McCain & Obama gaffes on basic timeline of Iraq surge

[Pangloss]

The article at Slate is the only place I've seen this mentioned, but that's really another discussion. The point is that the arguments you and bascule raised against McCain on page one of this thread appear to apply to Obama as well. Or they don't apply at all. I think both of you should post whether you think it's the one or the other. It's only fair.

 

Let's review those points:

 

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

 

This is a blatant falsehood.[/quote']

 

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.

 

In light of this revelation that Obama did the same thing, do you think both have committed the same errors, or do you now feel that these were minor gaffs, and your criticisms of McCain above were premature or heavy-handed?

[iNow]

I think you're too quick to judge me negatively.

 

 

Of course Obama is a dumbass for this. The difference in my mind is that he wasn't doing so in the context of criticizing McCain for his lack of knowledge on the subject, but in context of trying to prop up his own party. Still stupid, but not as bad.

[Pangloss]

I used to be too quick to judge you negatively. I may still be too quick to judge you a far-leftie. At any rate, I meant it with respect, and I appreciate your direct reply.

 

I'm not trying to paint us into a moderacy-only corner or intolerance of dissent here, and I fear we run that risk sometimes when I challenge people about what I perceive as partisan obstinacy, but I felt there was something to be gained here and I think the post above does both you and the board credit. It's a risk, but one I think is worth attempting whenever possible.

 

Thanks.

[Phi for All]

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?

They both goofed twice. Both McCain and Obama got history wrong, first strikes. McCain gets a second strike because he cited bad history as "just a matter of history", a typical politician's ploy to keep people from checking facts. Obama made his second error trying to plug his party after citing bad history.

 

I guess it all comes down to politics as usual, which is so what we don't need.

[Sisyphus]

I was considering a couple of different jokes here, one defending them both by bringing in causality in relativity, the other claiming that they're both wrong and that the Anbar Awakening is actually one of my successes, it being a direct result of a comment I made last week.

 

Instead, I'm just going to comment that it's interesting that they both think it's something worth taking credit for, when to me it doesn't seem that clear cut at all. Is a better armed, better organized, and more widespread non-governmental sectarian militia necessarily a step in the right direction? The Iraqi government, at least, doesn't seem to think so:

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMzKGlyT_ahqRjtyXrAUrKIQLncA

[iNow]

I was considering a couple of different jokes here, one defending them both by bringing in causality in relativity, the other claiming that they're both wrong and that the Anbar Awakening is actually one of my successes, it being a direct result of a comment I made last week.

They'd probably jump all over you for not having any foreign policy experience and for falsely taking credit for the triumphs of the troops.

 

 

Instead, I'm just going to comment that it's interesting that they both think it's something worth taking credit for, when to me it doesn't seem that clear cut at all. Is a better armed, better organized, and more widespread non-governmental sectarian militia necessarily a step in the right direction? The Iraqi government, at least, doesn't seem to think so:

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMzKGlyT_ahqRjtyXrAUrKIQLncA

 

 

 

 

Interesting piece. 7.5 million every 60-90 days is a serious chunk of change!

 

 

"Tell me what you need and I'll get it for you." The US general is opening his proverbial chequebook to leaders of Iraq's concerned citizens groups.

 

<...>

 

One mentions weapons, but the general insists: "I can give you money to work in terms of improving the area. What I cannot do -- this is very important -- is give you weapons."

 

The gravity of the war council in a tent at the US forward operating base at Camp Assasssin is suspended for a few moments as one of the local Iraqi leaders says jokingly but knowingly: "Don't worry! Weapons are cheap in Iraq."

[bascule]

They both goofed twice. Both McCain and Obama got history wrong, first strikes. McCain gets a second strike because he cited bad history as "just a matter of history", a typical politician's ploy to keep people from checking facts. Obama made his second error trying to plug his party after citing bad history.

 

I'm more concerned about McCain's gaffe being edited out of the interview

[iNow]

Do you know if any other news organizations have picked that up (the fact that CBS just edited the real answer), or is it perhaps too common for them to care ("bah... that's part of the business!")

[ParanoiA]

Do you know if any other news organizations have picked that up (the fact that CBS just edited the real answer), or is it perhaps too common for them to care ("bah... that's part of the business!")

 

No, they're afraid of retaliatory footage of their own "creative editing" people.

[Pangloss]

I'm more concerned about McCain's gaffe being edited out of the interview

 

So you wouldn't have a problem with me editing the subject of this thread, then, right?

 

Cool.

[iNow]

So you wouldn't have a problem with me editing the subject of this thread, then, right?

 

Cool.

 

Huh? He's saying that editing is bad, admonishing CBS for doing so, and yet you're using Bascule's comments to edit HIS thread without HIS consensus and assuming he would agree with your approach?

 

 

A bit of twisted logic there, mate.

 

(and frankly your continual editing of thread titles seems an inappropriate use of mod privilege and an attempt to change the history of the discussion)

[Pangloss]

Ohhhhhhh! Oh my! I sure see your point, iNow! Why yes, yes, I'll bet he probably just missed my question. Why yes, that must be it! Oh dear, how silly of me! Well that's no problem, I'll just... repeat it! Thanks for pointing out that error, iNow, I'm sure bascule will appreciate your assistance in this matter!

 

Here you go Bascule:

 

---

line[/hr]

Bascule, the argument you raised against McCain on page one of this thread appears to apply to Obama as well. Or it doesn't apply at all. I think you should post whether you think it's the one or the other. It's only fair.

 

Let's review those points:

 

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

 

This is a blatant falsehood. [/quote']

 

---

line[/hr]

Thanks again, iNow! Can't imagine how I misinterpreted the fact that bascule ignored my question and replied to Phi that his real concern was the editing, not the gaff. What was I thinking?

Edited July 31, 2008 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

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

 

It may be because Obama didn't actually say that? Here where I think that Slate got their fun claim from:

nytimes.com

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will -- we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.

 

Let's see...

Anbar. Check.

"Awakening". Check.

Democrats elected. Check.

Close enough that someone would be tempted to compare it to McCain's gaff, but I don't think it is the same thing.

 

The above posts brought to you by my googling skills. I pay little attention to news and politics, don't read the newspaper, etc. So if I said something silly, that's why.

[bascule]

Ohhhhhhh! Oh my! I sure see your point, iNow! Why yes, yes, I'll bet he probably just missed my question. Why yes, that must be it! Oh dear, how silly of me! Well that's no problem, I'll just... repeat it! Thanks for pointing out that error, iNow, I'm sure bascule will appreciate your assistance in this matter!

 

Here you go Bascule:

 

[...]

 

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[/b']

 

McCain has been cavorting about telling everyone how he got the Surge right and Obama got it wrong. It's practically the front plank in his platform. And, in the end, he credits the surge for an event which occurred before his vote. How much was he really paying attention when he voted?

 

Obama on the other hand is being hounded by the press "SURGE! SURGE! SURGE!" Perhaps McCain had a little something to do with that.

 

And when McCain screws up talking about the surge, CBS edits it out...

[Pangloss]

McCain has been cavorting about telling everyone how he got the Surge right and Obama got it wrong. It's practically the front plank in his platform. And, in the end, he credits the surge for an event which occurred before his vote. How much was he really paying attention when he voted?

 

Obama on the other hand is being hounded by the press "SURGE! SURGE! SURGE!" Perhaps McCain had a little something to do with that.

 

And when McCain screws up talking about the surge, CBS edits it out...

 

And when Obama does the same thing, CBS doesn't even report it. How is that bias, and why should we ignore Obama's similar mistake?

 

This is what happens when one spends too much time focused on one side's partisanship. One fails to realize that the other side's not playing puppet master and creating a huge advantage -- they're actually taking the exact same (stupid) hits and beatings.

 

Come on, McCain directing the media? When cats fly out of my floppy drive.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Ohhhhhhh! Oh my! I sure see your point, iNow! Why yes, yes, I'll bet he probably just missed my question. Why yes, that must be it! Oh dear, how silly of me! Well that's no problem, I'll just... repeat it! Thanks for pointing out that error, iNow, I'm sure bascule will appreciate your assistance in this matter!

 

<...>

 

Thanks again, iNow! Can't imagine how I misinterpreted the fact that bascule ignored my question and replied to Phi that his real concern was the editing, not the gaff. What was I thinking?

 

That whole thing you did above was just one long appeal to ridicule. Not exactly your best argument ever, mate, but whatever.

 

Thanks for posting the below so I actually had something worthy of response.

 

 

 

And when Obama does the same thing, CBS doesn't even report it. How is that bias, and why should we ignore Obama's similar mistake?

At the risk of calling that a strawman, who here exactly has ever said we "should ignore" Obama's mistake? The point being made is that it's different. It has it's own context, and that context is not a history of trumpeting knowledge on Iraq and berading oppenents for lacking said knowledge (in the very next sentence, at that). Also, if CBS didn't report Obama's mistake, it only reinforces Bascule's point that they are a bunch of idiots not reporting properly.

 

Also, odds are good that there IS a CBS story about it out there, so that sort of defeats your argument as well.

 

 

This is what happens when one spends too much time focused on one side's partisanship. One fails to realize that the other side's not playing puppet master and creating a huge advantage -- they're actually taking the exact same (stupid) hits and beatings.

Why do you always make it about partisanship? We're talking about the facts. Of course certain biases creep in, but it's not like anyone is here blindly defending one side and admonishing the other (at least, I'm not, and your post was directed at me). Your claim of partisanship shows how troubled your true argument is.

 

If at first you don't succeed, throw a quick label on your oppenent.

 

 

Two steps forward, one step backward, I suppose.

[ParanoiA]

One just has to scroll through this thread to see the partisanship. It's not underlined and highlighted, rather it's in the appeals to split hairs.

 

Look, I understand the impulse, I sure hated hearing about my guy Dr Paul calling evolution "only a theory" that he doesn't even believe in, despite his scientific background. Big hit on my hopes there. Sure I could split hairs and find some goofy statements by other candidates on unsubstantiated beliefs, and they would be valid, and I could use them to admonish my candidate - but that's intellectually dishonest to myself, if nothing else.

 

I just have to admit that he's not perfect and we don't see eye to eye on everything. His core is what I believe in, and what I support.

 

Obama is not the messiah. He's an opportunist. Just like most politicians. Maybe it's an age thing, but I quit proping up my candidate's moral superiority years ago because they will always dissappoint you. Stop expecting McCain and Obama to be perfect, and instead chalk up the hits and misses objectively. It doesn't have to ruin your outlook on your candidate, it just has to realize the reality of modern day politics.

 

Opportunists are the only viable candidates for american politics.

 

I hate that, and like Carlin, I too have a cynical prediction to that end. Look at the two statesmen out of the lot of salesmen brought to us in the primary - Kucinich and Paul. Neither could sway much of the vote at all. The opportunists? They got all the votes. America has spoken.

 

So, don't worry that Obama talked out of his ass and displayed his ignorance in arrogance. That's what opportunists do, it happens. It shouldn't ruin your support of his core. If you're going to follow salesmen, you have to be prepared to deal with their fodder.

[iNow]

Obama is not the messiah. He's an opportunist. Just like most politicians.

I couldn't agree more. I do continue to hold my sense that he will share some of that opportunity with the rest of us though.

[ParanoiA]

I couldn't agree more. I do continue to hold my sense that he will share some of that opportunity with the rest of us though.

 

Well, in that case, so do I.

[Mr Skeptic]

Before we continue to bash Obama for making the same mistake as McCain, and the news for not covering it, wouldn't it be a good idea to double check whether he did in fact make the same mistake?

 

Anyone want to comment on my post #38?

[Phi for All]

Look at the two statesmen out of the lot of salesmen brought to us in the primary - Kucinich and Paul. Neither could sway much of the vote at all.

The two of them melded together are my ideal candidate, but individually they scared me. And I have to admit that, while it was their core commitments that attracted me, I let things like Paul's stance on evolution and Kucinich's Department of Peace scare me off. I'm actually pretty ashamed about that.

 

Both of these men tell it like it is. They are straight shooters who care more about doing the right thing than doing the political thing. But we treat them like fools who tell the king how bad things really are while the court looks on and laughs. When did we stop identifying with the fool and become part of those fops at court?

 

Is Obama or McCain going to decrease corporate welfare? Are they going to offer a viable federal option for universal healthcare? Are they going to work on breaking the hold big business has on our politics? Are they going to work hardest on restoring the trust of the American people and the rest of the world?

 

These are the things that really matter to me right now and I don't think any of this is going to play a factor in either Obama or McCain's administrations. I think this is why we're picking on things like gaffes on history and geography. Substance is lacking at a time when we seem to be driving too close to the edge of the cliff and while both candidates want to grab the wheel, I'm not sure I trust either to get us back on the road.

[ParanoiA]

That's a thoughtful post Phi.

 

I used to feel the same way about the Paul's and Kucinich's, in that the views I didn't share seemed extreme and scary. As if all of his preferences and particulars will become law...how silly of me.

 

I was reminded of the importance of role playing. No I'm not talking about dressing your wife as a hooker and pretending like you picked her up...although that's important too.

 

Rather I'm talking about the idea that we each play a role and it's the summation of the various roles that produces the resultant X. I kept forgetting that the Paul's and Kucinich's play a role, reconciled with the roles of other powers at play - you could say is "checked" with other ideologies and positions - so the resultant law is not "Paul" or "Kucinich" - it's the output of the system.

 

So, all that to say, Paul and Kucinich can be extreme about some things and it's ok. What matters is what the rest of system is made up of. Their goofy ideas have to be pluralized to be realized. Meanwhile, their more workable ideas get tenacious statesmanship to promote them.

[iNow]

Anyone want to comment on my post #38?

 

Why am I not surprised?

[ParanoiA]

It may be because Obama didn't actually say that? Here where I think that Slate got their fun claim from:

 

But is that where they got their claim from? I don't know, I'm asking. You use the qualifier "I think" in that sentence, so I was left to assume you were speculating. At that point, it's certainly plausible, but not really refinable.

[Mr Skeptic]

But is that where they got their claim from? I don't know, I'm asking. You use the qualifier "I think" in that sentence, so I was left to assume you were speculating. At that point, it's certainly plausible, but not really refinable.

 

Well, I hear Obama is a secret Muslim, refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and won't wear a flag lapel pin. I think my speculation that this is more of the same is more believable than hearsay from a single news source, especially since I pointed to a quote from Obama that looks like it could be twisted to look like that, and no one has a quote from Obama saying as slate says he did.