Broadcast networks falsely suggested that Clark criticized McCain's service
SUMMARY: All three network evening newscasts misrepresented retired Gen. Wesley Clark's comments about Sen. John McCain on Face The Nation, with none noting that Clark praised McCain as a "hero" for his Vietnam war service. ABC's David Wright asserted that McCain's experience as a POW made Clark's comments "especially provocative." CBS' Dean Reynolds falsely suggested that Clark had questioned McCain's patriotism and had "critici[zed]" McCain's "service, including five years as a POW." And NBC's Brian Williams falsely suggested that Clark had impugned McCain's "war record."
In their June 30 evening news programs, all three broadcast networks misrepresented comments retired Gen. Wesley Clark made about Sen. John McCain on the June 29 broadcast of CBS' Face The Nation. ABC News correspondent David Wright asserted that McCain's experience as a prisoner of war made Clark's comments "especially provocative" without telling viewers that Clark had said -- just moments prior to the comments Wright aired -- that "I certainly honor his [McCain's] service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war." While also ignoring Clark's praise of McCain's POW record, CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds falsely suggested that Clark had questioned McCain's patriotism and had "critici[zed]" McCain's "service, including five years as a POW." And Brian Williams, anchor of NBC's Nightly News, falsely suggested that Clark had impugned McCain's "war record" and that Clark's comments contrasted with Williams' own account of McCain's heroic service, when, in fact, in the very comments that Williams, too, left out, Clark praised McCain's heroism.
In delivering their reports, all three networks also deceptively cropped Clark's comments, each airing a video clip of Clark saying, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." But as in reports on cable news channels, neither Wright nor Reynolds nor Williams reported or in any way indicated that in making that remark, Clark was repeating Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer's words. Indeed, Clark's assertion came in response to Schieffer's statement that unlike McCain, Sen. Barack Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
The reports followed a day of distortions of Clark's comments on cable news, including MSNBC anchor Monica Novotny's false claim that Clark had "blasted McCain's military record."
From Clark's June 29 interview on CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Well, you -- you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote -- and these are your words -- "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years -- how can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy-making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it" --
SCHIEFFER: Well --
CLARK: -- "publicly?" He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well -- well, General, maybe he --
CLARK: So --
SCHIEFFER: Could I just interrupt you? If --
CLARK: Sure.
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
On the CBS Evening News, Reynolds aired video of Obama saying in a June 30 speech: "No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit." Reynolds then claimed, "And yet, that lofty sentiment contrasted with statements made Sunday by one of his more high-profile supporters, retired General Wesley Clark, who dismissed John McCain's military record as an irrelevance." Reynolds then aired -- with no additional context -- video of Clark saying on Face the Nation: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president. [video break] He has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility." In fact, at no point during his Face the Nation interview did Clark question McCain's patriotism, as Reynolds had falsely suggested by claiming that Clark's comments "contrasted" with Obama's "lofty sentiments."
Immediately after airing the cropped footage of the Clark interview, Reynolds said: "McCain's service, including five years as a POW, is a central part of his biography. Today, he called Clark's criticism unnecessary." Reynolds' suggestion that Clark criticized McCain's service is false. Indeed, Reynolds chose not to air Clark's statement on Face the Nation that "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war."
On ABC's World News, Wright said: "John McCain campaigned in Pipersville, Pennsylvania, where, to this day, he can't raise his arms above his shoulders because of injuries he suffered in Vietnam. Shot down in combat and tortured relentlessly for five and a half years as a POW, the experience shaped the core of his character. And that makes this comment by Obama supporter Wesley Clark especially provocative." Wright then proceeded to air -- with no additional context -- Clark's statement that "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Wright's suggestion that Clark in any way diminished or disputed what McCain endured in Vietnam is false; Clark did the opposite, praising McCain as a "hero," in comments that, again, Wright did not air.
Wright's report also contained video of Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, who said of Clark's comment: "This is almost the equivalent for them of an attack on Obama's race by the McCain side. It's just something you don't do." Neither Sabato nor Wright explained during the report how Clark's praise of McCain's heroism and assertion that it does not qualify McCain to be president "is almost the equivalent" of "an attack on Obama's race."
On Nightly News, Williams said: "[S]uddenly John McCain's war record is an issue in the campaign. Not that there are any questions about his war record, mind you: Annapolis graduate, Naval aviator, shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam War, captured, tortured, held as a POW for five years." Williams continued, "But yesterday on Face the Nation, retired General Wesley Clark, who also has a stellar military record, was speaking as a surrogate for Barack Obama when he said this"; Williams then showed video of Clark saying, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." But as Clark's complete comments make clear, Clark was not in any way impugning McCain's war record, as Williams' comments suggested he was doing. Indeed, Clark did the opposite, praising McCain as a hero in comments that, again, Williams did not air.
From the June 30 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Now to the presidential campaign, where suddenly John McCain's war record is an issue in the campaign. Not that there are any questions about his war record, mind you: Annapolis graduate, Naval aviator, shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam War, captured, tortured, held as a POW for five years. But yesterday on Face the Nation, retired General Wesley Clark, who also has a stellar military record, was speaking as a surrogate for Barack Obama when he said this:
CLARK [video clip]: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
WILLIAMS: The Obama campaign said today, quote, they reject Clark's statement, but not before John McCain himself weighed in.
McCAIN [video clip]: I know that many -- that General Clark is not an isolated incident, but I have no way of knowing how much involvement Senator Obama has in that issue. I know he has mischaracterized some of my statements in the past, including our involvement in Iraq.
OBAMA [video clip]: I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. [video break] And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
WILLIAMS: So we've heard from Clark, McCain, and Obama.
From the June 30 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
WRIGHT: I'm David Wright. John McCain campaigned in Pipersville, Pennsylvania, where, to this day, he can't raise his arms above his shoulders because of injuries he suffered in Vietnam. Shot down in combat and tortured relentlessly for five and a half years as a POW, the experience shaped the core of his character. And that makes this comment by Obama supporter Wesley Clark especially provocative.
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
McCAIN: And if that's the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and his supporters want to engage, I understand that. But it doesn't reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny.
SABATO: This is almost the equivalent for them of an attack on Obama's race by the McCain side. It's just something you don't do.
From the June 30 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
[begin video clip]
REYNOLDS: Obama now wears an American flag pin in his lapel and is often at events where Old Glory is prominent. He clearly believes patriotism should be off the table.
OBAMA: No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. [video break] And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.
REYNOLDS: And yet, that lofty sentiment contrasted with statements made Sunday by one of his more high-profile supporters, retired General Wesley Clark, who dismissed John McCain's military record as an irrelevance.
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president. [video break] He has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.
REYNOLDS: McCain's service, including five years as a POW, is a central part of his biography. Today, he called Clark's criticism unnecessary, but then added this:
McCAIN: And if that's the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and his supporters want to engage, I understand that. But it doesn't reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny.
[end video clip]
REYNOLDS: Now, Obama later rejected Clark's comments about McCain, but they certainly got a lot of attention. Katie [Couric, anchor]?
COURIC: And Dean, we heard that today, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton actually had a phone conversation. Do you know anything about that conversation? What was said and the tone of it?
I posted this late in another thread, so I'll repost here, with a link added at the bottom:
MMFA should really add PBS to the growing list of networks that have taken the Clark quote out of context in order to mischaracterize it as an attack McCain's military service and his qualifications as a Presidential candidate. Toward the end of the 6/30 Jim Lehrer Newshour, host Ray Suarez pulled the same lazy stunt as all the other network and cable hacks who have jumped on this non-story.
And ironically, the story that immediately followed was about political smears being propagated on the Internet. And of course in reporting the various smears, they made no effort to distinguish between fact and fiction. While the Obama smears they covered were all demonstrably false (i.e., he's a Muslim, etc.), they "balanced" the report by showing a McCain "smear video" by Robert Greenwald which juxtaposed McCain's praise for Rod Parsley with Parsley's insane rantings. Reporter Gwen Ifill then proceeded to throw up her hands and express frustration about how difficult it was "to sort out the scurrilous smears and the facts." She then revealed her biased perspective by asking the question, "Does this make people [journalists] like you and me obsolete?" Gwen, if you can't sort out fact from fiction, you've already made yourself obsolete as a journalist.
Audio of the program is at the link below. Listen to "Campaign '08" and "Fighting Campaign Smears."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
"SCHIEFFER: Well, you -- you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote -- and these are your words -- "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years -- how can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy-making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions."
"That large squadron in the Air -- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it [publicly?]"
Now let me get this straight: Clark thinks that the political risks (and policymaking) of a war-time commander weighs more than a soldier actually fighting (in a plane or on the ground and risking his life in battle? Give me a break! Clark can SAY he think McCain is a hero to him all he wants but he obviously is dead wrong if he really thinks HE risked his life during his time in the military more than McCain did and knew what risks were better than McCain (a former POW) did.
Last time I checked, top commanders like Petraeus and Clark aren't the ones who risk their bodies getting blown up at checkpoints and roadside bombs everyday (or in McCain's day, the actual fields of Vietnam), it's the soldiers that they order to engage the enemy (and fight and die) who do.
Wes Clark would not be saying any of this if he wasn't a NATO commander and if the former Vietnam veteran running for president was John Kerry. And he knows it.
Clams, I hope this discussion concerning General Clark continues for weeks. The longer it plays out, the more truth of the statement will come out. We all remember how the core of the Repulan party works. They get their info from the Limbaughs', Hannitys', etc. Most of the followers will never hear or read the entire conversation, unless this continues. Concerning the above post, dropping bombs from planes and getting shot down are NOT the only qualifications to be president.
I have heard anyone go after Bob Schiefer for ATTACKING/TAKING A SWIPE AT Senator Obama for not being a prisoner of war. Why was that fair game? Schiefer brought up this subject.
Me too, I want this one to be expanded: I want every cable channel and all the Sunday hack shows to invite Gen. Clark on, so that they can explore this further: "Here's the clip yet again General... now, what exactly did you mean by saying that 'I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to the Presidency'?"
I want that said again and again and again, and for it to be discussed for what it means...
General Wesley Clark is U.S. Army. The mission in Iraq is a ground mission: all the risk and all the death belongs to ground forces (even when helicopters go down, they're Army helicopters: the casualties are U.S. Army): IRAQ is a U.S. Army mission, and a U.S. Marine Corps mission... on the ground.
General Clark knows this of course... does John McCain?
As Army, every word out of General Clark's mouth are Army words, spoken by Army and understood and appreciated by Army: the man has a lifetime's experience, talking Army to other Army.
Why would I point that out?
Because not only is what General Clark said true ("I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to the Presidency"), it's funny... hilarious even!
And you know who's appreciating what Gen. Clark said, and repeating it, and laughing a knowing laughter among themselves, with every repitition?
Every last U.S. Army Soldier out there, that's who! Active Duty or Retired, in IRAQ or Afghanistan or anywhere else... the Marine Corps too! They know it's the truth, they're repeating it, and they think it's funny too!
They're especially repeating it on Flight Lines (but not around Pilots), and they're repeating it at Base OPS, and the OPS Shack (but not when the Pilots are around), and anywhere and everywhere that the U.S. Army or the U.S. Marine Corps relies on air support (that usually comes too late and off target), they're repeating "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to the Presidency"...
Because it's true, and it's funny.
General Wesley Clark is U.S. Army, and IRAQ is an Army (and Marine Corps) mission... Gen. Clark knows infinitely more about what's going on in IRAQ, on the ground, and what kinds of problems and challenges and difficulties and obstacles those ground forces are facing, and what are the solutions to them (I bet he even knows what the different sects are that separate and constitute the 'insurgency' in Iraq)... he knows infinitely more about this, than does John McCain: infintely more.
IRAQ is an Army mission, not a sortie over North Vietnam.
" Clark stated that McCain is untested in "national security policy-making." He didn't say he was untested in combat. How exactly does risking one's life count as national security policy-making experience?"
What "national security policy-making experience" does O'bama have? Well, there you go...we have one candidate that has none, and another candidate that has none. However, one candidate was willing to sacrifice his freedom to help protect yours. That still gives him the edge in honorability. The other guy has the edge in wanting to kill babies after they are born. Hmmm, hard choice to make for honorable people.
Sure, if you think that the most important, deal-killer characteristic for a President to have is to be anti-abortion, then you shouldn't vote for Obama.
Luckily for America, most voters are smarter than that, and don't hang their hat on that kind of single issue. You want to be dumb, be my guest. I love dumb Republicans. You don't comprehend that the voters of America are tired of your crap. The longer you keep deluding yourself, the better for the Democrats, so keep on keeping on.
Thoughtful voters recognize that leadership and judgment qualities are much more important in a President. John McCain has not demonstrated that he has those characteristics to me. He is a hot-tempered person who changes his positions to fulfill political needs.
"Thoughtful voters recognize that leadership and judgment qualities are much more important in a President."
And thankfully, thoughtful voters will recognize that O'bama can't judge whether his pastor is a crazed/racist loon after knowing the guy for 25 years. There's some good "judgment qualities" for you. I guess McCain wins again when compared to a guy with questionable judgmental abilities AND supports killing babies after they are born.
"Barack Obama is smart enough to have seen through George W. Bush's bullshet and opposed the Iraq war right from the beginning."
But, not smart enough to understand his pastor/friend of 25 years is a racist. In fact, he had a couple "friends" like that. How is it you don't mind O'bama befriending racists and you love that he opposes a justifiable war? Silly question, huh? Because you love his judgmental ability, like blonde does. Befriends racists: good judgment, Opposes justifiable war on terror: good judgment, Supports killing babies after they are born: good judgment. Oh, yeah...got any more thoughts for your favorite candidate??
A JUSTIFIABLE WAR???
You, my friend, are a fool and you deserve the likes of George W. Bush and John McCain...however, this country and the rest of the world deserve better.
"You think terrorists having free reign to bomb and maim at will is what this country and this world wants?? Well, vote for who you think will get you that."
No, I do not, which is why I supported our incursion into Afghanistan. Why is it, 6 long years into this war, we still have not brought Osama Bin Laden to justice? Is it because a 6'6" terrorist mastermind is really hard to find? Or is it because Bush doesn't "spend that much time on him"?
Face it, even before 9/11, Bush and the PNAC neo-cons were trying to find a way to sell a war with Iraq. In fact, I do believe on Jan. 30th, 2001, Bush held a cabinet meeting, the sole purpose of which was to feel out how to sell that war.
10 days into his Presidency, and this is what he focuses on. Then he goes on vacation. Before 9/11, 42% of Bush's time in office was spent in Kennebunkport or his ranch in Crawford Texas. And the entire time, Richard Clarke is practically screaming for attention to be paid to OBL. In his words, the system was "blinking red."
So to sum up, terrorists are having a pretty "free reign to bomb and maim at will" and by all accounts, Al-Qaeda has regained its strength and is arguably stronger than before 9/11, because Bush and his cabinet felt that OBL was just not that important.
How much you wanna bet John McCain believes the same thing?
Face it, even before 9/11, Bush and the PNAC neo-cons were trying to find a way to sell a war with Iraq. In fact, I do believe on Jan. 30th, 2001, Bush held a cabinet meeting, the sole purpose of which was to feel out how to sell that war.
Thank you very much for mentioning that point. It has been bothering me for quite some time that the media have completely ignored this. For watever flimsy justification anyone can come up for the Iraq war, the deal killer for me is the fact that Bush and the neocons planned to depose Saddam Hussein
Who claimed WMD's in 98?
Specifically? Ahmed Chalabi... Regardless whether "conventional wisdom" said that Saddam was armed, we don't start wars on "conventional wisdom"...we need verification through reliable intelligence. What was discovered was that there was no reliable intelligence to support the "conventional wisdom" that Saddam was armed...so Dick Cheney made some up. Got it? Or am I going too fast?
"we don't start wars on "conventional wisdom"...we need verification through reliable intelligence."
I think you're going too fast for yourself. Name ONE intelligence organization that did NOT agree Saddam was a danger to his country and others. What YOU think we found out later is irrelavent to what was known at the time. And that "time" being 1998 (and earlier)...under CLINTON's administration. You know, the guy who didn't want to do anything, because he just fired the entire military, in order to balance the budget, and was scared out of his pants of a war. That's why he went through NATO to allow the murdering of 2700 innocent women/children and the destruction of hospitals and schools. Which, BTW, YOU seem to fully support and agree with.
In other words, you support murdering 2700 women/children because they got in Slick Willy's way, but do not support 4100 men/women dying while fighting an enemy that uses women/children to murder others.
What a sly little dickens you are. Among much you ignore the work the Clinton administration did on terrorism. What they tried to turn over to the deaf ears of shrub's administration.
Your saying all intelligence agencies agreed about the threat of Saddam. This is one big lie. No less than your usual.
"Your saying all intelligence agencies agreed about the threat of Saddam. This is one big lie. No less than your usual."
I'm giving you the opportunity to name one that didn't. Can you? Or, do you just plan on whining that I pointed that fact out?
"How many times did Clinton BOMB Iraq during HIS precidency? WHY did he bomb Iraq?? Who claimed WMD's in 98? BEFORE Bush came into office."
Why did he bomb Iraq? To crush those WMD sites, the same ones Colin Powell showed to the U.N. as proof of WMD's AFTER they had been effectively destroyed.
In fact, the U.N. was allowed in in 2002 and found that Iraq's WMD were effectively neutered, but Bush was already pushing for the war. Just because your side fought it tooth and nail doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. It just means that the Republicans thought of it as a political stunt, while Clinton was living in a reality-based society.
Oh yeah, about that "reality-based" society. Did you know the neo-cons don't believe in objective reality? Only in abject moral truth?
Check your history, please.
"In fact, the U.N. was allowed in in 2002 and found that Iraq's WMD were effectively neutered"
That is not fact. Saddam would not allow them to go where they wanted. And even they were frustrated with the way things were being handled. They were removed because Saddam was warned and then ignored the warning and toyed with the UN by not fullfilling his duty to allow free reign of all inspectors. He lost. You whine about it.
Phil
The Clinton Administration was following US Policy at the time to protect the North and South with the no fly zones and ensure Iraq comply with UN Security Council resolutions. There was also the 1993 bombing of Iraq in response to the attempted assasination of Former President Bush when he was visiting Kuwait. That did not entitle the US to invade and occupy Iraq however. If you do not see the difference you are really lost and gone.
"And the entire time, Richard Clarke is practically screaming for attention to be paid to OBL. In his words, the system was "blinking red." .... because Bush and his cabinet felt that OBL was just not that important. "
Which is why Clinton ignored OBL, also? Yet, no blame on him, you seem to lay it ALL on Bush. Clinton had several 'shots' at OBL, yet never pulled the trigger. Like a true liberal all he has are excuses. And, you defend him for his inaction with excuses...like a true liberal. Personal accountability, you people hate that phrase, don't you?
"You think terrorists having free reign to bomb and maim at will is what this country and this world wants?? Well, vote for who you think will get you that."
We already have that with Liar George W. Bush, since THE BUSH CABAL and the Bin Ladens have been in league with one another for 36 years. W. and Osama are alleged to be best friends since childhood. Mike Malloy http://www.mikemalloy.com has repeatedly said that W. Bush is a sociopathic criminal killer, and that W. Bush and THE BUSH CABAL orchestrated, planned, and arranged for 9-11 to take place.
Now, Philib, you tell me why you and other lying chickenhawk fascist right wingers support Bush's/THE BUSH CABAL's ongoing collusion with The Bin Ladens.
Not only did you change the subject, you made a list of insane ideas, none of which are remotely tied to reality. I believe one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
The world can't wait for you and others to come to their senses. We're long past the need to stop the polarization and treating politics as a sport.
What "false witness" did I bear?? Was ANYTHING I said not true? Did O'bama befriend that pastor (and others like him)? Does O'bama support the right to kill live human babies after an unsuccessful abortion attempt? Did O'bama say a defibulator would be what a kid with diabetes needs?
Get a grip, Mary, blonde changed the subject. I didn't. But, I have no problem carrying it on. Apparently, YOU cannot handle the truth, so you try a vain attempt at bringing religion into a political discussion. Where's your seperation of church and state?
PHIL we all support killing live babies...we give them exactly five minutes out of the whom, we pray pagan verses on them, then we have a homosexual mexican surgeon come in to hack the baby up...geez, I though everyone knew that
nut
...then we have a homosexual mexican surgeon come in to hack the baby up...
Where do you think Taco Bell gets the filling for its burritos??? :-)
Thanks WZ, I don't think I can eat at Taco Bell for a long while now...
Go ahead, there's no Jack in the Box's here.
Just don't say it's the special spice in the chicken of the Bojangles...I think I'd still have to eat it, it's that good.
When did Phil the wingnut start putting an apostrophe in Obama's name? Does he think he's clever? Does he think at all?
Answers, in order: Who cares, yes, and no.
"but the American voters are tired of it, and tired of people like you who use lies to try to win elections."
You mean lies like the democrats offered the American people when they won an election cycle on the promise of stopping the funding of the Iraq war and getting our troops out? You mean the "100 days" lies? What happened in those 100 days that was promised? Before you whine about liars being ONLY in the republican party, you better put that hypocritical mirror away.
Making a tour this morning Phil. Now your complaining about the Dems failing to properly end an occupation that has your total support.
Sweet!
"Dems failing"
Get used to that phrase. You'll be hearing it a lot, soon. Since they can't seem to do what the promise to do.
If you're really striving to follow Christ, you realize that there isn't any area of life that is separate, that your behavior should follow the teachings of Christ. This doesn't mean that you try to impose religious dogma on society, which is where the separation of church and state come in. The fact that you don't apparently understand this shows an immature understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
Calling Rev. Wright a racist is something you have been very invested in, but you really don't know the man or his lifetime of work and service. You can criticise some of his statements, but your intention is not to look at him as anything but a caricature in an attempt to score political points.
The abortion reference is probably a distortion. I suspect this involves b.s. since you have no documentation so here is a debunking from snopes. You have to scroll down through other distortions to come to the abortion one. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/blackwell.asp
"Calling Rev. Wright a racist is something you have been very invested in, but you really don't know the man or his lifetime of work and service. You can criticise some of his statements, but your intention is not to look at him as anything but a caricature in an attempt to score political points."
I still maintain that the Rev. Wright is not racist, nor were the controversial statements racist.
Now saying God sent Hitler to kill the Jews to bring them to the homeland to hasten Armageddon, that's at the least quasi-racist. Tacit approval of the Holocaust must have some racist element to it. (It's also inherently disingenuous to history.)
" The fact that you don't apparently understand this shows an immature understanding of what it means to be a Christian."
I hardly think my understanding of what it means to be a Christian has anything to do with "seperation of Church and state". What I do understand is that you can't rationalize your (perported) Christianity to the taking of a human life after it has been delivered. I don't see how you can rationalize non-life threatening abortions with your Christianity at all. How do you do that??
"Nonsense doesn't always deserve a reply."
Either that, or she (and every other abortion supporting Christian liberal) can't answer the question without questioning their own devotion to Jesus.
What is that supposed to mean? Don't you even know what Jesus says about murdering humans? I appreciate your concern for my salvation, but it isn't I who has to come to grips with what Jesus prefers Christians to believe.
Can you answer the question? Do you believe it's ok to kill a live human baby after delivery, like O'bama does? How does that correlate with your Christian beliefs? Simple questions, if you choose to consider them. You probably won't have time to answer in this thread, so just have that "hear to heart" meeting with Jesus and ponder your answer with Him.
"But, not smart enough to understand his pastor/friend of 25 years is a racist. In fact, he had a couple "friends" like that. How is it you don't mind O'bama befriending racists and you love that he opposes a justifiable war? Silly question, huh? Because you love his judgmental ability, like blonde does. Befriends racists: good judgment, Opposes justifiable war on terror: good judgment, Supports killing babies after they are born: good judgment. Oh, yeah...got any more thoughts for your favorite candidate??"
Justifiable war? Are you talking about the war where the former press secretary who sat in on high level meetings said was sold to us on cherry picked intelligence? Is it that war? Are you talking about the war where 4,000 American kids have died in a God forsaken desert a half a world away? Is it justifiable to fix the intelligence to justify the policy? How do you tell a mother that her son died in a war where victory has never been defined? How do you tell a mother that her son is dead because he was sent into battle based on lies? If you are so damned enamored with this justifiable war why haven't you enlisted?
Anyway, tit for tat I guess. Let's look at McCains associations. How about Clayton Wiliams, Rev. Hagee, active associations with the group La Raza, Rev. Parsons, the good folks at Lincoln Financial, his associations related to the S&L scandal in the 80's, his lobbyist campaign staff, and the list goes on and on. I guess those associations make McCains judgement the absolute best. You warmongers are all the same.
Wasn't it Clinton and Wesley Clark who orchestrated and fulfilled the bombing campaign in Bosnia that killed 2700 women/children? Don't give me your "righteous" BS while ignoring your own dishonorable actions. I guess those 2700 lives mean nothing to you since a democrat lead the way of destruction. How about the several bombings that Clinton did on Iraq? You have no complaints about those, too??
Justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. That attempt at misdirection won't work pardner. Hannity couldn't have done it better I'll give you that. Your rebuttal has no bearing on how you call this war justifiable. Is it your contention that since Bill Clinton ordered the bombing in Bosnia and bombings in Iraq, that somehow supports your argument that this war is justifiable? That's bullsh!t and you know it. You cannot justify the incursion into Iraq after we now know that Bush and Co. fixed intelligence around the policy. There is just too much evidence to support that. The difference in Bosnia and Iraq was that, I can't remember Clinton presenting cherry picked intelligence to all of us. If so I would like for you to point that out to me...specifically please. I have evidence to support the reality that Bush did this how about you? Furthermore, I would like to know if you have served in this war that you support and if not why?
"Is it your contention that since Bill Clinton ordered the bombing in Bosnia and bombings in Iraq, that somehow supports your argument that this war is justifiable?"
I make no such contention. I support this war because it gives a two-fold result. Making it safe to live in Iraq. And, making it safe to live in the world. From terrorists who choose to use women and disabled children to murder innocent humans simply to terrify others into subjecting themselves to the whims of terrorist leaders. Both, fully fall within the context of a 'justifiable' war.
"Furthermore, I would like to know if you have served in this war that you support and if not why?"
Because I'm too old. But, I did serve as soon as I was old enough. I was brought up to believe that was the patriotic thing to do. Not everyone does it, but I did. Did you? After all, freedom isn't free. Unless you're a free-loading liberal who wants the government to give you everything for free. Then your freedom IS free. Paid for by the millions who have given their lives and limbs throughout America's history. I say; 'Thank you' to those who did that and give me the freedoms I enjoy. Do you?
I have an opinion different than yours. Which seems to give you the right to denegrate me to no end.
When that opinion is based on lies and/or talking points, then the answer is yes.
"When that opinion is based on lies and/or talking points, then the answer is yes."
And thus we have a tie. Yours is based on the same thing, apparently. Offer some "truths" you liberals think are truth, and they can be shown as lies just as easily.
I think I stick to the topic (as much as possible) and add evidence of liberal hypocrisy every chance I get. Consider this my way of bringing those of you who don't believe in Christ closer to Him and His way. I think my duty as a Christian to point out un-Christian-like behavior would not be considered prideful. Sorry that I don't do it in a more satisfying way, for you.
I listen to Vernon McGee every morning and his Sunday Sermon each week, have you ever listened to him? He is very anti-liberal, but sticks to Biblical teaching to provide his arguements. This venue would NOT allow me to do what he does. I still have a hard time understanding your ability to coincide your liberalism with you being a Christian. How can you do that? Either hot or cold, you can't do both, is what is taught. Do you disagree?
"Wasn't it Clinton and Wesley Clark who orchestrated and fulfilled the bombing campaign in Bosnia that killed 2700 women/children?"
No, that was a NATO led strike. So, you're wrong.
"2700 vs 1 million+? You hipocrite"
Rev Wright says the US is a terrorist for bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. That was done to save millions of lives, yet you call him a hero. I am called a hypocrite when I point out the devastation caused by a democrat for unjust reasons. Who's the hypocrite?
Philib, you are a cold-blooded, evil, chickenhawk fascist sociopath, AND you are also a liar. This war is unjustifiable because Liar Bush and THE BUSH CABAL and all of the chickenhawk fascist imperialist sociopathic neo-con war criminals pushed for this lie-based war.
Also, Philib, let me once again remind you of the fact that your war-monmgering sociopathic Liar McCain DELIBERATELY INTENTIONALLY SOUGHT OUT the support of the right wing anti-Semitic/anti-black/anti-gay theocratic fascists Rev. John Hagee AND Rev. Rod Parsley, both of whom have made TONS of anti-Semitic comments between them.
Next, Philib, let's address your own outright racism and ignorance, for right wingers like yourself, as I paraphrase the words of "The Black eagle" Joe Madison of the national black talk radio network Radio One's XM 169/THE POWER, have zero right or authority to comment or talk about the black church or anyone associated with it, Rev. Wright included, since you know ZILCH about the black church or their history or their congregations. Add to that, since you and McCain both favor the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act AND you both also support the reinstatement of the Plessy vs. Fergusen decision, meaning that you and McCain are also both pro-segregation as well.
Fourth, tax cheat McCain, and also tax cheat hate hag wife Cindy, have BOTH refused to pay taxes on 3 of their 7 homes, so Liar McCain is not only an elitist, he is also a tax cheat! But you and other right wing Republicans support Liar McCain's tax cheating because you think that Republicans have a tax cheater's privilege because they are Republicans.
"have zero right or authority to comment or talk about the black church or anyone associated with it, Rev. Wright included, since you know ZILCH about the black church or their history or their congregations."
I belong to a black church. I have attended it for the last 7 years. I know my pastor isn't a racist. O'bama couldn't say that; that's why he dumped his pastor/friend AND quit the church he knew nothing about. Once it was revealed publically how racist that pastor was then O'bama suddenly claims ignorance of what was being taught. 25 years he knew him! And, couldn't figure out what kind of person Wright really was. Or, totally supported Wright until public opinion worked against him. Then ... the bus wheels roll over Wright quicker than they rolled over O'bama's g-ma. What a nice guy ... throws you under the bus the moment you no longer are a benefit to him. And THAT's the kind of president YOU want? Make sure you vote, then. Because I will be a voter NOT voting for him.
"Not voting for Obama? Gee who'd a thought."
And, you being a liberal, voting FOR that kind of guy would be no surprise either.
" trust McCain a lot more on the abortion issue than I do O'bama, who says it is OK to kill a live human baby after it is born."
Really? Prove it. Find the article, and prove it. Otherwise, I'd have to believe you are either out-right lying or stretching the truth to fit your needs.
"Really? Prove it. Find the article, and prove it."
Do you count his voting record as speaking for himself? If so, ...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/06/obama-abortion-debate/
"Three bills were for so-called "born alive" legislation, which require doctors to administer medical care to aborted fetuses that survive the abortion process in hopes that the fetuses can survive. "
THAT means he supports killing live human babies after they are born. I wonder what Mary thinks of that stance? Considering what a 'good' Christian she claims to be. I'll bet she still thinks O'bama is a worthy candidate and will somehow 'excuse' O'bama supporting the killing of live human babies.
Woah, what kind of freakish nonsense is that
Baby survives the abortion process and then you try to save? How often does that happen? That sounds more like an issue of doctor competence.
Then again you animals would have women in dark back alleys with rusty coat hangers if you had your way
"Woah, what kind of freakish nonsense is that"
First you ever heard of that? Hmmm, considering how far most liberals have their collective heads buried in the sand, I wouldn't doubt it.
"Baby survives the abortion process and then you try to save? How often does that happen?"
More often than the PBA procedure is ever needed (which is never). But doctors (even the good ones that you liberals require) who botch a simple procedure have the right to "finish the job" after the baby is delivered. You liberals don't want any "wire hangers" used, but still end up with back-alley doctors performing your prized "right". What difference would it make if it was legal or not? Apparently, you can't get a good doctor either way!!
So you finish the job then
The idea of saving a baby from a botched abortion doesn't make much sense and until I see a percentage is likely about as common as a shark attack
There are plenty of Conservative posters on this site who seem reasonable and thoughtful. Phil is not one of them. I honestly don't know why people even acknowledge him.
"Define hatful sweetie."
My definition or yours? Mine; someone who wears hats. Don't let 'writer' see your mistake, or he'll blast you about your spelling. :)
Yes, it does. O'bama voting record is a matter of public record. You don't believe the article, check his record.
Oh, wait, you might be a liberal who refuses to accept facts when shown facts if they disagree with your agenda. Good for you! Stick by your leader as long as needed. Don't forget the kool-aid.
"Well they have been distorted to an extent but like Obama I believe that the comments were uncalled for."
I'll agree, but I'll add that Bob Scheiffer pigeon-holed him, and as such I put the majority of the blame on him.
Also, what Clark said was inherently true.
I believe that the comments were uncalled for.
The "comments" were precisely correct. If being shot down were a qualification for the Presidency, then George Bush, who is half shot down most of the time, would be eminintly qualified for the job.
" THAT means he supports killing live human babies after they are born."
No Philib, that's a logical fallacy. As such, I can't really offer a reply to that without twisting logic myself.
However, he voted present on the bill, as the article states, to "wrest away a wedge-issue from the Republicans." Did you know that 2 of those PBA bans that he voted "present" for would have not included a provision for the health of the mother? What if the baby was going to kill her? (It does happen.) Since I'm assuming you oppose all abortion for any reason, why do you hate mothers?
See, I don't believe you hate mothers, I just think you haven't been properly educated on such a complex topic.
However, you're being disingenuous to yourself if you believe that about Obama.
"However, he voted present on the bill, as the article states, to "wrest away a wedge-issue from the Republicans." Did you know that 2 of those PBA bans that he voted "present" for would have not included a provision for the health of the mother?"
If you are asked to vote "yea" or "nay" on a bill that includes allowing doctors to kill a baby after it is born, would you vote "yea" or "nay"? If you vote "yea" then you support allowing doctors to kill babies after they are born. If you vote "nay" then you do NOT support allowing doctors to kill babies after they are born. Voting present does NOT show your disdain for allowing the killings of babies after they are born. This shows he has poor judgment on what is medically more safe for the woman. Poor judgment!
I support abortions when the life of the mother is in jeapordy because of the pregnacy. I do not support abortion as a means of birth control, as you liberals do. However, I see most of you support killing babies after they are born. Considering you have the "right" to abort them, you should not have any back-alley doctors performing them. If your main concern is that danger, then why haven't you stopped that practice already?? Many of you simply have that (back-alley-doctors) complaint about conservatives seeking controlled abortions, yet don't realize it is already present. How would making abortion-on-demand illegal increase that risk?? Apparently, O'bama doesn't care for the life of the child after it is born, he simply shows NO support of proper medical care after the baby is delivered...ALIVE!
You can't have it both ways. Make up your minds, do you want safe abortions or back-alley abortions? Well, you got abortion-on-demand and you got back-alley-doctors performing them. I say make life threatening abortions available by qualified doctors. What do you say to that?
who says it is OK to kill a live human baby after it is born.
George Bush thinks precisely that, he just has them killed in unjustifiable foreign wars for oil once they're old enough to die for him.
"I trust McCain a lot more on the abortion issue than I do O'bama, who says it is OK to kill a live human baby after it is born. Is that your stance, too? That it's ok to kill a live human baby after it is born?"
The fact that you would trust Liar McCain about anything makes you an even BIGGER liar than he continues to be. Also, since you have not posted any quote of Obama making such a comment, you are lying about that, too.
Next, Philib, you and other right wingers tell this pro-life lie about caring about babies before they are born, but after they are born, you and the rest of the lying right wing conservatives don't care about those babies or their mothers after they're born, you tell them to go to you-know-where, and you know it! Stop telling this pro-life lie, for you all stop caring about babies once they come into the world.
"O'bama, who says it is OK to kill a live human baby after it is born. Is that your stance, too?"
What's a matter, friedboy? Afraid to answer the question? Do YOU support killing babies after they are born, too? Yes or No? Or, will you just vote "present" like your leader? And be afraid to take a stance.
Copy and pasted response to standard mindless drivel.
There is nothing racist or bigoted about Wright's church. Wright didn't say anything racist. Several of us here have asked several times for an example of racist speech or policies and have received bupkis.
Those few seconds of video we've all seen over and over are extremely non-representative of what Wright preached for 36 years. This is supported by the testimony of his congregants, who are in the best position to know. It's also supported logically by the fact that there is only those few seconds of video available for the smear when Wright has hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours of videos of his sermons available.
It's been established as fact that Obama wasn't present for the post-9/11 sermon and it's reasonable to accept that he wasn't there for the other couple, given his career. If any regular church-goer experienced inspirational, up-lifting sermons for many years from their minister, very few would immediately leave the church the first time the minister said something controversial. The Wright issue tells us nothing about Obama's judgment.
Liar Philib's despicable, hateful, evil, fascist, racist, theocratic, white supremacist right wing lies and dissemblies in full:
"And thankfully, thoughtful voters will recognize that O'bama can't judge whether his pastor is a crazed/racist loon after knowing the guy for 25 years. There's some good "judgment qualities" for you. I guess McCain wins again when compared to a guy with questionable judgmental abilities AND supports killing babies after they are born."
You mean thought-LESS voters, if they're voting Republican?
The dis-likes of Liar McCain activley SOUGHT OUT the support of the right wing anti-Semitic/anti-gay-/anti-Black Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Rod Parsley, Liar McCain like other pro-lifers, you included, don't even care about the lives of babies after they are born for you and the rest of the right wing will say "Get those brats away from me!" or aomething along those lines, and most recently, Liar McCain latest "good judgment" or his TAX CHEATING came on display when Liar McCain refused to pay taxes on 3 of his 7 homes in San Diego County for the past 4 years.
There's also the mention of Liar McCain's own racism, just recently when Liar McCain refused to appear at the convention of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the leading organization of 200+ African-American Newspapers giving the lame lie about a schedule conflict when in reality what McCain is saying that he hates black people, and Liar McCain's most likely next racist intentions to reject invitiations to appear at the conventions of both the National Association of Black Journalists and/or the National Black MBA Association.
Also, Liar McCain has still rejected invitiations to appear on black talk radio programs such as The Tom Joyner Morning Show. Liar Bush rejected invititaions to appear on Joyner's show when he first ran in 2000, again when he ran for re-election in 2004, and both times, Liar Bush and his henchpeople lied by saying that they had no record of Joyner sending them an invitation to appear on his show. Sounds like Liar McCain plans to tell the same lie and deny that Joyner sent him an invitation, too.
However, one candidate was willing to sacrifice his freedom to help protect yours.
John McCain's father and grandfather were both four-star admirals. Do you honestly think that he would have been ALLOWED to choose a non-military career for himself???? He was under INTENSE pressure from his family to follow in his father's and grandfather's footsteps - they were hoping for three generations of admirals. It wasn't out of deep love of his country or his fellow countrymen - it was an obligation his family forced on him. Period.
The other guy has the edge in wanting to kill babies after they are born.
Your side seems to have no problem with the thousands of people's babies that have been killed in Iraq by Bush's illegal war.....
Remember - each man or woman in uniform who died in Iraq was somebody's baby.
What "national security policy-making experience" does O'bama have?
From Barack Obama's Senate web site:
Committee Assignments
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Source: http://obama.senate.gov/committees/
Three of Barack Obama's committee assignments (Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) give him broad experience that is directly related to national security.
Now, let's look at Sen. McCain's committee assignments:
Senator John McCain is Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services; Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; and Member and former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
Source: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssuesLegislation.CommitteeAssignments
While Gramps is on the Armed Services Committee, it is mostly concerned with how the military operates - NOT setting national secirity policy. And his toehr two assignments (Commerce and Indian Affairs) anre purely domestic.
So Barack Obama has the distinct advantage here.
wz,
Thanks for the laugh in trying to portray Obama with more relevant experience than McCain. You may believe it but that doesn't make it so. Anyway, nice try.
Thanks for the laugh in trying to portray Obama with more relevant experience than McCain. You may believe it but that doesn't make it so. Anyway, nice try.
The real laugh around here, AA, is you and the other conservatives circling the wagons around Philib while he goes down in the flames of ignorance and stupidity.
"circling the wagons around Philib while he goes down in the flames"
Unfortunately, NONE of my statements can be proven incorrect. So, while I may be flaming out, I won't do it by lying or promoting propoganda. Have you ever tried telling the truth? Or, do you stick to what you're told to say?
AA,
Did you vote for Gore and Kerry because they had more relevant experience? If not, why?
Fried,
What does that have to do with the discussion?
Apples and oranges. No relevance to the topic.
Of course it's relevant. Obama's committee assignments expose him to more international decision-making, and McCain's is more domestic. Very relevant to the topic at hand.
Chucko,
Wes Clark is a decorated purple heart combat veteran. Do some research before you make yourslef look any more foolish. That being said, I do believe that Clark's comments were condenscending as he attempted to minimize McCains candidacy to the point where all he has to run on is his military experience and since being shot down in combat doesn't qualify one to be President then obviously MJcCain isn't qualified to be President. That is the impression his comments left me with and judging by Obama's reaction I would say his impression is similiar.
On a brighter note, it is good to see the Democrats using Rovian tactics even if they are unintentional (as I believe this is). The seed was planted by Clark and Obama has nothing to do with it. It sucks for you guys, but turnabout is fair play I guess
It's a false meme that Clark tried to minimize any fact in the way you describe.
It was Bob Schieffer who brought up the shot-down pilot and POW comment, and Clark was replying to his comment.
Clark said "I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, "The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade." And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment."
....
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean --
CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
SCHIEFFER: Really?
CLARK: But Barack is not -- he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment -- and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
"He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment --"
How many states did he campaign in? Didn't he say 57? How about a defibulator for the kid with diabetes? Good communicator. Didn't he belong to a church, for 25 years, that was led by a racist? Good judgment.
Well, one out of three ain't bad.
That's pretty lame stuff, Phil...intellectually speaking.
Well, Phil himself is pretty lame ... intellectually speaking.
He said 57, after stuttering and clearly meaning to say 47 states.
Do you really think that you impress voters with this nonsense that Obama doesn't know how many states there are?
Keep it up. Keep making your side look deceitful and slimy. I love it when Republicans are too stupid to recognize that they're in a hole and they keep on digging.
Philib is simply desperate. Just as I predicted: the Rightwing is slowly but surely losing its collective marbles this year. It will be even more shrill the closer we get to November 4.
Obama should set aside some $ to build the numerous asylums that will be needed for the loony rightwingers after he takes office in January.
I think you're wrong about the 57 state comment. I saw the video (it's not hard to find) and Obama has a little grin on his face when he said it, with a brief pause for effect. His audience understood it as a joke and gave him some laughter.
I don't think he mispoke, but I'm certain he didn't actually think he was referring to 57 states. It's just red meat for mindless wingnuts.
I'm pretty positive about the 47 states thing. At that point in the campaign, he'd been to all the states except Hawaii and Alaska and one other, and he was on his way to that last state in the continental 48.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp
"... it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty .... seven states? I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit
but my staff would not justify it."
So everyone has to address every one of your bizarre canards every time you toss one out in order for any of their responses to be valid? You might as well accept the fact that you just aren't that important around here.
The fact is, each of your other items has been responded to by other posters. I responded to your idiotic Wright/judgment jibe and I also asked if anyone could tell me to what you were referring with that "defibulators" comment, because I can't find a damn thing anywhere about it, even if I correct your spelling to search for defibrillators. Can you provide us with a link to a news story? There's no way anyone here would simply accept your word on anything.
Yeah, I won't be voting for Rev Wright or Wes Clark or Mrs Obama or Bill Ayers...see, I'll be voting for the candidate that's running, Barack.
Guilt by association all you want, I just don't want to hear any whining when a McCain surrogate gets caught wearing a pin that says- If Obama wins will it still be the WHITE house?
How about a defibulator for the kid with diabetes? - philib
Does anyone know what this clown is talking about? I tried quickly to find some reference, even from a wingnut site, and came up empty. And I'm sure as hell not going to take his word for anything.
How about a defibulator for the kid with diabetes?
Bill, I did see a clip where Obama was talking about a kid with asthma, and mentioned a breathalyzer instead of an inhaler (I think those were the specifics). There may be some other incident that our disoriented conservative friend is talking about, as this isn't even close to that. Then again, he hasn't been very close to the bullseye with anything recently.
It's a false meme that Clark tried to minimize any fact in the way you describe.
It most certainly is not. Irregardless of who brought it up, Clarks statement stinks of a condenscending tone. Clark's later statement which you highlighted shows that Clark minimized any experience McCain may have in those areas. Like it or not, McCain has much more to run on thatn his military experiences. Iwon't vote for the man but as Obama rejected Clarks comments so do I.
Like it or not, McCain has much more to run on thatn his military experiences.
Perhaps, but he isn't running on that, he's running on his "war hero" status. He's trying to runon other things, but he doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, he doesn't know who or whether Iran may or may not be training, he contradicts himself almost hourly, and he has proven repeatedly that he doesn't know anything about the topics he is supposedly touting as his strong suit, so he keeps falling back on, "How dare you criticize my millitary service," when Clark did nothing of the sort.
It most certainly is not. Irregardless of who brought it up, Clarks statement stinks of a condenscending tone. - achrispage
I just don't see it. There is nothing condescending in the words he chose and nothing in his tone. I do detect a little irritation with Schieffer's non-sequiter question. There's also nothing in Clark's words or tone that is even slightly belittling of McCain's military service. It simply isn't there.
Yeah, what BillJ from MN said.
You have no idea how Obama feels about what Clark said.
Rejecting what Clark said doesn't mean he doesn't agree with it. Sometimes what is politically expedient and not political suicide cause you to have to distance yourself from honest commentary that has gotten misinterpreted.
This was the same argument that Tommy tried and failed to submit yesterday, and Brabantio was very successful at debunking that argument.
If being a prisoner of war does qualify one to be a national leader, how many terrorist leaders are we busy qualifying in GitMo?
Ridiculous. Brabantio's argument was nothing more than an assmption that he knew why Obama rejected Clark's comments. His argument was nothing more than a full fledged non sequitur. All I can do is take Obama at his word and choose to believe that he rejected the comments because his a person of character who felt the comments were wrong and not because he is a politician who simply rejected the comments out of political expediency. Perehaps you have some concrete evidence to the contrary?
Concrete evidence that politicians say things that are politically correct?
You have to be kidding, right?
You have to be kidding!
"Brabantio's argument was nothing more than an assmption that he knew why Obama rejected Clark's comments. His argument was nothing more than a full fledged non sequitur."
Now you're just lying. This was explained to you, and you didn't pursue your point, so you have no right to claim such a thing with any amount of honesty whatsoever. What a weasel you are to abandon an argument and then pretend as if you established your point.
Here's my original quote:"Distancing himself from it just means he thinks it's politically dangerous. It doesn't mean it's actually a swipe." Is it unfair to say that something Obama thinks is wrong would be politically dangerous? There's no reason to separate those concepts. I was simply pointing out that the element of public opinion was a factor whether he agreed with the comments or not, so there was a motivation to reject the comments either way. Obviously if he really disagreed he would say so for that reason.
Apparently nobody can present "common-sense" arguments to you, because you'll just twist them. Sad.
"All I can do is take Obama at his word and choose to believe that he rejected the comments because his a person of character who felt the comments were wrong and not because he is a politician who simply rejected the comments out of political expediency."
All you can do, indeed! All you can do is believe that Obama disagreed with the comments. You can't use that belief as proof that the comments were genuinely offensive, which was my point.
Thanks for supporting my argument, even if unwittingly.
Just in case you want to respond with some of your usual BS, let me address a couple of your potential arguments ahead of time:
A)I also said in my scenario that Obama rejected it because it was politically dangerous. Again, I wasn't separating the concepts, there was no need to. Also you didn't specify what my supposed assumption was, so I was working off the premise that you were accusing me of the same thing Tommy was (yes, that is an assumption, but your history of parrotting Tommy makes it reasonable). The fact that I am not denying the possibility that Obama genuinely objected to the comments should make it clear that he would denounce them for that reason.
B)Overthinking, pseudo-intellectual, "lawyerly", etc. You're the one drawing bizarre conclusions from what I said. The meaning of what I wrote should be clear to any thinking, honest and fair person. It doesn't say anything about me that I have to correct your idiotic interpretations.
Media Matters only paid attention to the media misinformation, and ignored the parts that weren't distortions by the media?
Say it isn't so Chucko.
"Clark thinks that the political risks (and policymaking) of a war-time commander weighs more than a soldier actually fighting (in a plane or on the ground and risking his life in battle? Give me a break!"
How is this a question of which risk weighs more? If that's the metaphor that you want to use, then you're comparing the weights of apples and oranges. Clark isn't saying that McCain's bravery and sacrifice as a soldier were worthless -- in fact, he says precisely the opposite in the interview. His point is that one's bravery on the battlefield is not a measure of one's fitness to serve as president.
I take it that you disagree?
This is insane. Are these TV faces so terrified of the backlash from the goonish, right wing uber-patriots as July 4 approaches that they will completely ignore the content and context of Clark's statements?
This is insane. Are these TV faces so terrified of the backlash from the goonish, right wing uber-patriots as July 4 approaches that they will completely ignore the content and context of Clark's statements?
I didn't watch any MSM yesterday because I knew it was going to be so predictable as to what was going to be said,and as these post that I have read so far I am glad that I didn't.You get tiredof this gotcha thats going around,and it seems that they the MSM just don't want to get the story right.
For awhile there it seemed that after Tim Russerts death that some of these people were begining to question certain statements,that seemed to be shortlived.
I can’t help but sit back and laugh as Media Matters and it’s minions once again twists themselves in frustration as words that may or may not have been taken out of context are again used as political fodder. About a year ago these same forces that were attacking a republican hack over the words “Phony Soldiers” now find themselves defending a democratic hack for what at best can be described as a backhanded slap at the military service of a presidential candidate.
I am not going to take sides here, but I will lament the obvious – that no longer is it important what someone actually says, but more so what is heard, and what side of the debate one is on that leads them to believe what they think they heard.Yeah, you're not going to take sides - what a crock. You've demonstrated that you are highly partisan without regard to reality.
What Clark said was not a backhanded slap at McCain's military service. It was his opinion that military service such as McCain's was not a qualifier for being President. It was that McCain's sacrifices have not given him the experience to lead our nation.
I don't think that Martin Sheen should be given a leg up on being President because he played one on TV. I am not making a swipe at his acting ability by saying that. I'm saying that his ability to play that role well doesn't qualify him for the Presidency. Clark said that being a POW or being shot down over N Vietnam doesn't qualify McCain to be President, and only said that after Bob Schieffer brought it up.
What Clark said was not a backhanded slap at McCain's military service. It was his opinion that military service such as McCain's was not a qualifier for being President. It was that McCain's sacrifices have not given him the experience to lead our nation.
That's what you heard - many others obviously disagree. Personally I do not think Clark was intentionally besmearching McCain - but that's what came out - that's why the moderator responded the way he did - he was surprised to hear that from Clark. Political "news" has become a game of "Got ya" - but being a regular reader at Media MAtters you already know that because that's exactly how Media Matters works - it's not about the debate, it's about catching someone saying something incorrectly and nailing them to the wall with it.
Dems,
Do you think this site is dishonest? If so, does it have the same audience, as say the major news networks in this country? Could you point to a story that MMFA ran that will have the impact of the Clark story?
I really find it hard to take your point seriously if you are comparing this site to actual news.
I do not think this site is dishonest because it does use actual words as it's source, however it is very often disingenuous because it twists context into what it wants those words to mean regardless of the intention of the speaker. There are numerous stories posted here where Media Matters claims to be the arbitor of what was actually meant as if they have a window into the speakers mind. Look for any article that uses words like misrepresented, claimed, intent, or any word that requires interpretation. This site is not actual news and it's viewership is predominantly the "chior" - so I don't see it's stories having much impact. It is political pundantry with an agenda to advance liberalism, progressiveness, or whatever thay are calling it this week.
That said I accept Media Matters for what it is. It's fun to see these guys try to push their agenda and it launches some good political debate among fellow posters. It is now time for the Democrats to rule so things will be very interesting to watch over the next few months. However I am careful to realize that Media Matters is no different than the very sources it purports to be correcting.
From my above post. (with the spelling corection)
This site is not actual news and it's viewership is predominantly the "choir" - so I don't see it's stories having much impact.
It's fun to see these guys try to push their agenda
What is that "agenda"?
"...he was surprised to hear that from Clark."
Exactly...because although Clark's statement was truthful it was politically incorrect. The notion that being shot down and taken captive somehow better qualifies a candidate for highest executive office in the world is laughable when examined objectively. However, you can't say things like that in the God-fearing, flag-waving USA...it might interrupt the pep rally.
"...he was surprised to hear that from Clark."
Exactly...because although Clark's statement was truthful it was politically incorrect. The notion that being shot down and taken captive somehow better qualifies a candidate for highest executive office in the world is laughable when examined objectively. However, you can't say things like that in the God-fearing, flag-waving USA...it might interrupt the pep rally.
Of COURSE Scheiffer was surprised to hear that.
Scheiffer LOVES McCain. The whole MSM loves McCain.
McCain has oodles of foreign policy experience because, well...because he's John McCain!
It's so obvious! Duh!
Oh no, you can say that but only if you are a Republican
These a$$holes torched John Kerry and MAx Clelands service but now, all of a sudden, McCain's is off limits. Would that we had this amount of media hand wringing back in '04.
It's so obvious! Duh!
It might be obvious to you - but there are many who believe the media is in love with Obama. It all depends who you are listening to.
Some, the others are just shilling for their corporate paymasters
Unless, of course, you can explain why they didn't get so up at arms when it was Kerry and Cleland that got questioned...or Clark for that matter
Explain why it was ok then in the media but the media rush to McCain's defense???
Unless, of course, you can explain why they didn't get so up at arms when it was Kerry and Cleland that got questioned...or Clark for that matter
I won't claim to explain anything on behalf of the media but I believe it was Kerry's testimony before congress where he discussed attrocities by the american military reminiscent of Gengis Kahn that put him out of favor with many. Don't know enough about Cleland to comment, and Clark has on more than one occasion proven himself to be a glimmering example of ignorance.
Kerry's testimony before congress...
...which was distorted by the pro-war crowd and the Swiftboat Liars to say that he was personally attesting to having witnessed atrocities when, in fact, he made clear that he was relaying what many other veterans had told him and had asked him to convey. Nevertheless, in the written ads and materials produced by the Swiftboat Liars they did a cut-and-paste job with Kerry's testimony, deleting parts of two sentences to string together a bogus quote.
Doesn't matter - the words came from Kerry's mouth so it was just as if he were speaking them. In speaking out against the military he came off as anti-military. You may not have heard it that way but obviously many others did.
"...the Swiftboat Liars ... did a cut-and-paste job with Kerry's testimony, deleting parts of two sentences to string together a bogus quote."- IRONY 101
Doesn't matter - the words came from Kerry's mouth so it was just as if he were speaking them... as first hand experiences.- DEMS_SOL
Yikes. Are you saying that you're that easily fooled by deceptice editing, or that you think that editing creates a new reality?
Or are you just excusing everything the rightys and the media do as long as it fools enough people?
"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out." John Kerry, April 1971.
Kerry - in using the collective "We" accuses the american military of being a greater threat to the country than the enemies it was fighting. Show me where McCain or "Dubya" says anything like that and they will get similar treatment by the press.
Wow, SOL. In one post, you have proven yourself incapable of understanding even the slightest nuance. Kerry said something that was neither 100% blacknor 100% white, therefore it must have been evil.
Please tell me you aren't really that stupid, even though the evidence of what you have posted leads to no other conclusion.
Once again Easy you refute nothing. You show up late, again, with no idea of what is going on. The statement I lifted from Kerry's testimony speaks for itself and is clear. Your inability to comprehend it does explain your penchant for liberalism though.
"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out." John Kerry, April 1971.
This is an eloquent and brave statement by a young John Kerry. In your mind this is bad...how sad for you. Have you never considered that the only way that America could ever be destroyed is from within? That's really how all empires fall. They might have an enemy attack them, but only after they've lost any morality they claim to have. Our founding fathers understood this very well and warned the young nation in numerous statements. Knee jerk patriotism, "my country right or wrong", is the greatest danger to our nation.
"So you believe all the news outlets calling Clark's comments into queastion are "republican"?"
I certainly do. They are corporatist conservative Republican, to be specific.
That's why I call it the corporate conservative news media, or as of the present election, I call them "McCain's Media".
It's not what I think.
Just as it's not demeaning to Martin Sheen's acting career and acting ability to say that his role as President Bartlett doesn't qualify him to be President for real, what Clark said about McCain was not impugning his military record.
This is reality. It's not an opinion thing at all!
Bob Schieffer's "really" comment seemed very disingenuous. It looked like he trying for a gotcha. One more media anchor clearly in the tank for McCain.
Whats really agravating is that we have floods in the midwest,fires on the west coast,astronomical gas prices effecting all segments of life and this is the best they can do.
Let alone that Bush acknowledged JohnnyMacs paticipation in getting the GI Bil signed.That alone flies in the face of this garbage that they are spewing about General Clarks comments,And Baracks onions are shrinking when someone says something that he should have thought about before he denouced the statement.
The media is doing a piss-poor job putting Clark's comments in context. But they repeatedly did the exact same thing regarding the Maverick's quote about troops remaining in Iraq for the next 100 years. Generally speaking, and aside from Fox, there's no ideology at play here. The media simply endeavors to make every story sound as salacious as possible.
Once one network airs the "story" in a provocative light, it's all over. Then its all one-upmanship.
This whole business about Clark is a joke. I'm sick and tired of liberals laying down to these hypocrites as if they owe them something. Everyone heard and understood what the man said and they still want to spin it like what he said was an attack.
Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
I don't care how you take that comment. Damnit, it's the truth!! Just like when Obama said McCain was confused, they made up a new classification called "agism". Are you freakin kidding me?!? They've called Obama everything but the "N-word" and here he is yesterday pandering to these same fools. Liberals need to grow some almonds and stop laying down everytime these clowns feelings get hurt. Obama has had the worst negative campaigning unleashed against as far back as I can recall out side of maybe, Hillary, who got called the b-word. Grab the bull by the horns damnit. It's time we liberals redefine what it means to be a liberal and stop letting these fools, that would have more of our children waist their lives for a bogus war, determine what it means to be liberals. Clark's statements are a fact. Just like because McCain was a P.O.W. doesn't mean he's fit to lead our nation. By this same backward logic, wouldn't a muslim president be better suited to lead our country in peace efforts with a muslim nation. Clark's comments were about who is best for the job and what qualifies being best for the job. Being a P.O.W. makes you loyal, but not a leader.
And I'm not saying Obama is Muslim...
Over one in ten people would disagree with you. Frightening, huh...?
It most certainly is not. Irregardless of who brought it up, Clarks statement stinks of a condenscending tone. Clark's later statement which you highlighted shows that Clark minimized any experience McCain may have in those areas. Like it or not, McCain has much more to run on thatn his military experiences. Iwon't vote for the man but as Obama rejected Clarks comments so do I. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may have sounded condescending to you but to me it sounded like the truth . He did seem to be exacerbated by Bob Shieffer's stupid implication that somehow being shot down and a POW qualified John McCain for POTUS . That may explain his abruptness and the way he repeated the intiviewer's words back to him to make his point . I heard the interview on TV on Meet The Press and thought it refreshing that Wesley Clark was so honest and direct and spoke truth to the press that has done such a weak job of presenting factual objective news in the face of so many lies by the Bush administation . It is not an attack on John McCain's Military service to say he is qualified for President . It is an attack on his campain to run as President however . In light of the fact that there is so much at stake I think it is appropriate to be critical of any candidates qualifications even though it may not be kind .
It's a joke though. They say whatever the hell they want about his wife, they call him Muslim, they question his associations and judgement, even though he voted against the war, they question the man's geneology, which is just racist, and yet when he has a chance to attack this McCain where it would really hurt, he doesn't, because he has to pander. I'm sick of democrats having to play by rules the lying wrong doesn't.
I call them the wrong because they are seldom right.
Well, according to Wesley Clark:
"I think being president is about having good judgment. It's about the ability to communicate. As one of the great presidential historians, Richard Neustadt, said, "The greatest power of the presidency is the power to persuade." And what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment -- you look at his meteoric rise in politics, and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgment in moving forward. And I think what we need to do, Bob, is we need to stop talking about the old politics of left and right, and we need to pull together and move the country forward. And I think that's what Barack Obama will do for America."
I guess you can take that however you choose, but I think there is a lot of truth to it.
Check this out from Thinkprogress.com this is a quote from John McCain himself in 2003: - During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003] or this from JMcCain :- I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999.
So even McCain agrees with Clark. Like I said, I think you ask a fair question, I just don't understand why it was spun the way it was.
Why do you posters keep referring to John McCain as me, the real POW? I am announcing my campaign for President running only on my POW status.>)
For the Gen. Clark questioners, do you think that being a prisoner of war qualifies you to be president? Simple question, simple answer required. P.S. I am not pinpointing Philb with the simple stuff.
If this continues, I will be the most often mentioned poster that MMFA has ever seen. Colonel, since you are in the "Golden Circle" of MMFA could you get me royalties?
I just e-mailed Brian Williams...
What a despicable man.
Returing to the original topic of this post:
Keep in mind that at GOP-Viacom-CBS, BOTH Bob Schieffer and Katie Couric are lying right wing conservative Republicans.
Next, at GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC, Monica Novotny and Brian Williams are lying right wing conservative Republicans.
Hence, we have McCain's Media, also known as the Corporate Conservative Republican Party controlled news media.
Hey, Philib, BOTH Liar McCain and his wife cheated on their property taxes on 3 of their 7 homes located in San Diego County for 4 years. Excellent judgment.
Liar McCain SOUGHT OUT the support of the Anti-Semitic Rev. John Hagee and Rod Parsley, both of whom made tons of anti-Semitic statements between them.
Third, Liar McCain took support from Clayton Williams, who said that women should relax and enjoy being victims of rape since it's inevitable.
Fourth, Liar McCain allegedly called his wife the "C" word, not that the lying fascist racist theocratic flag-scamming Republican Hate Hag Cindy has the self-respect to even take offense to the insult.
Real "good" judgment on McCain's part. Then again, Liar McCain is likely just as anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-black as all of the people mentioned above.
Wesley Clark definitely impugned John McCains war record. What else would you call it when he said he didn't have the experience and judgment to be commander in chief? - jmar9808149372
Thousands of US citizens have served in combat situations. Most of them are not qualified to be President. Stating that is NOT an insult to their military service, it's just a statement of fact. Clark was correct, being shot down and being a POW does not make McCain qualified. That isn't an insult.
Frankly, I don't believe most of you wingnuts really do believe it was an insult. I think you've all just grabbed on to a misrepresentation that you think you can get some mileage out of, to try to put the Obama campaign on the defensive and persuade a few ignoramuses along the way. Clark isn't cooperating with that. He's absolutely correct when he calls it "manufactured rage."