Wash. Times misrepresented Obama debate comment, repeated false claim about his Pakistan comment
SUMMARY: In an article about the second presidential debate, The Washington Times falsely suggested that, during the debate, Sen. Barack Obama said he doesn't think the U.S. can "face the challenge" in Afghanistan "after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq," and it uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Obama "threaten[ed] to invade Pakistan"; and quoted Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" without noting that Palin distorted a New York Times article in making that claim.
In an October 8 Washington Times article, senior White House correspondent Joseph Curl falsely suggested that, during the October 7 presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama said he doesn't think the United States can "face the challenge" in Afghanistan "after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq." Curl also uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim during the debate that Obama "threaten[ed] to invade Pakistan," and quoted Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" without noting Palin's distortion of a New York Times article about former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers that she used to make that claim. Curl also claimed that Palin's "palling around with terrorists" remark "refers" to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in addition to Ayers, but provided no evidence that Wright is a "terrorist."
Curl noted that, during the debate, McCain said that Obama "does not understand our national security challenges." Curl then asserted: "Mr. Obama countered with sarcasm, saying he didn't understand some things -- like how the United States could face the challenge it does in Afghanistan after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq." But, as Media Matters for America noted when the Associated Press also misrepresented Obama's comment, Obama did not say that. Rather, Obama said: "There are some things I don't understand. There are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us."
Curl also asserted that "Mr. McCain targeted his rival's lack of experience, saying Mr. Obama foolishly threatening [sic] to invade Pakistan and said, 'I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did.' " But as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama has not "threaten[ed] to invade Pakistan." Rather, during an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, he stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Indeed, in comments from the debate that Curl did not mention, Obama said:
OBAMA: Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Senator McCain continues to repeat this.
What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.
Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.
Curl went on to assert: "Mr. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Mr. Obama of 'palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.' The charge refers [to] Mr. Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers and to the Democrat's former pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr." Curl provided no evidence to support the claim that Wright is a "terrorist." Moreover, Media Matters has repeatedly documented that the October 4 New York Times article Palin cited in making that claim reported that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' " Indeed, as Washington Post White House reporter Michael Abramowitz noted in an October 5 article, Palin's comments are a "distortion of what the Times story concluded."
From the October 8 Washington Times article:
Mr. McCain targeted his rival's lack of experience, saying Mr. Obama foolishly threatening to invade Pakistan and said, "I'm not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Senator Obama did." He also said Mr. Obama has declared he would speak directly with leaders of rogue nations, like Iran, dismissing that stance as naive.
The Democrat struck back, but Mr. McCain got the last word.
"Now, Senator McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible," Mr. Obama said, pausing.
"Thank you very much," Mr. McCain said, drawing a laugh from the crowd. He explained that when he sang the words "bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann,"
"I was joking with a veteran -- I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran."
Mr. McCain also said his rival "was wrong about Iraq and the surge. He was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges. We don't have time for on-the-job training."
Mr. Obama countered with sarcasm, saying he didn't understand some things -- like how the United States could face the challenge it does in Afghanistan after spending years and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq.
[...]
With just four weeks left in the campaign, both sides have gone heavily negative. Mr. McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, accused Mr. Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." The charge refers Mr. Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers and to the Democrat's former pastor, the incendiary Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
Wow, the Washington Times relying on distortions to create conservative misinformation? What's next, Fox News?
Just add the Washington Times to the list of those who wouldn't go in to Pakistan to capture Osama Bin Laden.
Bush - wanted dead or alive, smoke 'em out of their holes, freedom is on the march
McCain - gates of hell, bomb, bomb iran, next up baghdad!
This is 'speak softly and carry a big stick?'
McCain did get one of his aphorisms correct last night, we do need a 'cool hand at the tiller...'
Joking with an old veteran friend, who you happened to be talking to over a microphone during a televised campaign event. Sorry John, you weren't just "talking" to an old veteran friend of yours. If you were doing that, none of us would have ever had heard you stupid "joke". Which is far more inciteful than Obama saying he'd go and kill terrorists, even if they were in Pakistan. Heck, I thought that the republicans were ALL FOR killing terrorists, and they didn't seem to have too much trouble invading a sovereign nation (an entire nation, not just sending a handful of special forces guys in to Pakistan to kill some bad guys) that had no ties to, you know, the people who want to kill us. Why do they have such heartburn with Pakistan?
Funny, I never hear McCain mention that right up until we invaded Afghanistan, the intelligence services of Pakistan were telling our intelligence services that Bin Laden was NOT in Afghanistan. The Pakistani intelligence services also helped a lot of the Taliban, and al Qaeda get OUT of Afghanistan right before we went in, therefore preserving them to re-collect themselves (as they are doing now), and letting them get strength again. Pakistan outwardly embraced, and helped the Taliban before we invaded Afghanistan. Sold them weapons. Gave them intelligence. Where we should have invaded was of course first Afghanistan, and then we should have moved over to Pakistan, because they are already a country where a majority of the people living there embrace fundamentalist Islamic teachings, and guess what? They already HAVE nuclear weapons. We also propped up a harsh dictator who took rule there by miltary coup.
And if anyone is naive to think that we don't already run operations into and out of Pakistan now, you are all nuts (I'm not talking about the ones we hear about, but again, the black ops stuff). Also, on another note, if you don't think we have folks going into and out of Iran currently, you'd be naive there as well. This might sound a little conspiracy theory, but that civilian plane that was forced down in Iran last week, I'd almost be willing to bet it did contain Americans, Americans you were operators and were doing a covert mission into Iran that we will never know about, and probably should never know about.
Obama here is trying to say, he wants to get the bad people who are out to terrorize America, and somehow McCain thinks that's a bad thing? I thought democrats were the ones who were supposed to be "weak" on the war on terror?
again, if they can quote mccain exactly, which they did, for four sentences, making charges about obama, then they can quote obama's exact answer, not how the reporter has chosen to "summarize" obama's response.
the mccain campaign also uses the washington times as a source for many of their ads.
Bill Ayers is a member of AlQaeda...pass it on. ;>)
C'mon, the Washington Times will say whatever the Reverend Moon wants them to say - a dark and dreary loony toons.
I've noticed a subtle shift in Grampy's talking point. Since the Bush Administration launched air strikes into Pakistan, and Palindrone Twit inadvertently agreed with Obama's position, Grampy now is reduced to criticizing Obama for ANNOUNCING that he would act in Pakistan. Kind of reminds me of when Bush's justification for the Iraq war morphed from WMD's into "WMD Programs", then into "WMD Program Capabilities."
So let me get this straight. McCain is okay with air raids in Afghanistan that kill civilians as collateral damage and at the same time is against air raids in Pakistan that target Osama bin Laden. I think the psychological term for this is cognitive dissonance.
Let me restate the whole thing. Obama is wrong to criticize bombing of civilians (because of a lack of resources) and is also wrong to bomb Osama bin Laden.
I still don't get it.