AP uncritically reported McCain's assertion that Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge"
SUMMARY: The Associated Press uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's charge that Sen. Barack Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge." In fact, Obama, who has voted in the past to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he voted against a troop funding bill in May 2007 because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal. Further, McCain himself has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An August 19 Associated Press article uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's charge that Sen. Barack Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge." In fact, contrary to the AP report, Obama did not try "to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge." Rather, Obama said he voted against a troop funding bill in May 2007 because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal. Moreover, Obama has voted in the past to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As 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.' "
The AP also did not point out that McCain himself has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and to direct more than $1 billion to the Department of Veteran Affairs, as well as other legislation funding care for veterans.
As Media Matters for America noted, the AP has previously ignored McCain's own votes against troop funding while uncritically quoting his attacks on Obama.
From the August 19 Associated Press article:
McCain said Obama placed his political self-interest ahead of his country's, a theme the Arizona Republican has often repeated. McCain told a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Obama's positions had changed as his political ambitions grew.
"With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Sen. Obama 's varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge," McCain said.
"Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure."
McCain's arrogance is astounding. So because Obama did not vote for funding the surge, because it was missing a timetable or not is really irrelevant to me, and he may have doubted it would work - so now McCain has twisted that into saying that Obama wanted us to fail, that he purposely legislated failure?
This is the kind of stuff that Obama needs to challenge forcefully, and make McCain say exactly what he dances around, essentially accusing Obama of treason.
Tommy, here we have the best example of the conservative argument that liberals ideology is based too much on "heart".
One would think that statements such as this:
"Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure."
...would be so self-evident, that there is no way that your typical American citizen could hear it and not think "This guy's a loon". I'm afraid the Obama camp - and the dem party in general - has faith that your average citizen would live up to that expectation, and it holds that faith despite the evidence to the contrary. I wouldn't expect any forceful rebuttals until Obama finally gives up on what we all wish was true.
Tommy,
Trying to legislate a timetable for troop withdrawal, was a recipe for defeat. The surge was a plan that has proved to be a success. Obama voted for the defeat and voted against the success. Need I say more?
What surge?
It was an escalation. Even though the "surge" has ended, the number of troops on the ground is greater than it was at pre-"surge" levels. There are now more troops on the ground than ever before.
No, you needn't say another word.
You contribute nothing to the discourse here except lame talking points and falsehoods.
"Obama voted for the defeat and voted against the success"
C'mon AA, you are better than that. To say those that voted against the surge bill after Bush's miserably failed policies is a "vote for defeat, and against success" is ridiculous. Make the case for the surge then, and leave the hindsight Monday morning quarterbacking to those without an argument. And to imply that Obama is invested in our failure in Iraq is beyond the pale, McCain should be ashamed.
A respectful high-five for Tommy.
Either you're coming around, or I am. And I'm not ashamed to embrace it if it's the latter.
What many on the refuse to understand is that the surge was a plan that contained a military escalation on our part, an Iraqi military deployment and an Iraqi political plan to unify the factions.
We were not allowed to call it an escalation because it was to be more than a military troop increase. Now Senator McCain wants to take credit for the escalation that we weren't allowed to call an escalation.
If he wants to take that credit, he must also share the blame for everything that went wrong prior to the surge in 2007.
AA-
Know who else didn't support the surge? General George Casey, Gen. John Abizaid, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, not to mention the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yes, they all wanted to see America defeated by the terrorists.
Since those people are all pro-terrorist, do you suggest we deport them, or put them in some sort of detention facility?
It's the hypocrisy that irks me. Most of the other stuff I laugh off, but the hypocrisy gets me.
The hypocrisy of a man whose campaign ad says that Obama will raise taxes on electricity, when if you determine that cap and trade policies will raise taxes on electricity, then McCain will do the same thing!
The hypocrisy of a party who attacks John Edwards for having an affair, when he's not going to be the candidate, when it's well-known that John McCain had multiple affairs and married one of them, getting a marriage license before he was even divorced, and lying about the circumstances (how long did he continue living with his wife after he began the affair, for instance?).
The hypocrisy of a man who as Senator chose to vote for some bills and not for other similar bills because of the way the funding was structured or the language of the bill differed on one or more key points, yet calls out his opponent for having that same principled response!
Senators vote yea or nay all the time on bills that only varied slightly from other versions they would have voted the opposite on. McCain's been in the Senate for years and years. He knows that this is a false attack, but he makes it.
And that's the greatest hypocrisy of the man. He claims to be a maverick, but he's pulling the same crap that Rove produced for Bush because McCain has hired Rove sycophants. He claims that he wants to take the high road, and won't run a negative campaign, yet the evidence shows him to be a liar.
Hypocrite.
Hey, BB! Did you know that Exxon John was a POW? I mean, shouldn't we give the guy a break because he was a POW? I'm surprised to find out that McCain, who usually never talks about his service, was a POW! I'm concerned that some liberals will say that McCain, a former POW, is playing the POW card...
As THE Resident POW, I need some cards. Where do I get them?
Snoop, I know you hold a grudge because of the tapes but come on, as THE Resident POW, gimme a break. As THE Resident POW do I get to use my POW cards whenever I choose here on MMFA.
DaWuss,
He voted against this one:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1591:
More details here:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16257.html
He wasn't in attendance in early 2007 for 10/14 Iraq war votes:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html
Would you like to see a lot of the benefits he voted against too?
First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail
It did fail. Success, as defined by our Fearless Leader, would result in a self-governing Iraq. Has that happened yet?
It's a false premise. McCain and the righties are saying the surge worked because hundreds of people aren't dying every day. But anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that when you drop 40,000 highly trained marines into any city, then violence would logically drop. But righties can't see the fallacy of their surge argument.
The surge is an escalation in which more and more Americans are DYING. And billions more dollars are being spent. It continues to be a failure. Has it been worth it?
Tell me how many Americans have died in Iraq.
More than 4,000.
And follow that up with how many Americans died in LA
Huh? Do you mean Louisiana, or Los Angeles? Care to address the post. Do you think the surge has worked, or do you believe the false argument as well?
This is, no doubt, a re-hash of the old talking point about how "insert the name of any large American city here" is more dangerous than Iraq, because more people have been killed in, "insert name of any large American city here" in the last month than have been killed in Iraq.
What people like our friend Dawuss fail to comprehend is that the best trained, best equipped military force possibly in the history of the world is seeing casualties and deaths on a monthly basis does not equate to
This is, no doubt, a re-hash of the old talking point about how "insert the name of any large American city here" is more dangerous than Iraq, because more people have been killed in, "insert name of any large American city here" in the last month than have been killed in Iraq.
What people like our friend Dawuss fail to comprehend is that the best trained, best equipped military force possibly in the history of the world is seeing casualties and deaths on a monthly basis does not equate
Not sure why it double posted, or posted before I finished my thought, but...
It does not equate to how many Americans, or Iraqis are dying in Iraq. How many you ask Dawuss, here let me tell you:
According to Iraqbodycount.org:
86,658 - 94,553 have been killed from the time of the invasion in 2003 - present. There are a lot of experts who agree that their numbers might actually be very low.
Add in American / coalition deaths:
4458
Grand total for Iraq (since the invasion):
91116 - 99011
Total for LA (2003-2008 homicide rate):
2003 1,142
2004 1,131
2005 1,152
2006 1,085
2007 968
2008 1100 (my estimate based on previous years)
Grand total: 6578
Looks like you're about, oh, 92000 dead people short comparing LA to Iraq and all. Also, there are about 10 million people in LA, and LA County, compared to 27 million for the entire country of Iraq. Your chances of getting killed in LA are: 0.06%. Iraq is about: 0.4% chance. Now, if you're an American soldier, in Iraq, your chances of getting killed are (based on, say, 140,000 troops in country): 3.2%.
Comparisons of the cost of the war should include iraqi civilian casualities , the millions displaced, the cost to our economy, the cost to our reputation, the cost to our overall security, as well as the cost to our military. Comparing the death rates of our soldiers to the crime victims of LA is a rediculous wingnut excercize in contagious ignorance.
Fortunately our soldiers have a comparatively low death rate in Iraq. They are well armed, brave, and well trained. Comparing the impact of the war to the crime in a US city or a natural disaster would have to include all human impacts in Iraq. If you are just comparing our soldier's deaths a better analogy would be comparing the rate of law inforcement mortalility in the line of duty in LA to death rates of soldiers in Iraq.
Which goals of the political goals of the surge have been met, DaWuss? Here is a link to the goals outlined by GWB:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
Here is the most recent GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08837.pdf
Dawuss,
Did you read the GAO report and the deadlines set by Bush in his speech outlining the plan?
If we still have work to do, why does McCain refer to the surge in the past tense?
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/mccain-presser-we
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951307/posts
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/07/25/mccain_and_iraq/
If we still have work to do, why does McCain refer to the surge in the past tense?
Egg-zackly.
'Course, this is the part where DAWUSS claims (s)he's not a McCain supporter.
If only that had something to do with the issue at hand.
As for Johnnie Mac's statements, you'd've to ask him about that.
"Just six more months" right?
The Friedman Unit lives!
Seriously, you wingnuts are addicts and Iraq is your heroin. "I just need one more, then I'll quit!"
*golf clap*
Good one.
Tell me how many Americans have died in Iraq.
4,1144 http://icasualties.org/oif/
And follow that up with how many Americans died in LA.
Are you trying to compare American soldiers killed in Iraq to the number of people who died in Los Angeles? Los Angeles city or country? Death due to homicide or accidental? Oh and why pick LA, why not New York?
No matter which city you try to use in comparison, we are not spending 12 billion tax payers dollars per month killing those folks are we.
Are those Americans dying in Iraq on vacation? I would bet that none of them would've been killed in Iraq had they chosen their own vacation spot.
Such a silly comparison by the Cons.
In fact, Obama, who has voted in the past to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he voted against a troop funding bill in May 2007 because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal. Further, McCain himself has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Wait - you cannot be serious when writing this MMFA. On one note - you criticize someone for saying that Obama hasnt voted to fund the war - because of the absence of a timeline for withdrawl. Then you go right out and do the same thing to McCain saying that he voted against legislation to fund the war - because it did include something he didnt agree with - like a timeline for withdrawl.
Learn some journalism skills MMFA - don't do the same exact thing in the same article that you're bashing someone else for.
I think ScienceGuy may be ready for a new screen name. His recent "idea" for a zombie fetus parole board* was a laugher even by the "usual gang of idiot troll" standards.
* True
Typical of a leftist to leave out pertinent information.
An oversight, King. Of course, Science never said that underage zombie fetuses should be allowed to decide when the almost-parents who murdered them should be let out of jail. That would have been crazy.
Science very clearly stated that those murdered babies should only be allowed to decide the fate of the people who killed them after reaching the age of 18. I apologize if my omission made his plan seem insane.
Who the hell do these zombies think they aren't?
Dead or un-dead, if they want to live here they'd better abide by our laws.
I also question zombie patriotism and their immigration status. Exactly how many of these zombies do we allow into the country in any given year? Do they wear flag pins?
How many crimes are being committed by undead, illegal immigrant, zombie fetuses (or feti if we're bering sticklers for the original Latin)?
Is someone trying to rewrite history?
"All mankind, is up against, The Wall of Science!"*
*FST