ABC's Tapper uncritically reported McCain's claim that Obama is "anti-troops"
SUMMARY: ABC's Jake Tapper reported that Sen. John McCain "has attacked Obama for being ... anti-troops." On-screen, a clip from a McCain campaign ad displayed the text "Against Troop Funding," with several references to congressional votes. But Tapper did not note that McCain has also voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that Sen. Barack Obama has voted numerous times to fund the wars.
On the August 18 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that Sen. John McCain "has attacked [Sen. Barack] Obama for being ... anti-troops." On-screen, a clip from a McCain campaign ad displayed the text "Against Troop Funding," with several references to congressional votes. But Tapper did not note that McCain has also voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that, as CNN host and Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, "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.' "
According to a May 24, 2007, press release, Obama said he voted against an appropriations bill that included funding because it was "a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one." He continued: "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course."
From the August 18 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
TAPPER: For many Democrats, it's about time. One liberal columnist chided Obama over the weekend for being, quote, "excessively genteel." And some Obama supporters out in the country and in Washington, D.C., agree.
MARK MELLMAN (Democratic pollster): The natural state of this race is to be a referendum on George Bush and John McCain. But Obama, I think, in the last couple of weeks, has allowed himself to become the center of the conversation.
TAPPER: McCain has attacked Obama for being a shallow celebrity, anti-troops, to blame for the energy crisis, and today he called him a flip-flopper who put self-interest before country.
McCAIN [video clip]: Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president.
TAPPER: McCain's attacks, combined with Obama's own miscues, seem to be forcing Obama to make more of an effort to convince voters he is one of them.
OBAMA [video clip]: My story is your story. We have a common story. We have a common story of previous generations making sacrifices and working hard, so that we would have a better life.
TAPPER: At a fundraiser, Obama told supporters to keep their stress to a minimum. For many Democrats, that is proving very difficult. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
What % of Americans want to leave Iraq? Are they ALL anti troop?
Only in your twisted world would wanting soldiers to come home from being killed an endless war be considered "anti troop".
Please define "victory in Iraq."
(This oughta be good...)
Because only an idiot wingnut thinks leaving soldiers in a meat grinder to die for the enrichment of Exxon-Mobil is "supporting" them.
We brought regime change, we liberated the people of Iraq and brought (wait for it) change for the better there.
Now, that is start, but we still have not met the conditions to leave Iraq. What would happen if we were to pull out our troops all at once beginning tomorrow?
See, Iraq is one element of the WOT; other areas are other elements that should and will be addressed if we take the proper steps that are necessary.
And BTW, what is wrong if Exxon and other oil companies do business there? They are allowed to do that under free enterprise after all...
We brought regime change, we liberated the people of Iraq and brought (wait for it) change for the better there.
But that's not the reasons we were told. Remember the mushroom cloud? The yellow cake? The aluminum tubes? The connection to terrorists. ALL LIES.
Now, that is start, but we still have not met the conditions to leave Iraq. What would happen if we were to pull out our troops all at once beginning tomorrow?
If we can't meet these conditions in 5 years, when if ever will we? 10 years? 20? 100? And nobody, and I mean NOBODY can say for sure what will happen if we being pulling our troops out. Who knows, it may work out for the better. Don't you think its worth giving it a try. We all know that more of the same is just more failure.
See, Iraq is one element of the WOT; other areas are other elements that should and will be addressed if we take the proper steps that are necessary.
Wrong. Iraq has nothing to do with the mythical "WOT". Read a newspaper.
And BTW, what is wrong if Exxon and other oil companies do business there? They are allowed to do that under free enterprise after all...
Nothing wrong with it, except the American government, apparently acting under your support, invaded and stole the oil fields in order to portion them out to big oil.
More death. More wasted resources. All so little dawuss can feel safe at night.
vietnam was the same argument. we can't leave because that means "they" win. and "they" will take over the world. so we have to stay and not hand "victory" to the enemy. what we never understand is that no country wants to be occupied forever by another country. and that means they do not want to be under the thumb of another mideast country either.
as far as "supporting the troops", every single senator has "voted for it before i voted against it". there are hundreds of procedural votes and republicans vote for some, democrats for others, and vice versa.
Let's see...
Troops abroad donated to Obama over McCain by a 6-1 ratio.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
Why do the troops hate the troops?
Find and destroy WMD's. Errr... Check (i guess)
Free Iraqis from brutal dictator. Check.
Victory.
Bring 'em home.
Dawuss, your statement is ridiculously stupid. How about those who have served, returned home and want their fellow soliders home without a caveat of "winning". Are they PHONY SOLDIERS? Are they lying? Quit being naive about life and death. If you do not know what war is, stay out of the minds of our soldiers. You do not have that right.
DAWuss,
In another thread, I think you wrote that you were in college. How can you say that you "support the troops" when you don't join them?
And to your notion that you can't support the troops if you don't "support the mission," I guess the money I sent through charity to buy them body armor isn't support, eh?
Nope, but you are in a position to directly help the troops being a guy who is eligible. The troops' tours have been extended at almost every turn. The army was stretched to its breaking point as long ago as last year.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/korb_testimony.html
Soldiers are going back for their third and fourth tours in Iraq, DaWuss, and you won't go? Tours are now finally being scaled back from 15 months to 12.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040902225_pf.html
The army is worried about those having to return over and over to Iraq while "supporters" like you won't step up. Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/washington/06military.html
What are the "the conditions to leave Iraq?"
Also, why does their PM want us out in 16 months?
Fried,
You're logic says you have to as "you" say or you are not supporting a view.
One could easily say, If you are against the war, why don't you get yourself arrested in anti-war rallies.
Or if you are in favor of "pro-choice", why don't you perform abortions to underage teenagers?
To question one's actions does nothing to either advance or detract from the argument at hand.
After all, do you support the troops? If you say yes, then the same arguments could be made toward you.
AA, I support the troops but not the war. By most Con accounts, that cannot be done. Why is that? I constantly ask the posters who subscribe to that falsehood why and only get the same answer. you can't do both.
Here is a suprise for them. I was a troop in a war. When I got home, I supported the troops but not the war. What does that make me? A PHONY SOLDIER.
Sands,
You can certainly support the mission but not the troops. If you continuously support politicians who vote against their benefits, etc., you are doing just that.
AA,
My logic does not say that at all. DaWuss said that if you say you support the troops, you must support their mission. I challenged his support because he is in a position to help at the highest level and refuses. to your post:
You're logic says you have to as "you" say or you are not supporting a view.
One could easily say, If you are against the war, why don't you get yourself arrested in anti-war rallies. (I will participate in the next one that's in Denver. I have sent money to candidates who support that position.)
After all, do you support the troops? If you say yes, then the same arguments could be made toward you. (AA, again, he said that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops. I was just challenging his level of commitment to that end.)
And if you were drafted, would you be hopping in a pickup truck to Mexico where you can drop it off for an illegal immigrant to use on that truck's return trip to the US while you wait for the war to be over?
And while we're on the subject of "you" and "military service" how many years have you served this country?
Wuss, stop the cute retorts and answer the question. Look, if you have better things to do, you are in good company( VP CHENEY). No problem, but a truthful answer would end all speculation. Now where did I get that, from Mr. Corsi...one of the Heros of the Right.
Wuss, you expect these type of responses don't you? Well, you got them. Now it is time for you to just answer a question..Why don't you support the troops by enlisting? It has an answer.
Dawuss,
You said that I didn't support the troops if I didn't support their mission. I have supported them by sending them money for body armor they lack, but according to you, I don't support them.
I have never been in the military, but if I believed in the Iraq War as much as you do, I would be there in a heartbeat.
I have served this country by teaching in schools that few others would through Teach for America, DaWuss. I have done countless other things for the poor that go unnoticed as well.
DaWuss,
I'll make you a deal: if a president I vote for decides to invade a country without provocation, I will enlist. Will you do the same?
Bogus argument, and you know it.
Like each and every other flag-scamming chickenhawk conservative liar, you all love wars as someone other than you and/or your fellow right wingers are doing the fighting.
I believe you chickenhawk conservative liars yell the infamous phrase "Hell, No, You All Go!" when it comes to war.
MR. H, I expect my representative to vote the way his/her constituents deem reasonable. I want my representative to vote to keep the troops funded to include getting them home, now. Why can't the ChickenHawks do that? McCain just wants money to keep our interests (OIL) safe. Obama wants to fund the troops and get them home. Which do you prefer?
Soon enough, the Old POW will start talking about getting out when his team tells him that Americans elect the office holders. And most of them want out.
Umm... Wrong. Why? Because the people whose "cause" that you're talking about supporting is the elected civilian leadership of the US military (go back and read LT. Bateman's column in Altercation about WHY the civilians lead the military).
So, you see, it's not the troops' cause that they're fighting. The troops, and the Generals and other officers leading said troops are still the pawns, and under the direct control of civilians. Sec Def? Civilian. President? Civilian. Sec Nav? Civilian. Sec Arm? Civilian. Sure, they have the Joint Chiefs to advise them and to counsel them as to all things military, but in the end, the final decisions lay with the civilian leadership, who are either elected, or confirmed through Congress. It is not the troops' cause that we're fighting in Iraq, they are the tools of a larger political machine, and always have been, and always will be. They implement, with force if required, the foreign policy of the United States of America.
You should really look at an org chart of the government before you start spouting off such nonsense. Oh, and there are plenty of troops who don't agree with this war in Iraq at all. But guess what? They took an oath, and are doing their jobs wonderfully. You are just re-hasing that same old tired crap about "you can't support the troops if you don't support the war" which is just plain old false and really insulting to those of us who do have loved ones currently serving overseas in the 2 war zones.
It isn't "their cause" 'wuss. They are doing their job and following orders, as they should be, and we respect them for that. But if you "support the troops" you owe it to them to give them SOUNBD ORDERS based on COMPETANT BATTLE PLANS to support a REASONABLE STRATEGY as part of a RESPONSIBLE FOREIGN POLICY. You also owe them appropriate support when they get back, and decent pay and benefits for them and their families while they are in harms way.
YOU can't have it both ways!
You can't have it both ways!
If you support the troops you support their cause. Period.
It's not their cause at all; it's the Neocons' cause. I don't support Neocons or their anti-American policies.
"If you support the troops you support their cause. Period. End of story. You're not getting it both ways." -Dawuss
So what you are saying is that if Obama becomes President and brings back the troops, that would make you anti-troop and anti-American for not supporting the decision.
This reminds me of that McCain town hall meeting, where a vet attempted to point out that McCain's voting record received far lower marks from veteran's groups than Obama's record (something like 20% McCain vs. 80% Obama from a disabled vets organization). McCain flat out lied and basically told him he wouldn't hear any criticism of his treatment of our military personnel. Of course the vet was right.
McCain flat out lied and basically told him he wouldn't hear any criticism of his treatment of our military personnel.
McCain wasn't lying, he really doesn't hear any criticism of his treatment of our military personnel.
McCAIN [video clip]: "Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president"
McCain's tactics here are shameful, below is the response from Obama during his speech today to the VFW......he wins if he throws this crap from McCain right back in his face.
"I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same"
Tommy,
Apparently McCain believes otherwise.
AA,
I don't believe McCain believes that at all. It's slimy politics and McCain used to be above that sort of thing. If he can't take Obama down on the issues and is forced to lower himself to this, he is pathetic. He deserves to lose, and I hope he does.
AA,
How can you defend McCain in this realm? On a much earlier thread, you excused McCain missing 10/14 Iraq votes in early 2007 by saying he was out campaigning. However, none of the other major candidates missed a SINGLE VOTE. By McCain's own logic, would he rather win a campaign than win a war?
"But Tapper did not note that McCain has also voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"
The war funding bill that McCain voted against was HR 1591 (follow the link) which included language that mandated a troop withdrawal by August 2008. After the Senate voted for the bill, Bush indicated a sure veto if passed by the House. It did not pass.
What MMfA does NOT point out is that 47 out of 50 Republicans voted NO on HR 1591 which was introduced by David Obey (D-Wis) as a purely political move that did not have a chance of Republican support because of the troop withdrawal mandate. Weak
Not as weak as McCain not only trying to take credit for Webb's G.I. Bill, but going so far as making lying claims about being the one responsible for inserting changes to make the bill more appealing to him - changes that don't even exist in the bill!
Fox’s Campaign Carl Lies, Gives McCain Credit For Fictitious GI Bill Provision
Yesterday, while speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attempted to steal credit for the GI Bill that he actively opposed. Fox News’s Carl Cameron gave McCain’s efforts a major boost last night, declaring that McCain successfully changed the GI Bill — to create “a more proportionate award” of benefits — and thus was able to support it:
The GI Bill as approved in no way resembles McCain’s so-called proportional proposal. The GI Bill provides 100 percent tuition payments to those who have served 36 months in active duty, and gives 80 percent to those who have served 24 months. By contrast, under McCain’s proposal, a soldier would have had to serve four times as long — 12 years in active duty – to be eligible for the most generous benefits.
McCain has offered a handful of excuses why he did not support the GI Bill, claiming it was too expensive, too generous, or might somehow hamper retention rates. The fact is that McCain was always “full of it” on the bill, and now — with the help of Fox News — he’s simply trying to rewrite history. (HT: Newshounds)
Snoop - My comment is about this specific MMfA item which sites McCain's vote on HR 1591 noted in the link above.
Your comment in response is way off topic and irrelevant
Your comment in response is way off topic and irrelevant
You're joking, right? Read the summary again:
Summary: ABC's Jake Tapper reported that Sen. John McCain "has attacked Obama for being ... anti-troops."
My response is totally relevant because not only does McCain not support the troops, he lies about bills that show support of the troops. Not surprised that you would try to run away from that fact, though.
"But Tapper did not note that McCain has also voted against legislation funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"
The war funding bill that McCain voted against was HR 1591 (follow the link) which included language that mandated a troop withdrawal by August 2008. "
GF,
The Republicans have been stating that every Dem that has been voting against funding the wars unconditionally is "anti-troop" or not patriotic. Why can they not be held to the same standard when they vote against troop funding with timetables?
The Republicans have been stating that every Dem that has been voting against funding the wars unconditionally is "anti-troop" or not patriotic.
FBB, While this may be true for a few Republicans, I would doubt that your statement is true for most Republicans.
Goodfella-
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting your post correctly, but what you're saying is, 94% of Republicans in the Senate won't support the troops? No wonder we're still fighting over there!
If you support the troops you support their cause. Period. End of story. You're not getting it both ways.
Both factcheck.org and I disagree. I'll let them go first. :-)
Furthermore, by saying that "John McCain has always supported our troops," the ad insinuates that Obama doesn't. But funding a war and supporting troops are not necessarily the same thing. If they were, we'd reiterate our point above, that both men expressed a willingness to see a war-funding bill killed unless it met their conditions. "
Now for me: You're statement is a false dichotomy. You can support the troops and still disapprove of the war they're engaging in. One way to support them is by providing adequate funding, whether it be for equipment or expanding Veteran's education benefits. Characterizing either men as being "anti-troops" because they opposed war funding bills, for reasons other than providing funds to the troops, is wildly inaccurate.
Oh, and just in case you forgot, the troops don't have the authority to declare war; only Congress does (which they failed to do). The military and troops are an apolitical unit charged with defending the country. They're merely following the orders of civilian leaders.
Liar W. Bush...AWOL in Alabama
Liar Cheney...5 defermits, had better things to do.
Liar Karl Goebbels Rove...Multiple student defermits to avoid serving.
Liar Tom Delay...Said too many blacks and Hispanics took all the spots from him and the other "patriotic conservatives".
These are 4 of the MANY flag-scamming chickenhawks and liars who yell "Hell, No, You All Go!" when it comes to fighting in wars.