LA Times reported Vets for Freedom ad attacking Obama over troop funding vote, but ignored Obama's response and McCain's own record
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times quoted a new Vets for Freedom ad that claims, "Barack Obama skipped 45% of Senate votes but did manage to show up to vote against emergency funding for our troops," but the Times failed to note that Sen. John McCain has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- a point Obama made during the first presidential debate when McCain accused him of voting against troop funding.
In an October 1 Los Angeles Times article, staff writer Dan Morain uncritically quoted a new Vets for Freedom ad that claims, "[Sen.] Barack Obama skipped 45% of Senate votes but did manage to show up to vote against emergency funding for our troops." But, while noting that in the September 26 debate with Sen. John McCain, "Obama said that on the issue of Afghanistan, he had deferred to the Foreign Relations Committee chaired by his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, to hold hearings," the Times did not point out that Obama also responded to McCain's accusation -- echoed in the Vets for Freedom ad -- that Obama had voted against troop funding. During the debate, Obama noted that McCain has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Times noted neither that Obama responded nor that McCain himself voted against war funding legislation.
During the September 26 debate, after McCain accused Obama of "vot[ing] to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," Obama stated: "John always brings this up. ... Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn't believe in a timetable. I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open-ended, giving a blank check to [President] George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable."
Media Matters for America documented that in a September 28 article, the Times similarly reported that "on Saturday, McCain launched a TV ad that accuses Obama of voting to 'cut off funding for our troops,' a charge that Obama vehemently denies," but did not note that Obama pointed out McCain's vote against the troop funding bill that included a timetable for withdrawal.
From Morain's October 1 Los Angeles Times article, headlined "PAC funds anti-Obama TV ad in California":
The ad opens with the image of a smiling Obama, leaning back in an office chair. A voice says: "Barack Obama skipped 45% of Senate votes but did manage to show up to vote against emergency funding for our troops. . . . Obama was chairman of the committee overseeing the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but never held a single hearing. . . . Obama found time to make 45 trips to Iowa but only two trips to Iraq."
McCain is never mentioned.
The ad concludes by suggesting that voters urge Obama to support a Senate resolution backed by two of McCain's closest allies, independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The resolution commends the United States for undertaking the troop buildup in Iraq and says the gains from the move have been significant. Lawmakers who favor a more rapid withdrawal from Iraq oppose the resolution.
"I can't think of anything that would be a worse defeat for the United States than to pull out before we have achieved our goals," Wilson said in explaining why he was promoting the Vets for Freedom effort.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt called the ad "a despicable distortion" of the candidate's record, adding that Obama "has been a forceful advocate for our service members, passing legislation that ensured our wounded warriors receive the care and treatment they deserve."
In last week's debate with McCain, Obama said that on the issue of Afghanistan, he had deferred to the Foreign Relations Committee chaired by his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, to hold hearings.
Is T Boone Pickens paying for these ads ?
Why is MM so dishonest?
MM: "the Times failed to note that Sen. John McCain has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Those bills had a withdrawal timeline attached to them. That is something McCain has been completely against, and that is why McCain voted against them.
If "conservative misinformation" is really the problem that MM claims that it is, why do they have to be so dishonest?
Not cool, MM. Not ... cool ... at ... all.
Regardless of what was in those bills or why he voted the way he did, McCain DID vote against them, Shoes - that's a fact. So the only one being dishonest here is you.
As usual....
And Obama voted against the bill before him because it DIDN'T have a timeline. Same kind of reasoning. So its mis-information to not note that McCain did EXACTLY the same thing, but for the revese reason.
Why is SHOES99 so dishonest?
The bills that Obama voted against had no withdrawal timeline attached to them. A timetable is something Obama has always been for, and that is why Obama voted against them.
Not cool, SHOES99. Not ... cool ... at ... all.
You need to inform yourself about what your candidate is actually saying!
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gF1ulxhgHBB7Fr0LKa4pA0zVeXCQD93I3VGO0
D'oh!
Do you understand what intellectual dishonesty is? Look it up.
"I can't think of anything that would be a worse defeat for the United States than to pull out before we have achieved our goals,"
And those goals are...?
Victory ...by winning, the surge is working...........we are mavericks...and so on goes the bullsit !
OT, but I can't help myself today. This is what republicans want in a leader...
Just what we need. another president with no exit strategy.
and this is the first line on the Vets for freedom home page
Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
bunch of liars right off the bat. While in the service of this country they are under command of the Commander -in-chief. They have served the political needs of George W Bush and noone else.
"I can't think of anything that would be a worse defeat for the United States than to pull out before we have achieved our goals"
But wasn't the mission already accomplished????
With apologies to Chey Chase, "a frustrated Iraq refused to comment".
I meant Chevy Chase, of course.
When reached for his reaction to the story, Generallissimo Francisco Franco was too dead to comment.
It is incredible to me that for the last 7 years so many people have failed to 'get' that both major parties have been taken over by interests that are, in effect, a PR team for the same people now demanding the bail out.
Even the TITLE of the Fund book is a joke. It was planned to inject him into the dialogue so he could plant disinformation for the same people who made sure he has a job, the neocon branch of the PR team. He was writing it in 1999; he did not finish for 2004, which got him demerits.
And you have Alteredman as a colunmist. I guess that is enough of a commentary, actually. If you can't think you deserve what you get.
Here is what Tonto told Zorro when attacked by indians in a ravine
We are in trouble, Tonto !
to which Tonto said " We ? What do you mean we, Kemo-Sabe ? "
the ruling party in this country is in trouble and suddenly they, along with their support group, are screaming we are all at fault, ignoring they had a solid control of the Unites States government for 7 years.
Tonto and Zorro? Really?
If you're going to tell a joke to illustrate a point...it would be REAL helpful to get it right!
Tonto and the Lone Ranger were surrounded by hostile Indians. The Lone Ranger said "Looks like we're in trouble, Tonto" and Tonto replied "What'cha mean WE, paleface?"
I stand corrected. It is possible the version i heard was a little different than the original. In my youth I frequented bars and heard many stories. Yeah, i am wrong, Zorro was Diego Garcia, a wealthy spaniard and modern version of Robin hood. got my heroes mixed up.
themelinda wrote:
>>It is incredible to me that for the last 7 years so many people have failed to 'get' that both major parties have been taken over by interests that are, in effect, a PR team for the same people now demanding the bail out.
The topic here is the inaccurate ad by McCain. How did you manage to work in the fiscal crisis? Did you do so just to repeat the line "both parties are to blame?" I recall President Bush and the Republicans pushing for the stupid and disatrous war in Iraq, not the Dems.
I noticed that they no longer have the word "Truth" in their organization's name. Probably because they're nothing but a pack of scumbag liars.
Somewhat connected, but did you read the rolling stones article about McCain? Man, it's pretty heavy hitting. I liked this line in particular:
In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.
I would like to see George W Bush's log book.
It's been classified top secret for reasons of national security. If we question his competence, the terrorists win.
I would like to see George W Bush's log book.
I want to see his attendance records and the results of his drug tests.
I think they took that out when they were absorbed into the U.S. Ministry of Truth! (aka The Bush Administration)
I think they took that out when they were absorbed into the U.S. Ministry of Truth! (aka The Bush Administration)
I figured it was taken out because of that organization's overall lack of "truthiness".