Daily News' Goodwin, CNN's Dobbs, NBC's Mitchell latest to mislead on Biden's claim that McCain "voted against funding the troops"
SUMMARY: On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Michael Goodwin and Lou Dobbs falsely claimed that Sen. Joe Biden was wrong when he said during the vice-presidential debate that Sen. John McCain "voted against funding the troops" in a 2007 bill making supplemental appropriations for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, McCain voted against a supplemental appropriations bill on March 29, 2007, saying at the time that he was opposing it, in part, because it "would establish a timeline" for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
During the October 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin and host Lou Dobbs falsely claimed that Sen. Joe Biden was wrong when he said during the October 2 vice-presidential debate that Sen. John McCain "voted against funding the troops" in a 2007 bill making supplemental appropriations for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Goodwin claimed that "McCain never voted to defund the Army" and cited as evidence McCain's May 2007 vote on a version of the appropriations bill that did not have a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Dobbs later falsely claimed of Biden's statement: "The point is, he lied. There was no attempt at interpreting that statement. He basically, fundamentally, straightforwardly lied." In fact, Biden's statement was correct: McCain voted against a previous version of the measure on March 29, 2007, saying at the time that he was opposing it, in part, because it "would establish a timeline" for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Additionally, on the October 3 edition of NBC's Nightly News, chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed "Biden incorrectly said McCain voted the same way Obama did on funding the troops in Iraq. McCain didn't vote." But Mitchell did not note that McCain did, in fact, vote against a troop-funding bill.
Biden said during the debate:
Number two, with regard to Barack Obama not quote funding the troops, John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line. Barack Obama and I agree fully and completely on one thing. You've got to have a timeline to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis.
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, and the two houses formed a conference to reconcile the difference between the bills. Once the House agreed to the version revised by the conference, the Senate also passed that version on April 26, 2007, by a vote of 51-46, but McCain did not vote on that version of the bill. Sen. Barack Obama 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.
After Bush vetoed the bill, another version of the appropriations bill -- H.R. 2206 -- passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14. Obama voted against the measure, while McCain voted for it. Unlike the March 2007 version McCain voted against and the April 2007 conference report McCain did not vote on, the May 2007 version did not have a withdrawal timetable and was signed by President Bush.
As Media Matters documented, CBSNews.com, MSNBC.com, and FactCheck.org all falsely claimed that Biden's statement that McCain "voted against funding the troops" in a 2007 appropriations bill was wrong. In an October 3 update to its article, FactCheck.org removed its section on Biden and troop funding and issued a correction, noting 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."
From the October 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: We're back with our panel -- Ed Rollins, Michael Goodwin, Robert Zimmerman. Let me just turn to just a few of the little lies. Biden twice claimed that McCain voted, voted, with Barack Obama, whether the issue was the budget bill or whether it was the troop funding. It was just absolutely --
GOODWIN: Lou, let me take that one if I could, on Iraq.
DOBBS: Sure.
GOODWIN: Because I thought that was outrageous what Biden said. He clearly distorted -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were one of two -- 14 senators in May of '07 who voted to defund both wars because -- they wouldn't agree to it, because Bush wouldn't agree to a timetable. Only 14 senators voted for that bill. The two trying to court the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. John McCain never voted to defund the Army.
ZIMMERMAN: There was much more to it, Michael, than that. It was about holding the administration accountable for performance and also holding the Iraqi -- and it was about holding the Iraqi government accountable.
DOBBS: The point is, he lied. There was no attempt at interpreting that statement. He basically, fundamentally, straightforwardly lied. But he was in good company because Governor [Sarah] Palin was doing the same thing. She said that Obama voted in favor of higher taxes on families making as little as 42,000 a year. In point of fact, it was on singles making that amount. It would have been 90,000 the other way. Palin said millions of small businesses will see tax increases under Obama's tax proposals. At most, as FactCheck.org says, it would only have been several hundred thousand.
So why aren't we seeing the national media hold these candidates, whether it's Obama and McCain or Palin and Biden -- we talk about how cute they were, how well they did this, how -- you know, it's all nonsense if they're lying. And we're getting it from all four candidates.
ZIMMERMAN: Look, the reality is --
DOBBS: I'm looking.
ZIMMERMAN: OK, in this debate --
DOBBS: That was a very Obama-like thing you just did -- "look."
ZIMMERMAN: Because the point is there were -- I would not call them lies. I think they were misstatements of the record.
DOBBS: OK, fair enough.
ZIMMERMAN: I mean -- but the point is this. More importantly --
DOBBS: I surrender "lie."
From the October 3 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
MITCHELL: There were other issues, like Palin's claim that troop strength in Iraq is down to pre-surge levels. It is not. And Biden incorrectly said McCain voted the same way Obama did on funding the troops in Iraq. McCain didn't vote.
But there were no fatal errors, shifting the attention back to the presidential candidates, and they will debate next Tuesday. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
Lou Dobbs said "The point is, he lied. There was no attempt at interpreting that statement. He basically, fundamentally, straightforwardly lied." MMFA has already made the case for the essential truthfullness of Biden's statement, but let me take on Dobb's claim that Biden didn't "interpret that statement."
That is unfair and wrong. Had Biden made the statement out of the blue, with no context, Dobbs would be correct. If, without any precedent, Biden had attacked McCain as a politician who did not fund the troops, then Dobbs would have a justified criticism of Biden. After all, McCain didn't vote to not fund the troops--he voted against a time table! He knew one way or another the troops would get their equipment and money.
But in context, Biden in fact is not attacking McCain for not funding the troops. He is using the same exact logic as the McCain campaign, which started the nonsensical attack to begin with, and kept it up even when it was shown to be dishonest. Barack voted for a time table. He didn't vote against funding the troops, and like McCain, knew the troops would get the money one way or another.
Biden had simply used the same logic as McCain in order to fend off a ridiculous and unfair attack--a lie by McCain, in fact. If Obama voted against funding the troops, then so did McCain. You can't use one yardstick for one candidate, and another yardstick for a different candidate.
The Republicans have a lot of help form the likes of Dobbs, Mitchell, and others. It is not necessary to admit to the lie (like when Hell freezes over) and/or apologize. Fully confident in the gullibility of the public, they need to just repeat the lie over and over and over again until it becomes the "truth" in the teeny-tiny minds of that public. Barack is muslim. Barack is "different". Barack is elite. Barack didn't fund the troops, etc., etc., etc. It is unnecessary to have many of these lies, only a dozen or so to enhance the doubt already planted months ago. Since the main stream media is no longer involved with reporting the truth or even the news, the McCain campaign has a free and reliable cadre of operatives who are perfectly willing to sell the country down the river. Think back to McCain's "suspension of the campaign". Every news organization repeated this falsehood every 5 minutes, completely ignoring that they, themselves, were airing campaign ads without let-up. It is simple enough to demonize any personality within the MSM who dares present any positive view of Obama, the methodical distribution of lies can continue without interference. The GOP has a well-oiled machine.
today ----http://www.welcomescreen.aol.com/redir.adp?_e_t=ap&_a_v=2.0&_a_i=200100397x1211094260x1200667279&_url=http%3a%2f%2fnews%2eaol%2ecom%2farticle%2fpalin%2dsays%2dobama%2dpalling%2daround%2dwith%2f200425%3ficid%3d200100397x1211094260x1200667279
much like Eva Peron of so long ago, so far away ???
The reason the media types want McCain to win is that they do not want to see an end to the gravy train they are on for spewing right wing rhetoric. It isn't a direct pay off as in a bribe, but access, prestige, and status are strong enough motivators for the careerists to betray their profession and the American people. If any of them had a conscience they would be ashamed of themselves, but as it stands they are proud of their ability to play the game well, so that they "win," whatever winning means in that context. It is a strange world we live in when victories won through cheating is acceptable rather than hollow.
Dobbs is a joke. He is a Republican, in a self-proclaimed independent clothing.
I used to have a lot of respect for Lou Dobbs, but something has happened to his credibility in the last year,or so. I've never seen anyone so obsessed in demonizing the democrats to the extent that Dobbs does,and like this,some of it is intentional lies. At the time he said that I told my wife Dobbs just lied,and she,believing Dobbs can do no wrong defened Dobbs,saying,he didn't,because I heard it on other news cast. I imediately looked up the US Senate,and imagine this,there was John McCains name on March 29,2007 with a big ole NAY for funding the troops. Dobbs built his reputation on honesty, and disdain for the Bush administration,but if he keeps showboating these lies,which has increased tramendously over the last year,or so,like this ,and many other issues,you may see his ratings drop. Another thing thats irritating is that when one of his main anylist,mainly Robert Zimmerman, attempts to correct one of these lies Lou cuts him off,so it's got to be intentional
Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Dobbs?
It's time that we stopped listening to and voting for angry, old white men.
They've involved us in two wars so far and are pressing for a third. They've deregulated the economy to the point of bankrupcy. And a lot of them have gotten rich from our suffering.
And all they have to offer is more anger, more distortions and more unfounded charges against anyone who disagrees.
I'm an angry old white man myself and I apologize for all of the damage done to our nation by the other angry, old, white men
Hi WK, obviously not all angry old white men are created equal. You are a righteous guy. Thank you for being angry for the right reasons. :-)
I second that. WK is a guy with his head screwed on straight, unlike the stupid old white guys that send others off to die for their web of vain glory and greed. And their not even white: they're just pink bastids.
The above is a cartoon for Lou Dobbs...
Worrierking:
Didn't see ya at th' meetin' las week. Us angry, old, white guys wuz makin' signs n' everthing. I heartily agree with juliajayne: you are a righteous guy. Stay as angry as you want!
On thing that I have always considered is that as Barak Obama gets closer to winning, the more the right wing pundits, and MSM, get nervous about the prospect of paying higher taxes, no longer having automatic access to power, and finally being held accountable for what they say and write. So, its probably no suprise that they start attacking Barak Obama, its in their own best greedy interest.