McClatchy uncritically repeats McCain falsehood that Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops"
SUMMARY: McClatchy Newspapers 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 repeatedly voted 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 McClatchy Newspapers article by Margaret Talev and William Douglas uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's charge that Sen. Barack Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge." McClatchy did not report that the charge is false: 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 repeatedly voted to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, including during the period of troop escalation in Iraq. 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.' "
McClatchy 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.
From the August 19 McClatchy Newspapers article:
McCain, campaigning in Florida, accused Obama of being weak on foreign policy and unwilling to admit that President Bush's "surge" policy in Iraq is working.
"With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Sen. Obama's varying position on the surge in Iraq," McCain told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando.
"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. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. This was back when supporting America's efforts entailed serious risk," McCain said.
Shhh... the cops might be reading. Did you use a bat or your hands?
Sorry, back on topic. John McCain is rapidly erasing any call for respect that he may have built up over his lifetime. He is unfit to be president.
He is unfit to be president.
He's almost unfit to be human.....
I actually beat Da Wuss!!! :-)
Hey Wiz is there a prize for being first?? If not, I'm not going to play. You & Duh Wuss can fight over 1st post ;-)
Duh Mcain is a former POW and veteran of coarse he wnats to bring the tropps home! and he wants to make have victory not defeat but Hussein obama just wants to loose and doeesn't care about the torops he jsut wants to cut and run and bring them home so he looks like a hero and wins the election right in the middle of the surge working. what does that tell you about Hussein Obama.
(I gotta tell you - this arguing for the cons is kind of refreshing. A definite feeling of freedom.)
And to quote Gramps at the biker rally:
"We're going to win in Iraq the right way - by winning!"
How can you refute logic like that?
What would be easier? Your avoidance of any thinking at all? How about if grampy came out and said "I hate America! F**k you all and that n****r Hussein!"?
That would make it easier too.Are you a child?
Wars are started by politicians and fought by soldiers. History has shown that politicians put soldiers in harms way justly and unjustly. Some wars have been political mistakes that should not have been waged.
Sometimes supporting the troops means going against the politicians. And some soldiers in war zones appreciate their countrymen coming to their senses and admitting their political mistakes.
Worrier,
Notice the similiarity between, "I support the troops but not the war" and "I support pro-choice but not abortion."
You cannot support one without supporting the other. You are deluding yourself if you think you can.
AA,
Please re-consider your statement. Are you telling me that the money I spent on body armor for the troops was because I don't support them?
Does my dad, a military vet, not "support the troops" because he wants them home? Are you telling me that my grandfather, a WWII vet, didn't support the troops in Vietnam because he was against the war?
Your comments are offensive, AA. Please reconsider it.
Fried,
No offense intended. Whether one is a vet or not does not change the point I am making. I am not questioning anyone's patriotism. God bless your father and your grandfather, who like mine, also served.
Nobody wants any U.S. soldier killed. We all want them out of harms way. But not wanting them injured or killed is not in and of itself being "supportive" of the troops. It is simply not wanting them hurt or killed. Like I said, we are all in agreement on that point.
However we do not live in a world that allows for that. I don't recall where, but I read or heard that the U.S. has been involved in well over one hundred armed conflicts since it's inception.
The purpose of the armed forces is to defend the interests of the United States. Everyone who enlists knows that they might be asked to give their life, or bodily injury for their country in carrying out their mission as determined by the President and/or Congress.
One can be against the war. One can want the troops home. But to say you don't want the troops to carry out their mission because you happen to disagree with the mission, and at the same time say you support the troops does not make sense. If you are not supporting their mission you are not supporting them.
Many more people were honest about it in the Viet Nam war. They openly showed their disdain for the troops by calling them "baby killers", or accusing them of war crimes reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. Today people think they can call for what is tantamount to defeat by withdrawing the U.S. forces in Iraq, and say that is supporting the troops. It is not. The troops in Iraq are trying to defeat the enemy and heroically giving their blood, sweat, and tears to do so while protesters are actively undermining that mission and unwittingly encouraging enemies of the United States by their false allegations, trumped up chages, and anti-American rants because of a misguided notion that they somehow "support the troops but not the war".
AA,
Whether or not offense was meant by your post, it was certainly taken and deeply felt. I pray for the troops to get home healthy and as soon as possible. That is how I support the troops. I send them money because those who allegedly "support" them have not provided for their basic needs. Troops are being electrocuted, AA, as well. Do those people who block investigations support our troops because they support the "mission?" I would submit to you that they don't! I support the troops by hoping that they have a leader with a clear vision. "Victory" in Iraq has never been defined by this administration and John McCain. In fact, both Bush and McCain have previously declared victory. What is left to win?
"However we do not live in a world that allows for that. I don't recall where, but I read or heard that the U.S. has been involved in well over one hundred armed conflicts since it's inception." So? We absolutely live in a world that allows for that!
The purpose of the armed forces is to defend the interests of the United States. Everyone who enlists knows that they might be asked to give their life, or bodily injury for their country in carrying out their mission as determined by the President and/or Congress. So, if their mission increases the number of terrorists and increases the amount of foreign ill-will towards this country, is it in our country's best interest? I think not!
One can be against the war. One can want the troops home. But to say you don't want the troops to carry out their mission because you happen to disagree with the mission, and at the same time say you support the troops does not make sense. If you are not supporting their mission you are not supporting them. BITE YOUR TONGUE! They have accomplished their mission in Iraq, AA. What is the mission left to accomplish? In this same vein, why did you not support the troops in Vietnam?
Many more people were honest about it in the Viet Nam war. They openly showed their disdain for the troops by calling them "baby killers", or accusing them of war crimes reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. Today people think they can call for what is tantamount to defeat by withdrawing the U.S. forces in Iraq, and say that is supporting the troops. HOW CAN ANYONE BE DEFEATED WHEN VICTORY HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED?!?! It is not.
The troops in Iraq are trying to defeat the enemy (we are creating more and more enemies, AA) and heroically giving their blood, sweat, and tears to do so while protesters are actively undermining that mission and unwittingly encouraging enemies of the United States by their false allegations, trumped up chages, and anti-American rants (FALSE ALLEGATIONS?!?!? Like Iraq being involved with 9/11? Like Iraq having WMDs? Like Bin Ladin and Saddam having a relationship?!?! WHAT FALSE ACCUSATIONS have I, or any others against the war made?!?! because of a misguided notion that they somehow "support the troops but not the war". You just called me, and many others, and yourself (see Vietnam), a traitor. I support using our brave men and women who have volunteered to fight in a defensive mode to protect what we believe in and not invade a country that NEVER attacked us.
I am sorry, AA, but I don't think we should ever talk about this war again. You have accused me, and all those who want our troops out of an independent, sovereign nation, of treason. Its a sick statement that you made and I will not put up with it! Our army is being stretched beyond its limits because GWB sought an enemy that wasn't there. He claimed that if we did not invade, we would see a mushroom cloud on our soil. Many of us listened.
I damn well support the troops, AA. I give them money for body armor so they can be safe. I only vote for those who expand their health benefits. I vote for those who will bring them out of someone else's country! I support those who will define their mission. I support those politicians who actually listen to the leaders of the country we are currently occupying and I will NOT be called a traitor for doing so!
Fried,
I have not called you a traitor. I simply disagree with your contention that you can support the troops but not the war.
AA,
What do you call someone who does this to their country:
"The troops in Iraq are trying to defeat the enemy and heroically giving their blood, sweat, and tears to do so while protesters are actively undermining that mission and unwittingly encouraging enemies of the United States by their false allegations, trumped up chages, and anti-American rants because of a misguided notion that they somehow "support the troops but not the war".
You are accusing me of undermining the mission of the troops and encouraging enemies of the United States. What do you call that?
I also thought that those at home, who demonstrated against the war, were supporting me when I was there. If it weren't for those people filling the streets, my children would have been fighting there eventually.
AA remembers those times more from the TV and bad movies than from reality. I won't argue about some people calling guys returning "baby killers". It might have happened. But it was not as prevalent as the right would lead you to believe.
WK,
Thanks for your service! I hope AA is a big enough person to write an apology or say what he really means by his statements.
Fried,
As I said, I meant no offense. We do have a difference of opinion on what it means to support the troops.
I do believe that many well intentioned people who do oppose the war in Iraq have unwittingly helped the enemy. We can see how the N. Vietnamese felt the anti-war movement in the U.S. gave them hope to "stay the course". Looking back, many feel we had demoralized and practically defeated the enemy in the Tet Offensive. But we didn't know it and Uncle Walter said we had lost.
I feel it is much the same here. Instead of Cronkite you have the whole Democratic leadership. We all know the examples where they said we had lost in Iraq. Many here felt the same.
I feel that public display of defeatism has the unintended consequences of giving hope to the enemy that they, like the North Vietnamese, can outlast the U.S. before they are entirely defeated.
I have not called anyone here a traitor. I do believe you and others here feel you are doing what you feel is right. I do believe you feel what you are doing is patriotic. I don't question your motives. I simply believe that the only option we have is to win. The blood, sweat, and tears we, as a country, shed now, are far less than what we will have to shed later if we lose in Iraq.
As I said earlier, I am like you in that I don't want any more soldiers, or Iraqi's for that matter, to be hurt or killed. But the reality is that the enemy will keep doing so unless stopped. Unlike you, I do not believe calling for them to come home now is supporting them and the country they defend.
Sorry, AA, its not that easy. When you said this:
so while protesters are actively undermining that mission and unwittingly encouraging enemies of the United States by their false allegations, trumped up chages, and anti-American rants because of a misguided notion that they somehow "support the troops but not the war".
That, AA, is the very definition of treason.
Me,
I never said you had to support the war.
We are all in agreement to give the troops the equipment they need while they are there.
However using phrases like, "imposible situation", "fiasco", "we can't win the 'war on terror' with troops", "not outing CIA agents", and "his phony hyped up war", are all defeatest positions and actually undermine the mission and therefore do not support the troops tasked with succeeding in that mission.
You are entitled to your opinion, I simply believe that holding that opinion and "supporting the troops" are two different sides of the coin.
The purpose of the armed forces is to defend the interests of the United States
Tell me, what interests are we defending in Iraq?
Possibly the most inept analogy I've ever seen, AA.
You started out ok, by noticing the similarities; In each case, one can support one thing without supporting the other.
A person can obviously want the best for the troops, even while not agreeing with a specific mission they've been given.
It should be just as obvious that a person can be personally opposed to abortion, while not insisting on forcing their dogma on others through legislation.
I think you'd have to be pretty delusional to think that you were supporting what you were trying to with that post.
Do you think AA thinks that Secretary Rice and Iraqi leaders don't support our troops too?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq
Fried,
From the article you linked:
"We're not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation," Rice said, asserting that the draft "builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success."
That has been my position all along. Like you, I am very glad that we and the Iraqi's are now in a position where we can lessen our presence on the front lines of Iraq and start withdrawing troops.
To have brought home soldiers in "cut and run" as the Democratic leadership has constantly advocated earlier would have been disastrous. radical Islam would be looking for it's next victory instead of retreating back to Afghanistan and Iran.
We'll beat them in Afhanistan and will have an alliance with a strategic country in that part of the world.
AA,
The "enemy" in Afghanistan is not the same as the "enemy" in Iraq. Sorry, until we invaded there was no connection and now there is little if any connection.
You still have not told me what "winning" in Iraq is and you have accused me of encouraging the enemies of the United States. I can't deal with that.
I do believe I've stated my position on what winning in Iraq is many times here. The gist of it is, when the Iraqi government forces can take over from the U.S. the task of insuring stability and security in Iraq. I have long considered the U.S. presence in Iraq to actually be two wars. The first one defeated Saddam. The second dealt with Al Qeada and the Sunni/Shia insurgents.
I foresee a long term commitment to keep forces in Iraq unless radicals come to power democratically and ask us to leave.
Sorry you take offense at my opinion regarding the anti-war/support troops.
...but in general, i hate the military.
And exactly how have you deduced that Obama hates the military. Perhaps Obama can't stand George W. Bush and his neocon follies that has cost this country dearly. Oh, wait... if someone doesn't like Bush and his policies that means he hates America and the troops...I get it. ;>)
Science,
If he hates the military so much, why does he continuously vote to improve their benefits? If he hates the military so much, why did he just vote to expand the GI Bill?
Conversely, if his opponent loves the military so much, why did he not show up for 10/14 Iraq votes in early 2007? Why did McCain not even vote on the GI Bill? Why does the DAV say that Obama has a better record of troop support if he hates the troops?
Do you vote for candidates who vote to expand troop benefits, Science?
If he hates the military so much, why did he just vote to expand the GI Bill?
You mean his vote on the GI Bill that would encourage people to leave the military? Exactly.
A new analysis shows the vast majority of US troops serving abroad have donated to candidates running on strong anti-war platforms, with presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama out-raising his Republican opponent by a 6-to-1 margin.
...
The military donations streaming to Obama...breaks a historical trend that saw Republicans lead among the enlisted ranks. According to the report, George W. Bush out-raised Al Gore by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in 2000
link
Short version: The Republicans have gone from 2-to-1 to 1-to-6 in just eight short years.
But please, continue SCIENCE101. I believe you were saying something funny...
Science:
Count
Science:
Count how many Iraq vets are running on the Democratic ticket and count how many are running on the Republican ticket. Once again, you're dead wrong.
here's what McCain said in regards to the most recent GI Bill:
"McCain said Webb's bill would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services."
"In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family," McCain said at a Memorial Day event in Albuquerque.
"They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."
McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. McCain argues his bill would have a smaller impact on retention rates than the legislation that the Senate passed."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/16/why-did-mccain-vote-against-health-care-funding-tr/So in reality, while people are trying to present McCain as being anit-GI, he was actually trying to get what he felt was a better Bill for the troops and our nation as a whole
Remember, just because a Bill has a pretty title doesn't make it a good Bill, whether for GI's OR just ordinary taxpayers.
AA,
Why do you allow McCain nuanced thinking, but not people who are against the war? Earlier in this thread you said you can't support the troops if you don't support the war. By your logic, McCain doesn't support the GI Bill.
Fried,
I think your analogy is off. One can disagree with policies and tactics about how to win in Iraq and be supportive of the troops.
One can disagree with a particular bill and be supportive of Veteran benefits.
In both cases one can support the general ideas but not necessarily these specifics.
The difference in Iraq is that the anti-war contingent do not just disagree about specifics, they advocate a position that leads to defeat rather than tactics that would lead to victory.
I support my wife, but since her boss sent her to pick up his dry cleaning, and I don't think it's right to be sending a registered nurse on personal errands, I don't support my wife?
(The above is purely fictional)
The difference in Iraq is that the anti-war contingent do not just disagree about specifics, they advocate a position that leads to defeat rather than tactics that would lead to victory.
AA, here's McCain on Larry King Live 7/27/08: But again, I would remind you, I said we would have an easy victory. We did.
McCain says we have victory, so WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?
Because if we leave, the majority population Shia will seek revenge against the Sunnis for the years of mistreatment. That same majority population, Shia, will align themselves with Iran, and become bosom buddies (who can forget the axis of evil and Iran).
What the lunatic fringe don't want to acknowledge is there will never be a good time to leave Iraq. The "surge" doesn't matter. McCain and the lunatic fringe have stepped in sh*t all the up to their ears with this war and they have no idea how to end it without losing more ground to Iran.
So they're OK with letting Americans die in Iraq, while Al Qaeda ( you know, the folks that actually perpetrated 9/11) regains control of Afghanistan and maybe takes control of Pakistan. They're just hope nobody notices exactly how badly they've screwed up. But when the anti-war folks remind them of their failures, they trash talk. They question the anti-war folks patriotism and love of country.
The lunatic fringe are cowards, they don't have the balls to admit this war was a mistake!
If you truly wanted to support the troops you would have backed the Webb bill. While it 'might' have impacted re-enlistments, it would CLEARLY have been a better deal for the individual members.
If you disagree with this, read the bills and get back to us.
So in reality, while people are trying to present McCain as being anit-GI, he was actually trying to get what he felt was a better Bill for the troops and our nation as a whole (AA Fife)
I hope you don't think you've proved anything by citing Grampy's press release as objective reality. Did his recent plagiarizing of the cross in the sand story create some sort of "liar's bond" with you?
Jesus-hating liars, both of you.
As a former troop I can tell you that support for the military MUST go beyond rubber-stamping whatever ideas come out of D.C.
The use of the military is NOT the proper means of resolving every foreign-policy issue. Disagreeing with the use of the military in pursuit of a particular policy does NOT mean that one doesn't support the troops.
Soldiers don't make policy, they follow orders. It is up to us, the civilians, to make sure that our government doesn't misuse our military forces.
As for the argument that 'if we come home, all those men will have died in vain', how about applying some logic here? Following that argument were some President commit troops to an absolute folly - we would continue to pour troops into the conflict to prevent the 'men dying in vain.' In such a case, continuing the fight and putting more troops at risk is clearly not supporting the troops.
Albertsenj,
2 things:
1) Thank you for your service to this country. 2) Would you please continue to post on this forum? We need more with your perspective.
Science-
Do you support U.S. military intervention in Darfur?
No?
Why do you hate the military?
He doesn't hate the military, he just hates Africans.
But not Afrikaners.
Kyle,
Do you support military intervention in Darfur?
I personally do. It is complicated and I know reasons not to do so, but I cannot help but wonder if the U.S. does not stop genocide around the world, who will?
Wait..."I voted for the war before I voted against the war", history repeats itself!
ews: 457
As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that "McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops." But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain's ad.
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.
Source: factcheck.org - The Truth on Troop Support?
I think you'd have to be pretty delusional to think that you were supporting what you were trying to with that post.
I actually gave AA the benefit of the doubt and triple-checked his post to make sure I wasn't rushing to the same conclusion, but once again, the Col is right. Obviously you can support the troops but not a specific mission they're on. The concept isn't that hard to grasp...