Media repeat Cindy McCain's attack on Obama troop-funding vote, ignore John McCain's troop-funding vote
SUMMARY: The CBS Evening News, Fox News' The Live Desk, and the Politico's Jonathan Martin noted Cindy McCain's attack on Sen. Barack Obama that his "vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body." However, none of their reports pointed out that Sen. John McCain himself voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In reports on Cindy McCain's speech at a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, campaign event, the CBS Evening News, Fox News' The Live Desk, and the Politico's Jonathan Martin all noted McCain's attack on Sen. Barack Obama that his "vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body." However, none of their reports pointed out that Sen. John McCain himself voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as Obama noted during the first presidential debate on September 26.
On the October 8 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, co-host Martha MacCallum repeated Cindy McCain's attack on Obama, saying: "[W]e don't usually hear that kind of talk from Cindy McCain, but she was very outspoken. And she said that it sent a chill through her when he fought to turn down funding for the troops in a Senate bill in the past. So, some pretty strong words from Cindy McCain today." Similarly, on the October 8 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Chip Reid reported that "Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife, jumped into the fray today, sharply accusing Obama of abandoning the troops by voting against funding for the war in Iraq." And in an October 8 blog post, the Politico's Jonathan Martin quoted Cindy McCain's comments after noting that she "took one of her most personal shots yet at Barack Obama today."
However, none of the reports noted that Sen. McCain voted against a March 2007 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, as Media Matters for America has noted.
By contrast, on the October 8 edition of NBC's Nightly News, chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell played the clip of Cindy McCain's attack, and then noted: "In fact, Obama voted against money for the troops once, in May 2007 -- he said because the bill didn't include a timetable for withdrawal. But John McCain also voted against a troop-funding bill two months earlier for the opposite reason: because that bill called for a troop withdrawal."
Additionally, none of the three -- Reid, MacCallum, and Martin -- mentioned that Cindy McCain previously told NBC's Ann Curry, "My husband is absolutely opposed to any negative campaigning at all."
From the October 8 edition of CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
REID: And even Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife, jumped into the fray today, sharply accusing Obama of abandoning the troops by voting against funding for the war in Iraq, Katie.
From the October 8 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
MacCALLUM: We also should mention -- and we want to get into this a little bit with the panel in a little while -- that before Barack Obama came out, Cindy McCain came out. And she had some pretty strong comments with regard to Barack Obama. She talked about -- basically saying that she doesn't think that -- she thinks that he should spend a day in the shoes of a person who has a loved one fighting overseas. And we don't usually hear that kind of talk from Cindy McCain, but she was very outspoken. And she said that it sent a chill through her when he fought to turn down funding for the troops in a Senate bill in the past. So, some pretty strong words from Cindy McCain today, as well.
TRACE GALLAGHER (co-host): Yeah. And then after Cindy McCain spoke, of course, Governor Sarah Palin came up, and she kind of -- you know, she reiterated that, saying -- talking about her son who is also fighting in Iraq right now. The theme they're trying to build here is that -- it goes off to John McCain's theme that only one person has fought for you and that only one family knows what it's like to actually sacrifice -- to send their children into a war zone. So that's kind of the point they've been trying to make over and over again on the campaign trail.
From Martin's October 8 blog post:
Cindy McCain, with her husband and Sarah Palin at a rally in Pennsylvania, took one of her most personal shots yet at Barack Obama today.
"The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote to not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body let me tell you," Cindy McCain said in introducing the GOP ticket. "I would suggest Sen. Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying."
The McCains have both largely avoided discussing the military service of their two sons during the campaign. Jimmy McCain, the younger of the two, is a Marine who has already served a tour in Iraq. His brother, Jack, is at Annapolis.
Cindy McCain is plainly unhappy with Obama. Her comments this afternoon come a day after she said in Nashville that the Democrat had waged "the dirtiest campaign in American history"
From the October 8 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
MITCHELL: In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, today, the Republican candidate's wife, Cindy McCain, accused Barack Obama of not supporting the troops in Iraq, including her son.
CINDY McCAIN [video clip]: The day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body.
MITCHELL: In fact, Obama voted against money for the troops once, in May 2007 -- he said because the bill didn't include a timetable for withdrawal. But John McCain also voted against a troop-funding bill two months earlier for the opposite reason: because that bill called for a troop withdrawal.
I think she meant a "sent a cold PILL through my body".
Yeah, Hate Hag Liar Cindy, both you and Limbaugh should go empty a bottle of oxycotin, and then BOTH of you can go somewhere and sit down!
This is one of the sickest lines of attack I have ever heard in a political campaign. Cindy, John, Palin, First Dude, anyone who repeats this, or unfortunately believes it, should be ashamed of themselves. This is what we need a media for, not to echo, but to challenge!
It's even worse than that:
Her son wasn't even in Iraq when the vote took place! So she lied as well.
You are all missing the "chill through my body" line. She is letting John know that she is going shopping for another mink coat.
Mrs. McCain, did you get the same chill when your husband voted against medical services for the injured troops? You have now become Mrs. McShame. And don't think this will draw out Mrs. Obama. She is too smart for that. Tell KKKarl that this trick failed.
Cindy McCain shouldn't be angry at Obama. She should be mad at the American people.
They're the ones not buying into her husbands ideas about the war, the economy and the future.
She can continue to live in her alternate universe where cruel, personal attacks from her side are said to be necessary because the Democratic Party refused to participate in town hall meeting style debates.
The party of family values has shown they value nothing and will risk everything, including their honor, to keep power in the hands of the Republicans.
We're on to you Cindy.
I'm sure she is mad at the American people. I'm sure she thinks we rable are too stupid to know what's good for the rich is good for us.
It's the attack of the Zombie Twits! AAAAAAK!
When a Billionaire Beer Heiress says "Spend a day in my shoes", are we supposed to laugh or cry?
I wouldn't make it a day in her shoes because I'd have them sold to the highest bidder on E-bay almost as soon as I got them.
If Cindy McCain is so outraged at Obama's "not funding the troops", why did she wait this long to express it? Is it because her husband's campaign is in trouble and they (he)[it] needed a cheap zinger? The Onion had a hilarious item about "Home Depot Shows Support For The Troops With Sale On Power Tools".
I can only think of Cindy as......what McCain called her when she mentioned his balding head
Let's retire this bullsh*t once and for all. Even if Congress did have the balls to defund President Numbnuts Bogus Adventure in Iraq, does anyone think that we'd just leave the troops over there, and tell them to hitchhike home?
Just one more manufactured outrage from the Troglodytes.
I'm very disappointed that MediaMatters continues to refer to funding the wars as "funding the troops" or variations thereof.
Those who advocate continuing the Iraq War indefinitely have been disingenuously using this frame to stir up opposition to Congress using its Constitutional powers to end the war. And MediaMatters stubbornly continues to propogate this misinformation.
From MediaMatters' "About Us" page:
Heckofa job there, MM.
Last I checked, this was a place to dispell conservative misinformation. It's not as if MMFA is posting this as their own story, and their own words. No indeed.
MM didn't write their own headline? I find that hard to believe.
Yes, I thought this was a place to dispel conservative disinformation, too. So why do thy continue to reinforce this particular piece of conservative disinformation - the one that, perhaps more than any other, is responsible for keeping us in Iraq all these years?
It's extremely frustrating.
"gladly accuse them of atrocities"
Gladly? Really? Maybe they have the honesty to admit that our soldiers sometimes screw up, and sometimes do the wrong thing. Can your lizard-brain grasp that concept, or do you think Americans never do these things? If our soldiers do commit crimes in battle, should they be punished or not? Where is your Republican sense of "personal responsibility"? Does it only apply to poor black people?
eggnog,
Check these out because he made broad, false accusations and now fortuantely is being sued by one the marines. Why because he wanted us to loose a war for the benefit of his political party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V60tM-rIf4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMedVWUsSFU
By the way, I believe all but one have been exonerated.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5WevvJUXQrfbMEFvMlEojd7tA6wD93DVLEO1
"Why because he wanted us to loose a war for the benefit of his political party"
Bush loosed the war, and it's till ongoing...despite "Mission Accomplished"
Pc, I looked thru the bill and could not find 'a timeline for defeat'. I think I found a section for the purchase of more body bags marked "donated by your Republican Party". Stoopid is as stoopid does. ( you used the word hoot..been listening to Ellie Mae Palin??)
C'mon PC, you used to be better than this..or are you Philib and have taken this name away from a ProudConman.
Lordofflats,
Timelines, whether for withdrawl or defeat, were intended by the democrat party to wave the white flag of surrender before we could see victory, aka the surge actually working.
First, there is no Democrat party. You and Rush know this, but refuse to say the name correctly for some reason. It just makes people sound stupid and ignorant when they call the largest political party in the country the "Democrat" party instead of it's proper name, the Democratic party. Please make this adjustment, because normally when someone like you, says something about the democrat party, any point after that, valid or not, I tend to dismiss because I already know where you're coming from. You're coming from a point of republican/right wing talking points that have been hashed, re-hashed, and then triple hashed over and over and again, and then warmed up and thrown out again. Such as a timeline being a means for "defeat" in Iraq. Guess what my friend? We already won in Iraq. Why? What was the original stated purpose of rolling into Iraq? Depending on what day you asked President Bush in 2003, it was either for regime change and to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay, or it was to make sure we secured Iraq's vast stash of WMDs.
Guess what? Done, and done. Regime? Changed. WMDs? Never existed in the run up to our invasion, so, done.
Folks in your realm of thinking tend to keep repeating that the "surge" worked. Did it? Did it really? Because, last time I checked, the number of soldiers in Iraq are still higher than pre-surge levels. The one thing that the surge has accomplished, along with I'd like to point out General Petraeus' counter insurgency strategy, is a marked reduction in the daily violence seen in Iraq. GP said himself the other day though, that even though the violence is down, it is still at unacceptable levels in Iraq. The General said this himself. Not me. Not someone else. General Petraeus said this.
Now, why don't we actually look at what the actual goals of the surge were, and you can tell me if we've actually ticked them all off and that the "surge" has "worked" as you, and other right wingers keep insisting that it is:
Iraqis, still not leading in Iraq. #1 we can say, has not been achieved due to the surge. The US military and other forces are leading still in Iraq.
Help Iraqis protect the population. Again, this is something that has been done well, in my opinion, but I still believe firmly that it has more to do with the counter insurgency tactics than it has much to do with the number of troops performing these duties. Also, we have to bear in mind that we befriended a number of radical groups who we were previously fighting. I would consider #2 a success, for the most part, except for, again, the fact that GP has stated recently, that the violence level is STILL unacceptable, and the fact that it is the US personnel doing most of the protecting and not the Iraqis. OK, maybe we'll consider this one a partial pass. Violence is down, but due to our presence.
Isolate extremists. We have done this, but then again, AQ in Iraq was never a big faction to start with, and didn't exist until we invaded Iraq.
Create space for political progress. This has not been achieved. Why? I can't tell you, but the Iraqi politicians are no closer to taking over their own country than they were before the surge in troops began in January of 2007.
Diversify political and economic efforts. Again, the surge has failed to do this. The Iraqi political progress is stagnate, and their economic situation is not much better. People are still without essential services, and the unemployment rate is still super high.
Situate the strategy in a regional approach. We have not done this either. Why? Because the majority of people living in Iraq currently identify more closely with Iran than they do with anyone else in the region, and that's something that we can't have now is it? Also, they closely identify with Syria, another country that we don't like. The region is now more volatile than it was when we invaded Iraq in 2003.
So you see, if you take each segment of the surge that was supposed to happen, only one of the things has really happened, and that is the decrease in violence, but again, our own General tells us that the violence level is unacceptable and too high. The surge has not been an overwhelming success as you, and others have claimed, because we have failed to achieve many of the goals that were set forth in the surge strategy. So saying that the surge is a success is a bunch of BS my friend, a large, huge, and steaming pile of BS.
Thanx Mags, well put.
Thanks for an excellent and well-reasoned post.
The continued use of the term "Democrat Party" this far out after its ill-conceived launch increasingly projects an inability or (more likely) an unwillingness to think for one's self or to participate in rational discourse. Even Haley Barbour refused to allow its official use in the GOP convention platform.
Excellent debunking, mags. Punk Con-Artist-Servative lies and takes oxy just as much as Liar Flush Drugbaugh does.
They also refuse to talk about THE BUSH CABAL's 36 year friendship/collusion with the Bin Ladens, INCLUDING Osama Bin Laden. W. and Osama are alleged to be best friends, AND Osama allegedly bailed W. out o one of his MANY failed business deals.
Got to disagree with you about Osama Bin Laden bailing out Bush from one of his many failed business ventures. The Saudi royal family bailed him out once, I believe, and there was a member of the Bin Laden family who helped him out once, but it wasn't Osama, and in a family as large as the Bin Laden's, and who are as connected as they are with the Saudi royal family, it is not hard to believe that they would have helped out W somewhere along the line. Bush has no direct ties to Bin Laden though, none at all, but again, the Bush family is close with the royal family of Saudi Arabia, who are, and have backed financing of terrorist organizations before.
Even if it wasn't Osama himself, the Bin Ladens bailed W. either way.
THE BUSH CABAL and the Bin Ladens are in cahoots with each other, regardless of whether W. himself is or not. W. did help the Saudis flee the country in 2001 after the attacks.
The way Mike Malloy http://www.mikemalloy.com tells it, Bush was a co-conspirator in the planning and carrying out of the 9-11 attacks.
Timelines, whether for withdrawl or defeat, were intended by the democrat party to wave the white flag of surrender before we could see victory, aka the surge actually working.
And for the last time- Nothing-To-Be-Proud-Of Conservative - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DEMOCRAT PARTY".
If you're looking to have a rational discussion of the issues, use the proper term to refer to my party. If you're going to continue spewing lies and smears, keep using the improper term.
strive to steal a defeat from the jaws of victory.
Here's a factoid for you to digest - there is no such thing as "victory" in an occupation.
But you must believe Gramps theory on Iraq: "We're going to win over there the right way - by winning".
Gramps McCain is getting confused - just the other day, he referred to his audience as "my fellow prisoners"....
"You and I together will confront the ten trillion dollar debt that the federal government has run up and balance the federal budget by the end of my term in office," McCain began, making his way to pork barrel spending. "Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners and the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1517943.aspx
We already won. Didn't you hear?
TheSurge© secured victory for us long before the time line funding bills were introduced. So it's apparent that the dems by wanting a timeline were just aiming to give Iraq back to....the....uh...Iraqis....?
boyisayboylistenhere,
Use of the term 'occupation' would make Stalin proud. I think that is a term both Obama, Reid and Murtha have used when combatting American soldiers.
We are an occupying force. To suggest otherwise is a severe ignorance in what occupation actually.
We are an occupying force. To suggest otherwise is a severe ignorance in what occupation actually.
And PC is nothing if not ignorant.
Use of the term "victory" in regards to an occupation would make Stalin proud.
There, I corrected that for you, Proudy. Now get back on Mommy's couch, put on a fresh adult diaper, turn on El Lushbo and wave your Surge® pennant, as your elected idols steal some more money from us taxpayers and send some more young Americans off to die.
You have a lot to be proud of.
SMUGTROGLODYTE,
Here's a definition for you:
oc·cu·pa·tion (
k
y
-p
sh
n)
n. a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
So, which part of that definition does NOT fit our situation in Iraq?
PC - Please define "victory" in Iraq. Who in Iraq will sign the papers signifying the end of the occupation? You can't be at war when there is no defined enemy. It's time for the Iraqi's to take care of themselves. They have a $78 billion dollar surplus. They can finance and rebuild their own infrastructure on their own.
The real enemy is in Afghanistan where even our 4-star in charge states that we don't have enough troops to stop the insurgency. We don't have enough troops to fight two battles simultaneously. I know you have difficulty comprehending the facts.
And, in all actuality, Al-Quada has accomplished their mission against us. They know they cannot defeat us militarily, but they can bring us down economically. They have forced us to spend a half-trillion dollars on an occupation that had nothing to do with 9-11. And, the lack of regulation supported by Bush & Co has brought this country to its knees. I hope you trogs are proud of this 8 year legacy of Bush.
Anyone who claims that there are no American atrocities in war can't say that they support our troops.
Any time there are unintentional casualties, we must admit the fact. if we don't we're creating an environment of mistrust among those we claim to be fighting for. This mistrust leads to the deaths of more Americans and thwarts any hope that the occupied people will support us against a home grown insurgency.
It's common sense.
It's a real hoot that leftists still think they can make Americans believe that they are somehow pro-military.
No, PC - the REAL hoot is when you still think you can make the rest of us believe that you're capable of having an opinion that wasn't given to you by a right-wing hack - either spoken over right-wing talk radio or posted on a right-wing cybersewer web site.
See, thing is, for conservatives such as PC, you can't possibly support the troops unless you want them being killed in a far off land for no apparent good reason.
Our troops, even though they are doing a brilliant job of what they've been asked to do, are being mis-used. Iraq was not a threat to the US in 2003, and they're even less of a threat now than they were before.
I had a good exchange with someone a little while ago about what "supporting the troops" actually meant. This was with a self avowed super troop supporter. How did he support the troops? Well, he said he just supported them. Me being an ultra liberal lefty, how could I possibly support the troops.
Well, I told him, that a colleague of mine who has a son currently crawling around the mountains of Afghanistan looking for actual bad guys, told me about a plan he was hatching to get equipment over to his son, and the squad that he led (10 guys total). Here's what we did. We made contacts at private firms in the US that made grips and modified stocks for the M4 rifles they are carrying currently. The grips improve accuracy of the weapon, as well as the modified stocks absorbing more shock, with less recoil, again, we get better accuracy. We personally took our own money, and bought 20 sets of these for his squad (1 to use, and 1 as back up). After that, we did a little research into what the best body armor is out there. We came back to Dragonskin again and again. We bought 10 sets of that, and sent it over there, because the stuff that they had was old and worn.
How did I support the troops? I dropped a lot of my own cash to get the best equipment available to a recon squad currently roaming the mountains of Afghanistan to combat actual real terrorists.
How did you support the troops PC?
PC supports the troops with his vocal cords and keyboard.
I did it, and I know many other liberals who did it, with money out of our own pockets. It wasn't much, but I feel much better knowing that there are 10 guys out there with some top notch stuff. I did get word back from the guy that I work with, and apparently, his son's squad works with Delta a lot in Afghanistan, and when they saw their new gear, they got sort of mad, because they're supposed to get the "good stuff".
Like the rest of the lying flag-scamming chickenhawk conservatives, PC beliees in the chickenhawk conservative rallying call of "HELL, NO, YOU ALL GO!"
The BIGGER hoot is that flag-scamming chickenhawk rightist liars can hide behind trees and tell OTHER people to fight in wars that they refuse to fight in, and that they don't want other lying right wing chickenhawk conservative fighting in, yet the lying fascist flag-scamming chickenhawk righties are "pro-military."
There's also the mtter of the fact that Liar McCain voted AGAINST increases in veteran's benefits between 10 to 20 times since 9-11, as have OTHER lying fascist chickenhawk conservative Republicans, yet the lying fascist chickenhawk conservatives are supposedly pro-miltary.
The lying fascist flag-scamming chickenhawk rallying call is now, always has been, and always will be "HELL, NO, YOU ALL GO!"
If you want to talk about supporting the troops, you could start by showing some anger for the loudmouths who rushed to war on manufactured intelligence and did not use every other weapon at our disposal, including diplomacy, before they sent kids to die. If you want to talk about supporting the troops you could talk about how irresponsible the Republicans are who continue to call for tax cuts while we are being driven into financial ruin by the cost of the occupation. Yes, it is an occupation, our soldiers won the war valiantly and bravely in a matter of weeks.
Cindy McCain is Limbaugh's kind of girl...can't keep her mouth shut!!!!
And why does McCain hate America? He hasn't worn a flag pin on his lapel at either debate so he must hate the troops and by extension, America!!! After all, didn't the neo-cons rip Obama apart for not wearing one? HYPOCRITES!!!!!!
This war cannot be won because it has alerady been lost economically, not to mention the lossof lives and injuries.. These lives were lost for no good reason Our economy has been crippled for no good reason.
I would like someone to make the case for fighting in Afghanistan, since i do not see that it is anything but folly to continue there.
There are lots of things besides fighting, in Afganistan, that would be of mutual benifit. On the otherhand the hostile folk in Afganistan have reached out and punked us. There has been little done to change any social baseline in the country by us. It's been a holding action that the powers that (currently) be, hope will just sorta fade away. You seem to be in favor of this strategy. Why is it appealing to you.
How do you feel about attacking Iran? Will you put what is precious to you in the line of fire? Do you think you'll have much luck avoiding it, with conscription being declared essential to our survival against Iranian radio controlled model airplanes?
Not to mention almost countless innocent civilians.
"I believe that the lying jerks that got us into the IRAQ war should be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives. The blood of over 4000 of AMERICA'S FINEST SERVICEMEN and WOMEN is on their hands."
Add to that, each and every sociopathic lying fascist person in this country who voted to elect or re-elect the lying fascist chickenhawk sociopathic war criminals who allowed Liar Bush to start his lie-based war should be thrown in prison along with them! The people who voted to elect or re-elect this neo-con-artist war-mongering war criminals are all acessories to mass murder!