MSNBC's Hall didn't challenge Pfotenhauer's claim that Obama "fought funding" for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Tamron Hall failed to challenge the assertions of Nancy Pfotenhauer, an adviser for Sen. John McCain, that Sen. Barack Obama "fought funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over a year ago" and was "withholding funds for our troops who are in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan." Hall did not note that Obama has cast several votes for war-funding legislation, nor did she note that McCain himself has voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On the July 21 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Tamron Hall failed to challenge the assertions of Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser for Sen. John McCain, that Sen. Barack Obama "fought funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over a year ago" and was "withholding funds for our troops who are in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan." Hall did not note, as Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, that "Obama has frequently voted to finance the war but was one of 14 Senate Democrats to oppose a war-funding bill last year -- after Republicans removed troop withdrawal deadlines -- saying he did not want to be 'validating the same failed policy in Iraq.' " Nor did Hall note that McCain himself has voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 21 edition of MSNBC Live:
HALL: Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior policy adviser for the McCain campaign. So Nancy, this story is happening fast, and we're getting so many details.
PFOTENHAUER: Right.
HALL: But right now, we had an Iraqi official on tape saying that they're looking at the year 2010. What is the McCain campaign's response to that?
PFOTENHAUER: What it has always been, which is we should be able to draw down troops as soon as conditions on the ground make that the right, safe thing to do. And, of course, a number of people have to contribute to that -- contribute to that assessment, probably most importantly our military leaders who are on the ground. And so it's -- it's great news that the surge strategy is succeeding, but the crucial thing is that it -- the -- this assessment be made based on conditions, not based on politics. And I think the proof in the pudding there in whether you are motivated based on conditions or politics is when you call for it. And one point I would like to make is that Senator Obama is -- I think, motivations are political because he called for this -- he fought the surge, he fought funding for our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan --
HALL: Nancy, let me ask you real quick --
PFOTENHAUER: -- over a year ago.
HALL: -- because you said "playing politics." And I know you're referring to Senator Obama, but let me ask you, do you believe the Iraqi leaders, including Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, are playing politics here? Because their timetable is essentially the same thing of what we're hearing from Senator Obama, so are they playing with the political system here?
PFOTENHAER: Well, I -- I couldn't -- certainly couldn't question their motives. I'm just saying that -- that Maliki over time has been consistent in saying that any withdrawal needed to be based on conditions on the ground. So when he comes forward and makes this statement, it's got a lot of credibility. But if someone was calling for withdrawal, troop withdrawal, a year ago or two years ago when they were fighting the surge, withholding funds for our troops who are in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan, those motives are questioned. I mean, it's interesting that Senator Obama's able to safely visit these places in part because the strategy that he fought was put in place and has succeeded.
HALL: Some people are asking, Nancy, this morning, where does this leave Senator McCain? You have the end of the work week. Senator -- I mean the current president, of course, George Bush saying that there's a time horizon. That they're reached an agreement, the White House and the Iraqi officials have reached an agreement on time horizon. Then we wake up this Monday morning with this timetable, the year of 2010 that Iraqi officials say they're looking at. Where does this leave Senator McCain? Is -- is -- as some people describe, they're saying he -- he's kind of in a box here. He's got to come out and he's got to be more definitive about what he thinks is happening and -- and what should happen next.
There is very much such a thing as a "time horizon":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_horizon
Problem is-- the Bushies are misdefining it, and the MSM is letting them.
"There is very much such a thing as a 'time horizon'" - Carlileb5935
And in the current context, a bit more on the genesis of that wonderful term here: http://www.truthout.org/article/obama-iraq
According to the American Heritage dictionary, there is only one non-geographical or celestial definition of "horizon":
The range of one's knowledge, experience, or interest.
Considering the attention-span of the president that we're dealing with here, I think we can safely presume that the "time horizon" in question indicates that Bush will experience a loss of interest in Iraq as we know it on or about Friday at 1700 hours.
The link that MMFA provided sent me to supplemental appropriations bill. It was a straight party line line vote of Dems vs. GOP. I hardly see how that proves the point MMFA was trying to make.
I'd appreciate it if anyone can tell me what about the appropriations made it split by party lines and why the Dems all voted for it and the Republicans against it.
Is MMFA trying to make the point that every Republican Senator also voted against funding the troops?
No, Obama voted to FUND the troops. That's the point. The McCain staff member was lying, and the MSM reporter let it go as truth, as a given.
What else is new?
Anyone remember Bill Clinton?
He first 'got in trouble' by pointing out Obama's inconsistency, on opposing the war, but voting for funding.
Remember? "This thing is the biggest fairy tale..." ?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a candidate had the courage to force an end to the war through revoking funding?
MSNBC sets up my dreams before ruthlessly crushing them.
I believe you are incorrect in at least two ways. Bill's been in trouble a long time pior to that statement. From a conservative point of view.
I don't believe Bill was talking about about that issue, but I'll check shortly.
the today show this morning had mccain saying obama refused to "fund the troops". no rebuttal, no explanation from anyone.
I think the time has come that Gramps McCain should be permanently hooked up to a lie detector. And every time he tells a lie, he gets an electric shock applied to his nether region. Maybe THAT will get him to clean up his act truthwise......
If Obama could, he would eliminate the military.
Do you have something to verify that statement or are you just throwing crap against the wall as usual? Obama has always commended the troops for the job they've done. It's not their fault they were thrown into an unwinnable situation in Iraq and nearly an unwinnable won in Afghanistan simply because they haven't had the manpower to accomplish the mission. In fact, Obama knows full well he'll have to maintain a well funded force. Rummy et al are the ones that have gutted the military and contracted everything out to their cronies.
contracting, out what are you talking about? do you know?
and they have pretty much won in iraq, do you have blinders on?