UPDATED: CBSNews.com, MSNBC.com, FactCheck.org falsely claim McCain never voted against troop funding bill
SUMMARY: In reports on the vice presidential debate, CBSNews.com, MSNBC.com, and FactCheck.org all falsely claimed that Sen. Joe Biden's statement that Sen. John McCain "voted against funding the troops" in a 2007 appropriations bill was wrong. In fact, while McCain did not vote on a later version of the appropriations bill, he voted against the measure on March 29, 2007, and said at the time that he was opposing it, in part, because it "would establish a timeline" for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Following the October 2 vice presidential debate, several media outlets have falsely claimed that Sen. Joe Biden was wrong when he said during the debate that Sen. John McCain "voted against funding the troops" in a 2007 appropriations bill. Biden said: "John McCain voted against funding the troops because an amendment he voted for -- voted against had a timeline in it to drawdown American troops. And John said, 'I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there is a timeline.' " In an October 2 article, CBSNews.com wrote of Biden's comments: "This is wrong. The 2007 troop appropriation amendment first had a withdrawal timetable. McCain urged the President to veto that amendment -- and Bush did, and most Republicans voted against the amendment -- but McCain missed the actual vote." Similarly, in an October 2 post on MSNBC.com's First Read, NBC News' Carrie Dann and Mark Murray reported: "McCain OPPOSED -- but did not vote on -- a Senate measure with troop funding because it contained a timetable for withdrawal. Biden said McCain 'voted' against it" [emphasis in original]. And in an October 3 article, FactCheck.org also claimed: "Biden is simply wrong to say that McCain voted against that bill; he was absent and didn't vote at all. McCain did oppose the bill, and he urged President Bush to veto it." In fact, Biden's statement was correct: While McCain did not vote on a later version of the appropriations bill, he voted against the measure on March 29, 2007, and said at the time that he was opposing it, in part, because it "would establish a timeline" for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
As Media Matters for America has documented, on March 29, 2007, McCain voted against H.R. 1591, an emergency spending bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate passed H.R. 1591 by a margin of 51-47. Once the bill's conference report was agreed to by the House, the Senate again passed the measure on April 26, 2007, by a vote of 51-46, but McCain did not vote on that version of the bill. By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama and Biden voted for the bill on both occasions. President Bush vetoed the bill, citing its provision for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
In a March 29, 2007, statement about the appropriations bill, McCain said:
Additionally, this bill would establish a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such a mandate would have grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East and the security of Americans at home and abroad. For these reasons, I do not support this bill.
I honestly think Biden was better off leaving the timeline bit out during that debate. IMO I think Johnnie Mac made a good call there, as I think a timeline is a disaster. We need to meet conditions, not a timeline.
And how many times did America's Hockey Mom use sports parents as a reference during her speech? I think it tied how many times she used the POW references duing last night's debate.
I'm still not decided on either ticket, though. Heck, I may make my vote based on a whim at the last second.
So you have no problem with this administration or a McCain/Palin administration having an open ended war and a blank check to pay for it, right?
How would you feel, if God forbid, the two wars we're involved in heat up to a point that we don't have the troops to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else they may be needed?
McCain and Palin have rattled their sabers at Iran, Syria, Russia, Cuba and North Korea. What if we were drawn into a war in one of those countries?
That would mean the only way the McCain/Palin policy would work would be with a draft. As someone who's still relatively young, I'd be concerned if I were you.
IRT draft: I think I've heard Michael Savage push for that.
(But I think one thing that would work to drive up more troops would be to have some prime time TV series on ABC, complete with gorgeous female SSGs and a few steamy scenes. You'd have lines of people outside the recruiting offices just itching to join the military. Not necessarily accurate, but effective.
)
IRT rest of topic: We've been pushed into this conflict, now we just need to end it in a manner that doesn't end in disaster. I agree that we shouldn't get in too many additional conflicts ATM (the last thing a country needs is a multifront war [history has taught us that]), but we do need to end this conflict under the ideal condition of victory.
"The ideal condition of victory." Care to define this? The administration itself has never come up with a comprehensive definition of "victory." "Ideal" suggests something along the lines of a working democracy that can protect itself from both external enemies and internal factions trying to undermine it, using its own resources both human and financial. Iraq is so far from that at the moment that it would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Dawuss wrote:
>>We've been pushed into this conflict,
Who pushed us in?
>> We've been pushed into this conflict
We were? Because as I remember it, we certainly were not. Hans Blix was the head of the UN weapons inspection team. His team was being allowed total access to Iraq, including the Presidential Palaces. Failure-in-Chief Bush was being blustery as usual and was carping on about how Saddam Hussein needed to declare his weapons and if he didn't he was not in compliance and we would invade. Saddam Hussein kept saying he didn't have any WMD. Hans Blix was saying they weren't finding any WMDs. None of this mattered to FiC Bush, he told the inspectors, you have three days to get out of the country, we're coming in.
That doesn't sound like "we've been pushed into this conflict" to me. And by the way, Saddam Hussein was right, he didn't have any WMDs, FiC Bush was wrong.
Yes, that history is exactly right. Don't forge El Baredi, the UN atomic weapons inspector. He celarly said that Iraq had no atomic program. He was in a position to know. But the UN was mocked, and still is mocked, thogh it was completely right, and Bush was absolutely wrong.
You're right ... I forgot about the UN Atomic Weapons Inspectors.
What really irks me is when I see FiC Bush get on one of his soapboxs and talks about how we went in because Saddam Hussein wouldn't give us access, and the press lets him get away with it. It's a complete fabrication and re-write of history.
"I'm still not decided on either ticket, though. Heck, I may make my vote based on a whim at the last second."
Why would you even bother replying to someone who would make such an assinine statement? Obviously it was meant to bait someone into replying, as is his Michael Savage comment. Best to ignore the willfully ignorant.
Our brightests minds to come out of colleges and universities all met the timelines handed out by their respective professors. Only under the boy genius GW Bush has timelines become an issue, and a politically motivated naive one, at that. And lapdog McCain, the former fighter pilot and pow, goes right along with it for it is so easy to stay the course, you have to do nothing different.
Why not a timeline? If you hired a contractor to build your deck and he was still at it in 5 years wouldn't you complain?
OT, but anyone else see this? The GOP claims that if you are registering to vote you could be subject to identity theft! Man, are they desperate or what?
The media has been letting the right get away with this all along. George Bush VETOED a funding bill and the media didn't say BOO.
CBSNews.com: but McCain missed the actual vote
So, they are factually wrong (McCain did not miss the vote) and they are providing bizarre cover for McCain (Skipping votes to fund the Troops as a viable excuse). My oh my.
New web site now needed. Fact checking fact check's facts .org
I know. I was surprised that "factcheck.org" got this one wrong. It kinda makes ya wonder.
peebs wrote:
>>I know. I was surprised that "factcheck.org" got this one wrong. It kinda makes ya wonder.
I hope factcheck corrects themselves. There was another fact check organization called spinsanity (I believe), and in an effor to be balanced, decided to attack fair.org, a leftist fact check site. Spinsanity got it wrong, I mean, really wrong. In the exchange of emails, it became clear that fair.org got the facts right, but spinsanity dug in their heels, actued obtuse, and simply wouldn't concede the obvious. So called neutral sites can have their own biases.
Like I say, I hope this isn't the case with factcheck.
Just got the e-mail, FactCheck has corrected their mistake:
Dear Subscriber:
We have retracted a portion of our article, "FactChecking Biden-Palin Debate," and have posted the following correction:
Correction Oct 3: This article originally faulted Biden for saying that McCain had voted "the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. We said that McCain was absent for the vote and so didn't vote at all. Biden was however correct.
McCain did vote against the troop-funding bill in question, H.R. 1591, on March 29, 2007, when it originally cleared the Senate. The vote to which we referred, and which McCain missed, was a later vote on the House-Senate compromise version of the same bill, on April 26, 2007. McCain opposed the bill, which Obama supported, because it contained language calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Biden was responding to Palin's accusation that "Obama voted against funding troops." Obama voted for the bill March 29 and April 26, then on May 24, 2007, following a veto by President Bush, Obama voted against a similar troop-funding bill, H.R. 2206, that lacked any withdrawal language.
Please accept our apology for our error.
-Brooks Jackson
The entire premise of "voting to cut funding of troops in harm's way" is false. Our system is constructed of checks and balances. The check on the Presidential authority to committ our troops and to wage wars in our country's name is the power of the Congress over the funding of those wars. The defunding of a war action by Congressional budgetary procedures is in effect a de-authorization of the war. The troops will only remain in "harm's way" without proper resources if the President chooses to leave them there.
quote The troops will only remain in "harm's way" without proper resources if the President chooses to leave them there.
absolutely true and good point. No exit strategy always results in disaster as well as not having any practical experience starting a war. FOX and other outlets do not want to accept the subtle , but significant, differences between funding a war and funding troops. Any country that has an army is always funding troops, and not necessarily be at war. However how well you are funding your army may well determine if another country decides rto pick a fight. I think that is why Bin laden and his army of believers picked the early part of GW Bush's administration to mount an attack inside the border of the united states. Bush had been going around the country saying the us armed forces have been diminished by the fiscal restraint policies of the Clinton Administration and he would restore the prestige of these forces when he becomes president. And bin laden observed Rumsfeld going around the country closing military bases ostensibly to same money. Bin Laden perceived this as a weak moment in military history and decided to mount the cowardly attack.
The legislative record shows that McLame was not present for this vote. Also I saw the debate when MaoBambi said I would meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran. He did not say he would send low level cabinet members he said HE would.
Also Our Dear Leader said we should all do some form of community service and when he becomes dictator and makes the government the central bank, all student loans will come from the government. Will your children have to serve in the military as one way of paying the loan back? Biden also mentioned we would send troops to Darfur which we should have done long ago, but we will need more soldiers. How many of you followers of the Dear Leader will be volunteering to serve your country? Please don't say we will use all the soldiers in Iraq, because the Dear Leader already said they will be redeployed to Afganistan.
One other point, I was a little taken aback by Biden saying they would change the bankruptcy laws so the judge can Lower the principle on your mortgage. How can the government change a contract between two willing participants? What if you owe 400000 and you can only pay on 100000? Won't that effect ALL the homes in the neighborhood? What if after ten years your home is now really worth 400000 who gets the money you defauted on and passed on to the taxpayer?
By the way Biden voted along with the credit card companies to make it harder for the little people to go bankrupt. Ever notice how every credit card company is located in Bidens home state, hmm just wondering why.
Another home run, Sarah ! I mean fishergirl!
fishergirlusmc wrote:
>>The legislative record shows that McLame was not present for this vote.
Did you bother reading the MMFA piece? Which vote do you mean by "this?"
The rest of your post is mainlly made up of talking points and snark. When he becomes dictator? What in God's name are you talking about?
I don't see why a judge couldn't lower the principal on a mortage. If you declare bankruptcy right now, the judge will erase all of your debt (under chapter 13). Under chapter 7, the judge can reduce your debt, and you can keep some of your assets.
>>By the way Biden voted along with the credit card companies to make it harder for the little people to go bankrupt.
I have to say I agree on this one. It's a terrible law.
I'd say it was a good point, if corporations hadn't been moving to Delaware to incorporate since before Biden was born. It shows that at best you're misinformed and at worst you're just pushing talking points with little regard for the truth.
Don't assume that only right wing nuts have served or will serve their country. It's too bad that your side is great at ridiculing things like service and hope yet you're never been too good at that governing thing.
"How can the government change a contract between two willing participants?" - fishergirlusmc
This is beyond naive. The notion of the government changing contracts is the basis for antitrust laws, child labor laws, and the bankruptcy code, among a whole host of other things. For a start, you can try looking up the Lochner era of constitutional jurisprudence. There was a time when the Supreme Court agreed that the government could not interfere with a contractual right. That era is almost universally regarded as disastrous.
Item: Media Matters mischaracterizes Iraq War appropriations bill as "troop funding bill"
The Congress has the power to defund a war. If Congress defunds the war, the war is over, and the President must act accordingly - he must bring the troops home as quickly and safely as possible.
If Congress defunds a war and the President leaves the troops "over there" as they run out of bullets and MREs, he would certainly be guilty of moral crimes and likely legal ones as well.
Can we stop this charade yet?
So Jeff let me get this straight. we both own homes on the same block and paid 400000, i'm paying my mortgage, your not. You go to court and the judge says ok Jeff I'm reducing your principle to 100000. In ten years can Jeff sell his home and keep all that money if he sells his home? I've never been in financial trouble[thank God] I was taught personal responsibility but I have never heard of anything like this.It does not seem fair to the citizens of this country. Also to the worryking I am for neither party or candidates, they all make me SICK. I have served for a very long time and in The Marines the only thing you see is Green or light green. I am for the citizens of this country, I will serve whomever the commander in chief will be, like it or not.
I do see Obambi using the government, IRS and law enforcement to quell free speech and ACORN like tactics to quell free speech, Is this an example of his transparant government he will be running? It amazes me that there is never ONE post critizing your Dear Leader, one could assume he has been perfected and can do no wrong.
Right, because if anyone's in financial trouble, it's because they weren't "taught personal responsibility" like you were. Smug much?
I do see Obambi using the government, IRS and law enforcement to quell free speech and ACORN like tactics to quell free speech...
Are you using a crystal ball, or just the narcotics on their own? Seriously, Fishgirl, you sound a little disturbed. Go take a walk outside.
Fishergirl wrote:
>>So Jeff let me get this straight. we both own homes on the same block and paid 400000, i'm paying my mortgage, your not. You go to court and the judge says ok Jeff I'm reducing your principle to 100000. In ten years can Jeff sell his home and keep all that money if he sells his home?
That could be the case. Keep in mind that you have to meet certain standards to meet bankruptcy. You just can't declare it to get out of paying debt. As it stands now, if you declare chapter 13 bankruptcy, you would lose your house to the creditors. You might be able to keep it under chapter 7--it just depends.
Regarding the rest of your post about "Obambi," it is really, really stupid, and makes you look ignorant and petty. You are repeating rumors but not even getting the rumors right. Obviously you don't like Obama for some irrational reason, and you are repeating garbage to justify your hate.
I'd like to point out that I was responding to a wrong-headed statement about government power which has never been true except for a brief period of time in the early 20th century.
In terms of your example, I don't think your example is at all contemplated by any proposal. Bankruptcy Courts take a lot into account, and virtually all debts are subject to changes in the amount of principal owed. And funnymanpants, below where I'm typing now but possibly above where this will eventually be posted, is correct that it is not easy to establish that a person is entitled to relief under the bankruptcy code, nor is it always clear which chapter will be applicable to provide relief.
Ultimately, Biden was speaking in the abstract - the principal for debts on real property should be subject to adjustment by a Bankruptcy Court, like the principal for debts on personal property already is. It does not necessarily follow that a person who severely overextended on a very expensive ($400,000) home automatically gets his debt cut by 75%. Futhermore, a Bankruptcy Judge could direct that a mortgagee is entitled to a share of the bankrupt's profits in the event the homeowner experiences the windfall that your scenario envisions.
But really, you're just being silly - a judge isn't going to have sympathy for someone who has put himself in that position, so your scenario is simply not going to happen under any conceivable version of the Bankruptcy Code. And your evident belief that any bankruptcy is the result of moral failing just doesn't square with reality.
McCain voted against the bill that included a 'timeline for defeat'. When it was removed, he voted yea, so that the troops were fully supported, financially and otherwise.
PC wrote:
>>McCain voted against the bill that included a 'timeline for defeat'.
Translation: McCain voted against funding our toops. Just as MMFA said.
Well, if they hadn't added that line to the bill demanding a guarantee of defeat by a certain date, maybe he would have voted for it !
Come on, PlowedCon, you can do better than that.
Timeline for defeat. Thats funny. You have good comedy writers.
I never said everyone who goes bankrupt was irresonsible. Many people do it for illness or a death in the family and for some they are sent to serve their country and the bank does not work with them. But you must admit ,many people live beyond their means and spend what they don't have [like our government]They borrow money at crazy interest rates and when things go bad they can go bankrupt. My cousin owns an auto dealership and in the 90"s you could have your bankruptcy discharged today and go into his store tomorrow and drive out with a brand new car with a 600 per month payment. They were repossing cars like crazy and several large lenders[chase auto, ge capital, bombardier capital, cps] lost their shirts.
As far as the free speech, do you really deny this about Obambi? read Rich Lowery's column . Don't you remember a few weeks back he asked the Federal government to look ionto some rich billionare who was running an ad against Maobama? How about his call to arms to stop Howard Kurtz from giving an interview. And what about his truth squads. And brother, hate is a very strong word. I even love and protect YOU.
fishergirlusmc wrote:
>>As far as the free speech, do you really deny this about Obambi? read Rich Lowery's column . Don't you remember a few weeks back he asked the Federal government to look ionto some rich billionare who was running an ad against Maobama? How about his call to arms to stop Howard Kurtz from giving an interview. And what about his truth squads. And brother, hate is a very strong word. I even love and protect YOU.
I'm sorry, fisher girl, but you are full of hate and don't even realize it. Rich Lowrly is a right wing columnist. He is not a source of truth. I don't even know what you are talking about. You obviously don't like Obama (you can't even call him by his real name?) and you are looking for any garbage to support your hate. You don't have any rational basis for your claims.
And please spare me the crap about loving and protecting me. You don't even know me.
Colonial,
I'm so very sorry you were so affected by the agent orange you obviously ingested. Just google obama and free speech and you will see what I mean. may God Bless you
fishergirl wrote:
>>I'm so very sorry you were so affected by the agent orange you obviously ingested. Just google obama and free speech and you will see what I mean. may God Bless you
Yes, what a little spiteful person you are. You come on these boards spouting your inchoherent crap. You think you are making a point by repeating rumors you have heard, and then, not even getting the rumors right. What ugly behaviour.
Do you act this way in company with your family? Do you rant like a drunk person against those who don't agree with you?
Fishergirl, try googling McCain and free speech. It seems like he scares some of your fellow wingnuts even more than Obama.
Obama would and will not abridge anyones free speech. Are you some kind of wind up toy?
"FactCheck.org has since issued a correction stating that 'Biden was
... correct. McCain did vote against the troop-funding bill in
question, H.R. 1591, on March 29, 2007, when it originally cleared the
Senate.'"
This is excellent news! That gives me further faith in factcheck.org. Good job, factcheck.
Hey, knee-jerk conservatives, does it bother you that McCain did the same exact thing as Obama, but is using it against Obama? Is there anything the shameless McCain won't say to get elected?
The exchange regading funding for the troops was one of the few debate-like moments in the debate. My understanding of Obama's point was this: McCain voted against a funding bill that included a timeline, while Obama voted against a funding bill that he saw as a blank check. He invited McCain to debate the issue on which they actually disagreed, rather than to twist facts into meaningless accusations. McCain was perfectly willing and able to do that, and it is a discredit to his reputation as a 'straight talker' that he made the accusation to begin with.