McCain Aide Calls Obama "Dishonest"

Somewhere over the southeastern US -- In an informal gaggle with reporters, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called Barack Obama "dishonest" for claiming that McCain intends to continue the war for 100 years.

"It's dishonest," Schmidt said, repeating the phrase for emphasis. (Later, Schmidt said he did not call Obama himself "dishonest" -- just Obama's conduct.)

The McCain campaign, and many non-partisan sources of information, contend that McCain, in remarks to a voter in New Hampshire in January, explicitly ruled out the possibility of keeping combat troops in Iraq if the troops were in harms way.

It matters, of course, whether the accusation is true, but one of the reasons why the McCain campaign is aggressively pushing back -- Mr. Schmidt's face grew red as he spoke about Obama -- is that Democrats ntend to use McCain's words like a whip, hoping to lash him with the "100 years" tag whenever he discusses his proposals to stabilize the country and begin to withdraw.

"Sounds like they know their candidate is very vulnerable here," said Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director.

Comments

At first Obama was just lying about this. Now he's just being deceptive. Mr. Nuance refuses to look at the context - sheer hypocrite.

Posted by sbj | April 2, 2008 3:07 PM

The McCain campaign, and many non-partisan sources of information, contend that McCain, in remarks to a voter in New Hampshire in January, explicitly ruled out the possibility of keeping combat troops in Iraq if the troops were in harms way.

Wait just a second here - McCain explicitly advocated "cutting and running" if the current violence in Iraq continued? Why are we just hearing about this now?

Posted by DaveWoo | April 2, 2008 3:08 PM

Yeah, Schmidt, please, keep explaining about how when McCain says he wants us to stay for 100 years that he really means that he wants to pull out. I'm sure the American people will listen to and respect your nuance.

Posted by neil | April 2, 2008 3:08 PM

"explicitly ruled out the possibility of keeping combat troops in Iraq if the troops were in harms way"

really? Because he usually calls that "advocating for defeat".

Honesty does not require that Obama take McCain's undoubtedly sincere view that he would much prefer that our 100-year occupation in Iraq proceed peacefully, without people shooting at us & with birds singing & so forth, very seriously. People who want withdrawal from Iraq also HOPE that it won't lead to bloodshed & will make things better, and yet McCain constantly, constantly accuses of advocating defeat. No one in the press objects to that. This is a complete double standard.

Posted by Katherine | April 2, 2008 3:13 PM

If it is going to be 100 years, why not just empty the prisons, load up all the ex cons, and then all the other undesirables (illegal immigrants that other countries refuse to take back, sex offenders, etc. for example), and just ship them all to Iraq as "troops".

It will just be the modern version of "transportation" used by Britain.

Posted by D | April 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Here's an instance where YouTube does not help McCain.

Posted by Craig | April 2, 2008 3:35 PM

"whenever he discusses his proposals to stabilize the country and begin to withdraw."

Wait, what?? John McCain has multiple proposals that include withdrawing forces?

Posted by along | April 2, 2008 3:38 PM

Much non-partisan support for McCain's viewpoint:

The New York Times Reports That Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment.

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: “[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.”

The Associated Press: “[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.”

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On “100 Years” Comment A “Serious Distortion” And “A Rank Falsehood.”

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On “100 Years” Comment “False.”

Posted by sbj | April 2, 2008 3:42 PM

Yes, they're very good at working the refs & the refs have bought into the idea that objectivity consists of criticizing liberals as often as conservatives regardless of the facts & merits.

That doesn't address my point about double standards.

McCain said recently:

"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue."

But Obama says his timetable is NOT arbitrary or designed for expediency! And that he will do more for Iraqi refugees than McCain or Bush! And that withdrawal would make us safer. McCain's a liar!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Katherine | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM

People get a clue, we had to withdraw our troops out of Saudi Arabia because of the people's restement. Do you think a Muslim nation will welcome us for a 100 years. Do you think there will be no violence between the Sunni/Shites. Please. This would be like the British having an army in Ireland. Iraqi is not Germany. And it took less time to rebuild Germany under the Marshall plan after WWII than the slow/no pace rate of rebuilding. We can't afford to be in the middle of a religious war for a 100 years.

Posted by sonya | April 2, 2008 3:58 PM

McCain also frequently accuses the Democrats of "waving the white flag of surrender!" But they have never waved a white flag, & do not advocate an official surrender to Jaish al Mahdi! McCain's a liar!

What we actually have hear is pretty standard statements of opinion about the inevitable conclusions of the opposing candidate's policies, not false statements of fact. If McCain favors staying in Iraq for 100 years, and won't withdraw because insurgents are killing our soldiers because that's "surrender", then that's going to add up to 100 years of war.

Why don't you actually call the campaigns & ask what they think about the torture memo instead of endlessly posting their press releases?

Posted by Katherine | April 2, 2008 4:01 PM

Obama’s Economic Plan

In fact, what is far more worrisome than the Trinity Church "commitment to Africa" is Obama’s call for "economic parity."

Economic equality is the justification for an exploding welfare and entitlement state.

Economic parity implies government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases; government subsidized health care for all and so on. Essentially this translates to socialize wages.

CNBC economic analyst Larry Kudlow estimates that Obama's vision for government-run everything will cost Americans $800 BILLION.

Obama was described in a 2004 Men’s News Daily Report during Obama's 2004 US Senate campaign:

Obama’s closest religious advisers and bible/political teacher -- Fr. (Michael) Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity.

Posted by Roger Racher | April 2, 2008 4:04 PM

Absolutely absurd, the people who insist on painting that remark as 100 years of warfare, after McCain spent 30 seconds stipulating and conditioning his answer on there being no further bloodshed or injury.

If you want this right-leaning independent to ignore your arguments, just toss out the "100 year war" remark of "four more years of Bush," as both these statements cut to the quick of your ignorance on this matter. I presume ignorance, because at least ignorance does not imply that one would necessarily endorse a false fact or manipulate those who themselves are unfamiliar with the facts.

Posted by Jared | April 2, 2008 4:04 PM

Tell us one reason why obama and hillary should be nicer with mccain then which each other.

Posted by maz hess | April 2, 2008 4:14 PM

Anyone who bothered to examine more than the Fox-disseminated soundbites on Pastor Wright's talks knows full well that leaving out context can create a destructively false picture, with possible widespread ripples of mass misinformation and emotional reactions from a distorted view of actual events.

Maybe we should get a Fourth Estate code going here, in which all public statements (by media or candidates) should cleave to some standard of complete, ordered information or be fined for distorting and polluting the national cognosphere...

You couldn't cure all distortion, but it would sure reduce the sheer histrionics of the campaigns, and improve the national quality of our media performances.

Posted by A.H. Jessup | April 2, 2008 4:55 PM

As an Obama supporter, I have cringed every time I heard Obama use the "100 years" line. He has been a bit, for lack of a better term, liberal with his use of the line.

Obama would do well (and would have softened the blow of this allegation from the McCain campaign) to elaborate on why McCain's line is significant: it's not because McCain wants troops in Iraq 100 years, which is what Obama has just as much insinuated. It's significant because it reflects the fact that McCain has no idea of how to get us out of Iraq, no idea on how to stabilize Iraq, no idea of how long he anticipates us being there in a combat role, and no definition of "victory", which he cites quite often.

Obama had the right idea in attacking McCain's mistake of using that phrase, but he approached it from the wrong angle.

Posted by socctty | April 2, 2008 5:14 PM

Obama is dishonest, he lied his whole campaign about knowing about Wrights racism, and he wrote racist things in his own book which makes Obama a racist too http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/9950

Obama gets caught lieing every time he turns around..
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/03/politico-busts-barack-obama-in-more.html

And Obama is still lying about McCains words of 100 years when Obama and Obamamanics all know McCain meant peacekeeping troops only like we have in Japan and S Korea. If Obama can't figure that one out then it makes him even less fit to be POTUS, which he has no qualifications to be POTUS in the first place to begin with.

And after seeing all this feedback it appears Obamamaniacs are still lying, something we would expect, for Obama's campaign has always been one big lie after another. And Obama stated he would keep a strike force in Iraq, ROTFLMAO, this shows how unqualified Obama is, just by that statement he made.

By the way Obamamaniacs what exactly are Obama's accomplishments besides a speech he gave in 2002? LMAO

Obama has no accomplishments, for he hasn't even been in politics long to make any accomplishments. He is plainly unqualified.

Posted by Adam | April 2, 2008 5:47 PM

CNBC economic analyst Larry Kudlow estimates that Obama's vision for government-run everything will cost Americans $800 BILLION.

Richard, Larry Kudlow is a f***ing idiot and a GOP shill. Until VERY recently, he was continuing to crow about "The Bush Boom" and the "Goldilocks" economy. He couldn't see the ever rising housing bubble or credit crisis until months after all but the worst Republican apologists.

BTW, why don't you ask Larry about his prediction a few years back that oil would fall to about $30/barrel. Or his statement (soon forgotten) that gold over $600/oz. would mean trouble.

If you're going to cite somebody, better to avoid picking a nitwit.

Posted by LFC | April 2, 2008 6:12 PM

I agree with Mr McCain when he says Barak Obama is dishonest. Most recently I received another request from Barak Obama's campaign asking me for a donation. In the letter he says three different times that he does not take money from lobbyists or special interests.
He does-always has and is continuing to collect from them. My source is Newsweek as recently as yesterday.
As an aside..I do not care if he, HRC or Mr McCain take money from lobbyists. What I care about is that Mr Obama continues to misstate his position..while he is saying he does not take money from lobbyists his campaign 'folks' use the age old tactic of deflect unto others what you are 'caught' doing. Today Mr. Axelrod and an associate from the congress said, HRC can't be trusted to do what she promises she will do because his associate had no direct contact with Mrs. HRC with reference to NAFTA...
The problem with that scenario, to me, is Mr. Obama raised his personal standards to 'godlike' with his rhetoric about change, honesty and transparency and never ever-practices what he preaches.
The fallout from Mr Obama and his totally disingenuous platform is making a mockery of the young 'folks' who would believe their dreams are important.
One of my professors wrote..'it's not the words you use, but, what people hear you saying'.
So I agree with Mr McCain. Mr Obama gets the long overdue label..liar...finally.

Posted by MMiller | April 2, 2008 7:33 PM

It wasn't too much of a blunder for Obama to push this point in the dem prims. It would be a stupid blunder for him to do it in the generals. We shall see.

Posted by linda | April 2, 2008 10:17 PM

Obama is absolutely right to push the 100 year war line for this simple reason: McCain has refused to lay out any scenario in which we would leave in the next 100 years from Iraq. If it's peaceful, we stay a la South Korea and Japan. But if it's still warlike, we cannot leave because our "honor" would be jeopardized and because "al Qaeda would declare victory." Either way, we stay in Iraq for 100 years because John McCain has NO plan to get us out of that country. Ever.

And if you believe, as I do, that the Iraq will continue to be an unstable and violent place for the next several years, then it looks like we will in fact be there getting killed for decades.

Posted by Elrod | April 2, 2008 10:33 PM

The positions are pretty clear no matter how much the McCain camp whines and cries, they stand, and have consistently stood for more War in Iraq, no matter the cost in blood and money.

Posted by AJ | April 3, 2008 3:06 PM

McCain and his campaign are the ones lying here, constantly distorting the positions of the Democrats on Iraq.

The only context the full quote adds is that McCain said that he wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years like they've been in Japan or South Korea for lengthy periods, without getting attacked and killed.

Well, I want a Lamborghini. My daughter wants a pony. Wanting something hardly makes it a realistic possibility. If John McCain wants to base his foreign policy and Iraq plans on these not-gonna-happen scenarios, he should be called on it.

McCain's 100 years is shorthand for his entirely unrealistic approach to Iraq. Pretending that some magic fairy is going to come and wave a wand and turn Iraq into Japan or South Korea is just stupid.

Posted by bob | April 3, 2008 5:00 PM

I saw the youtube. THe questioner clearly means "are we going to have to stay fighting in that hellhole for 50 years?" That's what he means. Then McCain says "Why not 100?!" and then follows that up with some rosy picture of military bases in lands of our allies, like South Korea and Germany. It's true that he didn't say we'd fight a 100 years war, and Obama needs to quit implying that, socctty is right, but socctty is also right that there is something very wrong with McCain's answer. It doesn't answer the question at all. It's like if he'd said "100 years! Of having an embassy there I mean." Okaaaay....

Posted by Phoebe | April 4, 2008 2:05 AM