course, even when the facts are against you.
Stephen Colbert put it best in his speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner, with Bush present:
He said, "George Bush is a man of conviction. What he believes on Monday, he believes on Wednesday... no matter what happens on Tuesday."
At first I thought this whole thing was silly. Now I am beginning to wonder if McCain doesn't have the exact same faults that Bush has. An inability to just correct what would seem to be a minor mistake.
I have to disagree with you; I think McSame's faults are WORSE than Bush's. W is a moron and has been a moron for his entire career. He has never succeeded at anything except using his name and his money to get him what he wants; he has never been anything except a bad example. He really is clueless (not that this excuses anything he has done). McSame, for all his faults, is certainly intelligent and he knows exactly what he is doing when he lies, flip-flops, and contradicts himself.
How is it that Obama is responsible for anything ever said by anyone he knows, but McCain is not responsible for the things he himself says?
This is the same treatment the media gave Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain is getting a free pass on everything from his lack of knowledge on the issues to his seeming inability to open his mouth without "misspeaking". By contrast, no charge against Obama is too outrageous to be taken seriously, and no incident is too trivial to be of importance.
Remember when John Kerry was an elitist for windsurfing, but Bush was a regular guy with a stable of bikes worth $13,000? Or how the pundits resolutely ignored Bush's performance, or lack thereof, in the National Guard, while they hung on every word of the Swift Boaters who heaped scorn on Kerry, a decorated combat veteran?
Liberal media my ass.
I know it's a bit off topic, but I would really like Hillary to get the hell out of the way so Barack could get busy winning the general election.
"How is it that Obama is responsible for anything ever said by anyone he knows, but McCain is not responsible for the things he himself says?"
I have asked this of people about exactly this issue:
If your best friend or any given family member of yours were to decide he/she hated America and went and joined Al Qeada, would it be fair for me to claim that you are responsible for what he/she said and did? Can I now say with impunity that you now hate America because of what they said/did?
When I ask this of those that need it asked of them, they have little to say that makes sense or they look at me like a deer in headlights!
Its a pathetic attempt at trying to lower the bar on peoples fear.... but these same clowns are unwilling to defend it!
This new breed of conservative are a dying cult...... good riddens!
Do you think McSame might be getting a little,you know ,senile? With all the screw-ups, backtracking,flip-flops,redefining,mis-speaks,whose doing what to whom in Iraq,the lies he's been caught in (who the hell does he think he is,BUSH?) Do you think he remembers the name of his bus? The Straight Talk Express does not fit,and maybe his nickname "MAVERICK" should be changed "MADCOW" (whose eaten to many mushrooms)
I started to delete this ,but.....naw
Iraqi Oil Lament
The beltwaypress and the Bushco Cons
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"
"If seven brigades with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the presscorps said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"Without a doubt," said the neo-cons,
And shed a bitter tear.
"O viewers, come and walk with us!"
The presscorps did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."
The eldest statesman looked at them,
They wouldn't report a word he said:
The eldest statesman winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To celebrate the sands turning red.
But oyster/sheeple followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.
The presscorps and the neo-cons
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the brain-dead public stood
And waited in a row.
"The time has come," the press corps said,
"To talk of many things:
Of Brittany--and ships--and missing girls--
Of winning Iraq--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."
"But wait a bit," the public cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"Go shopping!" said the Neo-Cons.
They thanked him much for that.
"A lot of flags," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Lapel pins and bombs besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, sheeple dear,
We can begin to feed."
"But not on us!" the people cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the presscorps said.
"Do you admire the view?
"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Neocons said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"
"It seems a shame," the presscorps said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Neocons said nothing but
"The propoganda's spread too thick!"
"I weep for you," the presscorps said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears they sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding their pocket-handkerchief
Before their streaming eyes.
"O sheeple," said the Neocons,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
As usual, a wonderful post, er, poem from you. Thanks.
MARY
That about sums it up
I responded to you on the other thread but will here again. Brava!!!!!!!!!!
Test...this is only a test...
Plane buzz