About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Reuters, MSNBC.com ignored McCain's own vote in reporting Palin's claim that Obama "supported cutting off funding for our troops"

October 31, 2008 10:59 am ET

SUMMARY: Reuters and MSNBC.com's First Read reported Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "supported cutting off funding for our troops in the war" without noting that Sen. John McCain himself voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

37 Comments

In reports on Gov. Sarah Palin's October 30 speech in Erie, Pa., Reuters and MSNBC.com's First Read uncritically reported Palin's assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "supported cutting off funding for our troops in the war." Neither outlet pointed out that Palin's running mate, Sen. John McCain, himself voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. McCain -- along with all but two of his fellow Republican senators -- voted against a March 2007 bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

During the September 26 presidential debate, Obama responded to a similar charge from McCain by noting that McCain himself had voted against troop-funding legislation. After McCain stated that Obama "did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," Obama responded: "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 George Bush. We had a difference on the timetable. We didn't have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops."

As Media Matters for America has noted, First Read previously falsely asserted on two occasions that McCain "opposed, but did not vote" on the 2007 troop-funding appropriations bill mentioned above. In fact, while McCain did not vote on a later version of the 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. First Read subsequently posted an "update" to both of its false reports, which read:

*** UPDATE *** Per an amended entry from Factcheck.org: On April 26, 2007, McCain did, in fact, not vote on the final version of a troop-funding bill after it emerged from a House-Senate conference committee. But he DID vote "nay" on an earlier version of the bill when it first moved through the Senate, before the final version was agreed to by a House and Senate compromise.

Media Matters has also documented previous occasions in which Reuters reported the McCain campaign's claim that Obama opposed troop funding without noting McCain's own vote.

From Reuters' October 31 article:

Palin, whose selection as Republican John McCain's running mate prompted criticism of her scant national security experience, spoke after meeting a group of retired military commanders and the former leaders of the CIA and the Homeland Security Department.

"Barack Obama didn't have much to say in that long infomercial of his last night about the stakes in the wars America is fighting, or about the need to support the troops in the field, or why he supported cutting off funding to our troops in the war," Palin said.

Palin said Obama's 30-minute television ad on Wednesday sought to wrap his "closing message" before the Nov. 4 election in warm and fuzzy commercial trappings.

From First Read's October 30 blog post:

Palin said while the country may be focused on economic issues, the terrorism threat remains, and she said Obama has tried to change the focus in recent days, including with his half-hour primetime television advertisement Wednesday.

"Now, Barack Obama didn't have much to say in that long infomercial of his last night about the stakes in the wars that America is fighting, or about the need to support the troops in the field, or why he supported cutting off funding for our troops in the war," she said. "He prefers it seems to wrap his 'closing message' in a kind o of that warm and fuzzy commercial message -- that was scripted. He wants to soften the focus in these closing days, hoping that your mind won't wander to the real challenges of national security that I believe he is incapable of meeting."

She said the next president will need to be as focused on Osama bin Laden and Iran as the economic crisis.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by princeofwheels (October 31, 2008 11:08 am ET)
         

      Princess Sarah complaining about something being scripted, now that is funny. Look Sarah, we all knew and then you admitted that this is a journey for your bid in 2012. Actually, this experience is a good thing for you. And I personally believe that your are now qualified to be elected as Mayor of Wasilla. You Go Girl and please STAY wherever you end up. See you in 2012 unless Fox hires you first. Then you will be right at home spreading half-truths surrounded by a lie. You, Ms. Governor are a liar.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (October 31, 2008 11:33 am ET)
           

        Since Sarah left Wasilla with millions of dollars of debt, I'm not sure they want her back.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (October 31, 2008 12:11 pm ET)
             

          Maybe they'd take her if there was some way they could have her work off the debt...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (October 31, 2008 12:19 pm ET)
               

            Maybe she could become Senator, sorry, Senator MavericknessII and make sure that Alaska never gets any money. I hear they may need a bridge.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (October 31, 2008 12:35 pm ET)
                 

              What?!?  And ruin her new clothes?!?

              Naw, the bridge thing is pretty much taken care of.  They'll just call Sen. Stevens buddies.  I hear they work real cheap.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (October 31, 2008 11:36 am ET)
           

        They seem to see her as the future of the party. Which is kind of like George Lucas creating a franchise around Jar Jar Binks. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (October 31, 2008 12:47 pm ET)
             

          Eva Peron perhaps ?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (October 31, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
             

          We can only hope that, like Jar Jar Binks, she has no speaking part in the next episode.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (November 01, 2008 6:19 pm ET)
               

            "She said that small towns, that's the part of the country she really likes going to because that's the pro-America part of the country. You know, I just want to say to her, just very quickly: F**k you." ―Jon Stewart, speaking about Palin to a college audience in Boston (Watch video)

            Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (October 31, 2008 12:18 pm ET)
         

      Obama hopes our minds "don't wander". 

      I don't see that as problem for fans of the Republican thicket.

      If they're as dense as Palin there's nothing to wander.

      Now she's worried about her constitutional right of free speech being infringed upon  becasue she doesn't like the media calling her on her lies.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 31, 2008 2:38 pm ET)
           

        Hey W-King, I like "Republican Thicket".

         I just went to your link.I can only think that Palin will go down as the most embarrassing candidate for national office in my lifetime, and that's saying something. Whatta funking idiot.

        That sort of thinking is mildly amusing coming from the screeching baboons on the am radio, but just sad coming from a VP candidate.

        Sean Hannity has a little montage of Obama's "attacks" on Seannie the Sissy. These attacks are mostly Obama mentioning the Hannity audience (with deserved ridicule) as representing the ignorant-American vote. Victim-boy Hannity can't understand why Obama is going after him so viciously. (Hint:SH has a radio show for several hours a day that he calls The Stop Radical Obama Express, wherein he lies about Obama, then he goes on tv for an hour at night and lies about Obama,topped off with an hour on the weekend lying about Obama).

        I refuse to believe that enough Americans have this childlike view of the world that the Repub. Thicket can be elected, but then, I'm pretty amazed that the polls show more than 3% support, so I'm not relaxing yet.

        Here's a video I got from my wingnut friends at Human Events.For those whose energies are better spent bedwetting than thinking, it covers foreign policy from the view of a toddler, without a lot of thinkin' required before votin'..

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (October 31, 2008 3:03 pm ET)
             

          You've got to admit though, you can't beat the production values and on screen talent the right uses in these mindless parodies.

          What, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight weren't available?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 31, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
               

            I think they're getting together with John Ratzenberger and Ron Silver to work on their War on the League of Rogue Nations.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by mary59 (October 31, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
               

            Kelsey and Voight were too young to film a Bonanza episode, which is where their impersonations would have fit in nicely.

            <img src="http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8169/americancarolip6.jpg" border="0" alt="american carol"/>

            Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (October 31, 2008 12:45 pm ET)
         

      Did she mention her son is in Iraq ?  I personally would like to follow the path of the princess's new clothes and check if in fact they were donated to charity and wich one ? she is one slick snake oil saleswoman.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by newzhound (October 31, 2008 12:56 pm ET)
           

        wolf kotenberg:  I think poor people should be happy they might get to wear her used clothes.  Id you hear Ole BlunderRush's response to the Obama Infomercial?  The "fat" (yep - he's calling other people "fat!") Sanchez family should apply for food stamps and go to the hospital emergency room for free medical care.

        Isn't this just a wonderful country?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (October 31, 2008 1:10 pm ET)
             

          This one is a lady i do not trust.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (October 31, 2008 2:16 pm ET)
             

          Of course, PigBoy knows that poor people going to the emergency room just drives up the cost for everybody else.  In fact, isn't that just another form of "socialism"?

          I heard Janeane Garofolo on the radio this morning, and she said that when she hears these bozos, the question that she asks herself is whether that person is a liar or an idiot.  I think we know that Pigboy is probably not an idiot....

          Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (October 31, 2008 12:54 pm ET)
         

      Sen. John McCain sponsored (not an inside-baseball budget or other BS vote - sponsored) legislation to cut off all funds for US military in the field.  The proposal was for only enough funds to bring our troops home (and for POW's, if any).

      Please see:

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:68:./temp/~r103git3vS::

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (October 31, 2008 1:12 pm ET)
           

        link doesn't work

        Report Abuse
        • Author by newzhound (October 31, 2008 1:54 pm ET)
             

          wolf k:  Sorry.  This is the from the Library of Congress "Thomas" collection of the Congressional Record.  Apparently the links are temporary.  Here's the full text:

          MCCAIN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 1043 (Senate - October 14, 1993)
          [Page: S13516]

          Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Smith, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Roth, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Coats, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Craig, Mr. Mack, Mr. Brown, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Murkowski) proposed an amendment to the bill H.R. 3116, supra; as follows:

          At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

          SEC. . PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY OPERATIONS IN SOMALIA.

          (a) Prohibition.--No funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act to the Department of Defense may be obligated for support of operations of United States Armed Forces in Somalia except as provided for in subsection (b).

          (b) Exceptions.--

          (1) funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available for continued operations of United States Armed Forces in Somalia to support the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Somalia in a manner most consistent with the safety of United States personnel.

          (2) funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available for continued operations of United States Armed Forces in Somalia in the event that American prisoners of war have not been returned to United States authorities and Americans missing in action have not been accounted for.

          END

          Report Abuse
          • Author by neon desert (October 31, 2008 2:58 pm ET)
               

            I admit that I'm not real well educated on legalese, but let me see if I can interpret this amendment:

            "We're not giving you one more dime for the troops in Somalia.  Except for what it costs for you to 'cut-and-run'.  Unless you don't want to.  In that case, we'll pay for it."

            Now THAT'S what I call laying down the law.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (October 31, 2008 1:41 pm ET)
           

        Newzhound, you are missing the point.

        When John McCain voted against the troops, he was doing so because he's a maverick (actually part of a 'team' of mavericks) who was fightin' to represent hard workin' Americans, real Americans who work hard and are financially successful. 

        When Obama voted against the troops, he did so because he wants Iraq to win the war against us.  He did so because he represents the anti-American, latte-sipping liberals who don't make more than $250k a year (out of sheer laziness), and live in big anti-American cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Philadelphia.  He represents people who have failed in their quest for the American dream, and had to settle for meaningless jobs such as teachers, firefighters, or law officers.

        Hey, we can't ALL be plumbers, can we?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by newzhound (October 31, 2008 1:55 pm ET)
             

          Kyle:  Thank you!  NOW I understand!

          Meanwhile - have you noticed that we never see in the same room "Joe the Plumber" and "Jeff the Reporter" Gannon?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by obamaisapig (October 31, 2008 2:15 pm ET)
         

      For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. 

      The latest hiccup in the campaign message apparently came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under. 

      Click here to listen to Richardson talk about Obama's tax plan. 

      "What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube. 

      There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (October 31, 2008 4:20 pm ET)
           

        Good catch, Obama'sPig. Bill Richardson may have just misspoken, but his words are misinformation, and they do further a conservative agenda. I think it's important to point these things out, even if it's somebody accidentally helping Grampy's avoidance of an *ss-whoopin'.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 31, 2008 2:18 pm ET)
         

      Simple Sarah said: "...Barack Obama ... is ... warm and fuzzy...".

      See? I can do it, too.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (October 31, 2008 2:53 pm ET)
           

        Another happy graduate of the Keptin Kirk Scholl of Strained Rhetoric?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
           

        Isn't it funny how quickly the worm turns? Wasn't just a year ago that conservatives were telling us we were nasty, negative libruls? That they were the optimistic ones, that they had all the bright ideas and solutions?

        What ever happened to the good old days?

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.