You make the call: is Obama slandering McCain? Or is Obama parsing McCain's words carefully enough?
« No Beijing Boycott Call For Obama | Main | Petraeus-Crocker Live Stream.... » McCain Campaign On Obama's 100 Years Of McCain's War08 Apr 2008 09:29 am Comments (37)
Not a slander. Obama in a press conference last week was very clear. Regardless of whether there are actual American casualties or not, McCain believes that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely. War or not... 
McCained made a very sensible argument that US troops, like it or not, are stuck in the region for a while. OBammBamm would be better to let that issue lie.
Obama is talking about pulling up McCain's quotes on Youtube. That's just wrong.
That's not a slander... that's payback. Remember when McCain and all his buddies a few months ago kept telling people that Obama wanted to "bomb Pakistan"? Yeah... if that was fair game, then this is more than fair.
The reason, in my opinion, that Obama is accurate is that McCain has never said how long he would continue with the war in Iraq if our soldiers continued to be wounded and killed. Obviously there is a difference if this is an 'occupation' but when does the killing stop?
Why no link to McCain saying we'd be in Iraq for 100 years?
Blake makes a good point. Obama's position on Pakistan was distorted by McCain and the media really didn't call him out on it. Still, I tend to believe that this "100 years" business is not really a good talking point for the Democrats and they ought to just let it alone. Especially Obama, who has promised to run a campaign that is about more than beating people up for sound bites.
Marc, I respect your blog and read everyday, but I do think it is rather irresponsible to post this clip that didn't show Senator Obama's full response in context, nor did it show any footage of what Senator McCain actually said.
D said... Now we just got to get OBammBamm to put forward a proposal to withdraw US forces from S. Korea, Japan, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc. If you remember, Obama is the one who judged early on that the mission in Afghanistan would be harmed by going to war in Iraq. McCain was the one who supported going into Iraq. Guess what, we now have serious setbacks in Afghanistan. Score one for Obama's judgment and a big ZERO for McCain's "experience".
WTF? Why is it wrong to tell people to judge what McCain said by, you know, watching him say his own words? It's wrong to spin and try to hide the facts. Obama's telling people to see for themselves. Sounds pretty above board to me. Unless, of course, McCain's supporters would prefer that nobody watch that clip again.
And anybody who babbles that failure isn't an option is either an idiot or liar ... or, in the current President's case, both.
What Obama would have been better off saying from the get-go is that McCain's comments reflected his lack of a plan and even an idea of what exactly "victory" meant. Instead, he just proposed that McCain wanted to have troops in Iraq for 100 years. Surely McCain doesn't want troops there for 100 years; although I doubt he actually objects to the idea of having them there that long in a Korea model. On that note, Obama needs to explain why he thinks a Korea model won't work: because we're an occupying force in a region where Anglo-imperialism's effects have caused or exacerbated a lot of the problems they have with sectarian tension and arbitrary border-drawing. Plus, we're there in the context of having establish long-term military presence in the areas they consider holy (Saudi Arabia, Palestine). As a result, our continued presence will be an irritant. I wonder if a politician can get away with taking an argument that far, though.
Obama should persist on this line. McCain's 100 years clearly means 100 years of occupation; the consequences of McCain's policy is 100 years of war, his idea of peaceful occupation being complete Bushian fantasy--the Brits wrecked their empire finding this out; there is no point spending any longer relearning this. Obama should stay on this--it is the central issue that divides them and the people want the troops home. The more he says it the better it is for those that want to see an early end to this calamity (and Obama). Yglesias's Ma href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/100_years.php">100 years hit the mark.
Marc: I thought this blog was supposed to provide context? That clip never shows what McCain said and cut off Obama's response. As a reader I deserve better.
Obama's position on Pakistan was distorted by McCain and the media really didn't call him out on it. The media doesn't call anybody out unless another campaign pushes the idea. Obama apparently decided not to push it; McCain's decided to push this thing. I think you can parse McCain's words and get what you want out of them. Viewing the NH guy's question and McCain's full response, you get the sense that McCain was indeed referring to a Korea model. So Obama should attack that, not a soundbite-friendly "100 years" clip. 100 years is only important in the sense that it reflects a complete lack of planning or what our ultimate goals are. Of course we aren't in a combat role in Korea, but we are mired there in a long-term, expensive, seemingly-endless role. That's something we can't afford in Iraq, because Iraq is a completely different culture and our presence there is based on what is largely seen as an unjustified war, not just in the Muslim world.
How can you link to this and not link to the original quote?
What's absurd about this is we never get the MCCAIN QUOTE ON YOUTUBE, so the implication is that Obama is in the interview contradicting what HE (OBAMA) said, rather than saying that, if you look at MCCAIN's original quote, Obama's 100 year comments are a valid interpretation. This is preposterous.
Marc Can you be objective? Do you have guts/courage to dissect Democratic Party? Obama is slandering McCain. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. Now accept it. Deal with it. Do not cope out: you make the call. If you COPE OUT, then everytime there is a GOP problem, you MUST SAY: You make the call. Courage, Marc, if you can find it in yourself.
The media doesn't call anybody out unless another campaign pushes the idea. Obama apparently decided not to push it; McCain's decided to push this thing. McCain has said some pretty dumb things over the weeks. The Pakistan thing was one. Confusing Shiites and AQ more than once, not understanding al Sadr's actual level of influence, confusing who actually called for the latest cease fire, calling the Iraq military as one "that is functioning very effectively" despite 1,000 deserting when the fighting started, etc. are several more. I think Obama's team is just cataloging all of these and will bring them all up over a relatively short period of time for the general election. A "John McCain's boneheaded statement of the week" feature running for 2 months will tear down his facade of experience pretty effectively. Getting lashed with his own statements in the debates will make him look like a confused old man. No need to push too hard, too early.
Marc Can you be objective? Do you have guts/courage to dissect Democratic Party? Obama is slandering McCain. You know it. I know it. The world knows it. Now accept it. Deal with it. Do not cope out: you make the call. If you COPE OUT, then everytime there is a GOP problem, you MUST SAY: You make the call. Courage, Marc, if you can find it in yourself.
"Slander"? Give me a frakking break. It's at worst an arguable misinterpretation of what McCain said, although I'd say it's a fair reading given McCain's history on the war. It's not remotely "slander." If McCain doesn't want to stay for 100 years no matter what, then he can feel free to say, "If things stay the same for another 5 (or however many) years, then I'll withdraw." Until he says that, it's fair to read his 100 years comment as supporting an open ended occupation of Iraq. And btw yes why are we still in South Korea and Japan? The rationale for our continuing presence in those countries is by no means obvious.
LFC - I think you're right. I think Obama's campaign has managed to, for the most part, stay away from unfair attacks and quotes out of context (this 100 years thing is prob. the worst). I wonder where "gotcha" moments like this fit in with his "no attack politics" view. Personally, I don't see anything ethically wrong with it, as long as the original meaning of the statements are kept in place. For instance, McCain did confuse whether or not Iran was funding AQI - to this day I don't know whether he believes that or not. I think Obama stayed away from the Tuzla thing for the most part, and just let his unpaid, and unaffiliated supporters carry it out to the MSM. The thing is, the stakes only get higher, so the temptation to blast McCain for his stupid comments is going to get greater.
I wonder where "gotcha" moments like this fit in with his "no attack politics" view. I don't think it will be so much "gotcha" moments as a catalog of McCain's conflicting and progressively more Bush-like statements on Iraq. For instance, McCain did confuse whether or not Iran was funding AQI - to this day I don't know whether he believes that or not. If McCain had blown it once and they jumped all over it, it would have been a "gotcha" moment but it would have been meaningless. Instead, he blew it 3 times, so now you have to wonder if it's more of a "senior" moment. Judging from the number of McCain's mistaken impressions that have been reported on in the last month or so, I think he's truly confused about the details of what is happening in Iraq. That's scary. I think Obama stayed away from the Tuzla thing for the most part, and just let his unpaid, and unaffiliated supporters carry it out to the MSM. He doesn't have to "let" them do anything. In fact, I don't believe he could stop them if he wanted to. There is a crush of people who have been against the war for a long time, and that number has grown significantly. When McCain parrots Bush, he has to expect a backlash from the 2/3 of the country that disagree with him. His job is to turn those people to his point of view, but confusing the major players doesn't help his case.
Ron - at this point, I'd venture to say we're in Korea and Japan because it gives us awesome places to hold stategically for attacks in those regions, were we ever required to do so. There's no doubt our presence there affects China and Russia and company, and, in a vacuum, if we could have such an effect in the Middle East, oh, let's say, 100 years from now, that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The problem is getting to that point in the first place, which I should note that I don't think is worth it. There's no reason to believe we could ever get to a Korea/Japan model in any reasonable amount of time, and even to actively acknowledge that that is your ultimate goal would be to antagonize everyone in the region. They would say, "Hey, you came over here under a false pretense and now you're just gearing up for an attack on us! You came over here to build up these huge bases for a long-term presence in our region!" which isn't unreasonable from their perspective. There's no doubt that Iran and Pakistan look at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and know that their defense and foreign policies will forever be affected by our mere presence, because they can look at Russia and China 40 years ago. They'll be obstructionists to such an idea because once we get entrenched there like we are in Korea and Japan, there's no getting out. As far as the governments of Korea and Japan go, they want us there at this point, because frankly, we help their economy and they don't have to spend as much on their own defense.
If John McCain thinks we can establish a Korea-like model in Iraq for 100 years or whatever, that in itself is clear evidence that he has no sense of reality when it comes Iraq, and he should be called on it. In fact it's just more evidence that he is going to continue the Bush habit of trying to implement fantasy-based policies with no regard for reality or a willingness to even attempt to understand reality. As long as there are American troops in Iraq in meaningful numbers, there will be attacks, there will be casualties and there will be combat. Thinking that we can establish a Korea-like presence is akin to the Israeli saying that they want to establish a "korea-like" presence in the West Bank or Lebanon—it just isn't going to happen.
Obama's statements are problematic -- in that they've been too generous to McCain. McCain doesn't just want us to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He wants to continue fighting for however long it takes for there to be zero American casualties, and then (and only then) does the 100 year clock start ticking. Since any sane person knows that we'll never reach the zero-casualty point, McCain has effectively declared that we will be in Iraq forever (plus 100 years, of course).
Obama is slandering McCain. It is abjectly disgusting.
It turns out that Reverend Wright was a former Muslim, and that his Masters Thesis was about Islam in West Africa.
Agree with LFC. McCain needs to clearly state his intention and vision for Iraq. What does 100 years mean? He said it, he must now explain it. A Korea-like situation? What does that mean exactly Senator McCain? McCain has gotten off the hook for saying obtuse and flat out wrong statements. Instead of crying that Obama is "slandering" him and taking his words out of context, he must explain it. Can he not explain it because he has no clue? Or is it because the American people won't like it?
A few comments: 1) Is it at all credible to compare Japan and Iraq? 2) John McCain did say he envisaged combat troops in Iraq for 'up to 100 years'. This does not mean that McCain supports a full-scale (see 'Surge') style conflict in Iraq for that period of time, but you can only take his remarks in so many ways. If he is not happy with his words being taken at face value, then he should be clearer about what he means and the exact '100 year' role he is considering for the military. 3) Bringing up You Tube videos of Obama simply repeating what McCain said with little embellishment does not constitute lying or anything close. John McCain has made the War in Iraq the main focus of his campaign, touting his foreign policy experience above anything else. Having chosen that route and continuously attacked Obama and Clinton on the issue, he shouldn't be shocked to be getting some back. This is politics afterall. Obama is a fresh air, but let's not get carried away here. He's aiming to win a general election against a tough, credible GOP candidate - this isn't child's play.
A few comments: 1) Is it at all credible to compare Japan and Iraq? 2) John McCain did say he envisaged combat troops in Iraq for 'up to 100 years'. This does not mean that McCain supports a full-scale (see 'Surge') style conflict in Iraq for that period of time, but you can only take his remarks in so many ways. If he is not happy with his words being taken at face value, then he should be clearer about what he means and the exact '100 year' role he is considering for the military. 3) Bringing up You Tube videos of Obama simply repeating what McCain said with little embellishment does not constitute lying or anything close. John McCain has made the War in Iraq the main focus of his campaign, touting his foreign policy experience above anything else. Having chosen that route and continuously attacked Obama and Clinton on the issue, he shouldn't be shocked to be getting some back. This is politics afterall. Obama is a fresh air, but let's not get carried away here. He's aiming to win a general election against a tough, credible GOP candidate - this isn't child's play.
Let's solve this whole debate and move troops from where there's no action to Afganistan & Iraq. Let's start with 50,000 troops redeployed from Europe's 100,000; 15,000 from South Korea's 32,000 and 20,000 from the 35,000 in Japan. These troops have been there for 50-60 years. If you think 5 years in Iraq is too long, lets replace them with 85,000 troops from places they have been much longer. Hm-m-m, think I'll contact my Senators to propose legislation. Given the speedy Congressional timelines to vacate Iraq, it should take only 30 days to get the guys out of these other countries.
Agree with several of the commenters. Obama obviously means we can pull the McCain quotes off of YouTube (although TPM has helpfully put together a highlight reel). This is just embarassing, Marc. Please post an update with the Mccain quotes.
Agree with several of the commenters. Obama obviously means we can pull the McCain quotes off of YouTube (although TPM has helpfully put together a highlight reel). This is just embarassing, Marc. Please post an update with the McCain quotes.
By definition, if something is true, it can never constitute libel or slander. This is pretty elementary. Marc, have you ever even heard of New York Times v. Sullivan? It's basically what gives you your rights as a journalist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk clearly establishes that McCain did say that 100 years in Iraq would be fine with him. We can argue whether this correctly represents McCain's views, but he did say it. Frankly, this whole line of attack against Obama is right out of Karl Rove's election manual. Just carelessly throw around some serious legal accusation (aid and comfort, anyone?) and expect the ignorant media to eat it up. Seriously Marc, publishing this without comment is aiding and abetting McCain's campaign. You are assisting him through advice, actions or financial support.
Yikes. Come on Marc, no MSM McCain Kool-Aid, please. That video is way way below you.
I didn't like his tone with Meredith Viera. It was very condescending and snippy. He seems to resent having to answer tough questions. He was definitely parsing words here, yet, that's the very thing he accuses Hillary of.
McCain would be over 80 years old after his second term.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Why are you linking a video of Obama? It's McCain's answer to a voter's question that is the one that matters.
As if Iraq is going to become peaceful soon, and that 100 years is going to be a lovefest. A majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. McCain doesn't want us to leave EVER. That's a very clear distinction to keep repeating.
But hey, the DC media has to carry McCain's water right?
Posted by Kip | April 8, 2008 9:38 AM