McCain & Obama gaffes on basic timeline of Iraq surge

[bascule]

CBS cut out his mistake for him, but unfortunately for McCain the original footage was discovered:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/us/politics/24check.html

 

This raises the question of how well McCain actually understood the surge when he voted for it. McCain has been triumphantly trumpeting his approval of the surge in 20/20 hindsight of its outcome, the entire time disparaging Obama for voting against it and instead suggesting an early withdrawal.

 

CBS decided to cut directly to the remarks which disparaged Obama, omitting McCain alluding to the Anbar Awakening which occurred months prior to the surge as one of its successes. This is completely wrong.

 

Perhaps the worst part of this is CBS cut McCain's original response to the question and instead substituted the answer to a completely different question. This is pathetically dishonest journalism.

 

Original footage available here, including a side-by-side comparison of his original response and what was actually aired:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

 

---

line[/hr]

Mod note: For similar Obama gaff, without CBS edit, see page 2.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Perhaps the worst part of this is CBS cut McCain's original response to the question and instead substituted the answer to a completely different question. This is pathetically dishonest journalism.

 

Original footage available here, including a side-by-side comparison of his original response and what was actually aired:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM

 

Ouch. That's not gonna help matters for him.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be showing us. Can someone explain it slowly and with small words? Give me the geriatric version, please.

 

 

This raises the question of how well McCain actually understood the surge when he voted for it.

 

The surge was a pretty straightforward thing. Not a lot there to misunderstand.

 

 

McCain has been triumphantly trumpeting his approval of the surge in 20/20 hindsight of its outcome,

 

And he should get credit for supporting the surge. The hindsight thing is just typical campaign exaggeration. So what? He supported the surge. He gets the laurels for that. End of story.

 

 

the entire time disparaging Obama for voting against it and instead suggesting an early withdrawal.

 

It is valid for McCain to ride Obama for opposing the surge.

[iNow]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be showing us. Can someone explain it slowly and with small words? Give me the geriatric version, please.

 

The surge was a pretty straightforward thing. Not a lot there to misunderstand. .

 

 

 

I think it has something to do with this:

 

"Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others,” Mr. McCain said. “And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.”

 

The Obama campaign was quick to note that the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006, several months before President Bush even announced the troop escalation strategy, which became known as the surge.

[Pangloss]

I see. Sounds like a pretty minor misstep to me. Shades of Clintonesque "it depends on what your definition of 'it' is".

 

Pretty much anything Keith Olberman says needs to go in one ear and out the other. I think we're better here when we avoid thread-starts based on pure demagoguery. My two bits anyway.

[Phi for All]

I think we're better here when we avoid thread-starts based on pure demagoguery. My two bits anyway.

I would agree in general except this time McCain had to add the last sentence, which makes it noteworthy. A mis-statement about history, followed by, "I mean, that’s just a matter of history” is a cut above a minor misstep.

 

Not much, but definitely edging into irony.

[insane_alien]

i'm more concerned about the media editing in a different answer that a politician getting his facts slightly muddled.

[ParanoiA]

I see. Sounds like a pretty minor misstep to me. Shades of Clintonesque "it depends on what your definition of 'it' is".

 

Pretty much anything Keith Olberman says needs to go in one ear and out the other. I think we're better here when we avoid thread-starts based on pure demagoguery. My two bits anyway.

 

What? Minor misstep? Claiming it's a matter of history on a fairly big event like the Anbar Awakening was catalyzed by the surge, when it very clearly was not? Particularly after berating Obama's lack of knowledge of military matters and Iraq?

 

I guess I'm lost here because I don't see any ambiguity on the definition of "it" in this context. McCain blew it. In his zeal to fry Obama on the lack of support for the surge as well as the prediction of it's failure, he made an ass of himself. It happens, I know, but it's not minor, to me anyway.

 

He could fix it like a stand up guy and steal some "honest man" points from Obama if he apologized for it...maybe he was sleepy when he said it.

 

i'm more concerned about the media editing in a different answer that a politician getting his facts slightly muddled.

 

I think I've shared my experience here before, but the two measily times I was involved in a local media story, in two different states and networks mind you, they did EXACTLY that. They played the reporter's questions recorded in the studio, and then played back our answers filmed on site. The questions asked in the studio were not the same ones asked on site.

 

This has done considerable damage to my opinion of media. If they do this subtle but crucial manipulation at the local level, I can only imagine the shit they pull at the national level where the stakes are higher and the money so much greener.

 

The media business is corrupt. They should be hauled before congress just like they did the oil execs.

[Pangloss]

What? Minor misstep? Claiming it's a matter of history on a fairly big event like the Anbar Awakening was catalyzed by the surge, when it very clearly was not? Particularly after berating Obama's lack of knowledge of military matters and Iraq?

 

I guess I'm lost here because I don't see any ambiguity on the definition of "it" in this context. McCain blew it. In his zeal to fry Obama on the lack of support for the surge as well as the prediction of it's failure, he made an ass of himself. It happens, I know, but it's not minor, to me anyway.

 

I see your point. I'm still pondering it; I just don't think I know enough to make a final decision on it yet.

 

 

He could fix it like a stand up guy and steal some "honest man" points from Obama if he apologized for it...maybe he was sleepy when he said it.

 

Probably not -- just yesterday he essentially called Obama a traitor, saying he'd rather lose the war than the election.

[Phi for All]

The media business is corrupt. They should be hauled before congress just like they did the oil execs.

There's not enough competition to spark the debate needed to correct the corruption. With most media in the hands of a few conglomerates we don't have nearly enough dissenters to point fingers at unworthy practices. This is a market that has gone far beyond being able to correct itself. This is what we get from mega-corp mentality, a total lack of concern for good policy governance and a disconnection from the human factor.

[bascule]

I see. Sounds like a pretty minor misstep to me. Shades of Clintonesque "it depends on what your definition of 'it' is".

 

He's claiming that the Surge was responsible for an event which occurred in 2006, prior to McCain even having the opportunity to vote on the Surge, and using that in support of his decision to vote for the Surge and also using that to lambaste Obama's decision to vote against the Surge. This is a blatant falsehood.

 

McCain is claiming the Surge lead to the Anbar Awakening. It's no more truthful than claiming that we have the Surge to thank first public elections in Iraq, or the ousting of al-Sadr. These things both occurred before the vote for the Surge, let alone the Surge itself. The Surge occurred in 2007. You can't attribute things that happened in 2006 to the Surge.

 

Pretty much anything Keith Olberman says needs to go in one ear and out the other.

 

Ad hominems against Olbermann aside, the video speaks for itself. CBS removed McCain's response to the original question and replaced it with the answer to a different question completely. They edited out the gaffe. This is dishonest journalism.

[Pangloss]

McCain is claiming the Surge lead to the Anbar Awakening. It's no more truthful than claiming that we have the Surge to thank first public elections in Iraq, or the ousting of al-Sadr. These things both occurred before the vote for the Surge, let alone the Surge itself. The Surge occurred in 2007. You can't attribute things that happened in 2006 to the Surge.

 

I understand and agree.

 

 

He's claiming that the Surge was responsible for an event which occurred in 2006, prior to McCain even having the opportunity to vote on the Surge, and using that in support of his decision to vote for the Surge and also using that to lambaste Obama's decision to vote against the Surge. This is a blatant falsehood.

 

But I think what he meant was that the surge made the awakenings successful. That would be true, and renders his statement to a minor gaff.

 

 

Ad hominems against Olbermann aside, the video speaks for itself. CBS removed McCain's response to the original question and replaced it with the answer to a different question completely. They edited out the gaffe. This is dishonest journalism.

 

On the contrary, it's partisan hyperbole, and beneath us here. You don't like it when people start threads based on rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh, so it should come as no surprise to you when you're chastised for doing the same. If I let you go on this you'll turn this place into a video hosting service for MoveOn.org, and we all know it. That's not going to happen.

[bascule]

I would agree in general except this time McCain had to add the last sentence, which makes it noteworthy. A mis-statement about history, followed by, "I mean, that’s just a matter of history” is a cut above a minor misstep.

 

Not much, but definitely edging into irony.

 

This entire thing reminds me of the debacle surrounding Bill O'Reilly claiming that U.S. soldiers massacred Nazis at Malmédy:

 

"In Malmédy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. Been documented."

 

As it turns out, O'Reilly got it wrong. Nazis massacred U.S. forces at Malmédy.

 

FOX News edited the transcript to correct O'Reilly's gaffe.

 

Those are the sort of things I would expect of Bill O'Reilly and FOX News. They are not the sort of things I would expect from a U.S Presidential candidate and CBS.

 

But I think what he meant was that the surge made the awakenings successful. That would be true, and renders his statement to a minor gaff.

 

Read harder:

 

"Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others,” Mr. McCain said. “And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.[/b']”

[iNow]

I thought similar to you for a moment, Pangloss. Maybe he meant the surge made the Anbar Awakening successful. However, much like Bascule's response points out, the use of the verb "began" completely eliminates the possibility of such an interpretation.

 

 

He dropped the ball. He dropped it hard. He dropped it again, and he did so in the context of giving Obama a hard time for not understanding and knowing what went on and when. Not good. Not good at all. Not for him, his candicacy, or people's desire to see him as our leader.

[Pangloss]

Well, if it's true it wouldn't surprise me all that much if McCain was picking up talking points (and failing to fact-check them) from the CTR crowd. McCain was supposed to give a speech this week about offshore drilling from an oil rig (the plan was interrupted by Hurricane Dolly). The idea apparently came from a recent Rush Limbaugh suggestion.

[iNow]

CTR?

 

 

EDIT: Nevermind. I presume "Conservative Talk Radio?"

[Pangloss]

Yeah, I know BOR is mainly TV (he also has a radio show), but I lump him in with the same crowd.

[iNow]

...BOR...

 

Boring Old Republican?

 

I presume you mean McCain?

[bascule]

Well, if it's true it wouldn't surprise me all that much if McCain was picking up talking points (and failing to fact-check them) from the CTR crowd. McCain was supposed to give a speech this week about offshore drilling from an oil rig (the plan was interrupted by Hurricane Dolly). The idea apparently came from a recent Rush Limbaugh suggestion.

 

Is that all a big sarcastic wad of sh*t, or are you actually serious about all of that?

 

I'm leaning towards the sarcastic wad of sh*t...

[Pangloss]

BOR = Bill O'Reilly.

 

Bascule: The oil rig speech (and its hurricane cancellation) is being widely reported, but I don't know how accurate the rumor that he got the idea from Rush Limbaugh is. All I know is Rush Limbaugh is reportedly claiming that the idea came from his broadcast a couple of weeks before.

[bascule]

I just watched the entire segment from CBS, and I am appalled.

 

We spoke exclusively and separately with both presidential candidates today, and what emerged was a kind of long distance debate, and their differences on the wars have never been sharper or clearer

 

Clearer, she says, having deliberately covered up McCain's gaffe...

 

Katie Couric's interview with Obama was, to say the least, extremely pointed. The entire interview effectively consists of her asking Obama one question over and over again, which is effectively "No really, do you still think the surge was a bad idea?"

 

In the interview, Obama suggested that the Sunni Awakening and the Shiite government going after militias was also responsible for improving the security of the country.

 

This was the lead-in to the question where McCain blatantly demonstrated his ignorance.

 

McCain's response to Couric's question, which was cut from the interview, began:

 

I don't know how you respond to something that is a... such a false depiction of what actually happened happened.[/b'] Colonel McFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others, and it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.

 

McCain's response begins by stating that Obama does not understand the history surrounding the Surge and is falsely depicting the historical events. Immediately after making this claim, McCain demonstrates that he does not understand the history of the Surge and falsely depicts the historical events.

 

Katie Couric repeatedly badgered Obama about the Surge, then edited the McCain interview so as to hide his ignorance. Then she has the audacity to claim that the candidates "differences on the wars have never been sharper or clearer".

 

What atrocious journalism. I'm appalled.

Edited July 26, 2008 by bascule

[Pangloss]

Sometimes I think the big-name journalists overcompensate for their liberal bias (and Obamania) by showing zeal in their questioning of liberal politicians. Actually covering up a gaff makes no sense, though -- it is quite appalling; that's the right word for it.

 

It's probably worth noting that CBS News is widely considered a badly misguided and mismanaged organization at the moment. Howard Kurtz' recent book "Reality Show" was quite an eye-opener.

[Pangloss]

Interesting -- apparently we need to update the subject of this thread to include Obama. I wonder why nobody brought up the fact that he made the same gaff? Perhaps because it wasn't in the news?

 

Obama once argued that the Anbar Awakening of September 20006, in which Sunni tribesmen turned against al-Qaida, started because Democrats took control of Congress. (The awakening started months before the 2006 election, but never mind, McCain also mangled the timeline this week.) Obama's theory was that since Democrats had promised to withdraw troops, Sunnis started taking their affairs into their own hands. But given that Congress never made good on its promise to reduce funding or troop levels, and in fact troop levels increased, why didn't Sunni violence go up? What did Obama learn on his trip that's relevant here?

 

So let's hear how this one is just a minor gaff, but McCain's was a major deception indicative of a lack of understanding of foreign affairs. How's that work?

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2196068/pagenum/2

[ParanoiA]

Damn, these two are more bent on claiming credit for bullshit they had nothing to do with. I swear.

 

I'd say it's ever bit as bad as McCain's obviously, another point to add in the "speaks from ignorance" column. And that counts, I believe.

[iNow]

Interesting -- apparently we need to update the subject of this thread to include Obama. I wonder why nobody brought up the fact that he made the same gaff? Perhaps because it wasn't in the news?

If it wasn't in the news, how is it that you heard about it?

 

 

To be fair, I heard about both here at SFN...