Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

McCain making up history and CBS admits


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 July 2008 - 02:51 AM

July 23, 2008
McCain doubles down on humiliating surge error
Posted July 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

In a dramatic error yesterday, John McCain told Katie Couric that it’s “just a matter of history” that Bush’s “surge” policy “began the Anbar awakening.” That, of course, is backwards.

Today, thanks to some efforts by the Obama campaign, the media started picking up on McCain’s bizarre confusion on his signature national security issue, most notably with coverage from the AP and CNN.

As of this earlier afternoon, the best the McCain campaign could come up with was this: “Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge … but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy.”

Got that? If you think 2006 came before 2007, you’re somehow showing disrespect for the troops.

The McCain campaign then got a little more creative.

    “Senator McCain is correct,” McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said today. “As General Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar Awakening was so successful in tearing up al Qaeda.”

This one’s more interesting, so let’s unpack it a bit.

Here’s the new McCain campaign rationale for his obvious screw-up: the surge, for all of you calendar-lovers, may technically have come after the launch of the Anbar Awakening, but it doesn’t matter because were it not for the surge, the Awakening would have failed miserably. The influx of U.S. troops may have come after the Awakening, but it made the success of the Awakening possible. That, in a nutshell, is the new argument.

As spin goes, that’s pretty creative. But that doesn’t make it right.

First, the McCain campaign is making a case that’s supported by practically nothing. The vast majority of the troops involved with the surge went to Baghdad, not Anbar, the latter of which saw one U.S. brigade. Did the presence of this brigade make the surge successful? It can’t be disproven, but it’s hardly the accepted consensus, either.

Second, and more importantly, the latest spin is disconnected to what McCain, you know, actually said. McCain insisted that the surge “began the Anbar awakening.” It didn’t. In fact, to hear McCain tell it, the only Awakening the surge happened — not succeeded, but happened — is the surge, which is clearly false. All the after-the-fact rationalizing won’t change this obvious mistake.

It’s likely reporters would have had a few more questions for McCain about his latest confusion at his press conference this afternoon, but around the time the AP story about McCain’s error hit the wires, the campaign cancelled the press conference. Was the cancellation connected to the desire to avoid questions about this? Your guess is as good as mine.

And what about CBS News, which conveniently helped cover up McCain’s mistake? The network issued a statement this afternoon:

    “As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night’s Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates’ major differences. The full transcript and video were and still are available at cbsnews.com.”

This isn’t especially helpful. McCain’s confusion wasn’t especially lengthy; there was plenty of time to air it. Considering it was arguably the most important mistake either candidate has made all year — which, of course, makes it newsworthy — you’d think CBS would choose to make time for it.

For that matter, the statement doesn’t explain why CBS aired Couric’s question in full, but spliced the interview together to air a different, less-embarrassing answer to a different question.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16300.html

If Obama had it his way we wouldn't have been in Iraq.



great video out there ! soon to come !


#2    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,816 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 24 July 2008 - 03:21 AM

If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa.  As long as they let the democrats stay in power.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#3    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    "If we would know, then we would be more wisdomed."

  • Member
  • 9,553 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 24 July 2008 - 03:41 AM

danielost on Jul 23 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa.  As long as they let the democrats stay in power.


*pats head

That's right. Anyone who doesn't believe just like you is a big stupid-head. And probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

...I'd be willing to bet, though, at least most Democrats could /spell/ al-Qaeda right in at least one of its forms.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#4    Cradle of Fish

Cradle of Fish

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson

Posted 24 July 2008 - 03:56 AM

danielost on Jul 24 2008, 04:21 AM, said:

If the democrats had their way alquida would be ruling the usa.  As long as they let the democrats stay in power.


Thats funny, the democrats have had about 9 years in power since the threat began vs 20 years for the republicans, and the most severe terrorist attack on the US occured during republican rule. I don't think Al Qaeda wants to rule the USA, they'd rather destroy it.

I am not a man, merely a parody of one.


#5    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 July 2008 - 04:47 AM

note -

CBS Covers Up Major McCain Error

During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the "surge" strategy in Iraq. In an interview with anchor Katie Couric, the Arizona Republican said, inaccurately, that the surge strategy was responsible for the much-touted "Anbar Awakening," in which Sunni sheiks turned against Al Qaeda, helping in turn to reduce violence in the country.

Yet McCain's error was not seen by any CBS Evening News viewers. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted, "CBS curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric's question, but in response, it aired part of McCain's answer to the other question instead." (Ironically, this edit came on the same day that McCain's campaign released a video mocking the media's "love affair" with Obama.)


Watch video of Olbermann exposing McCain and CBS.


#6    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 24 July 2008 - 04:54 AM

They did work together though for the huge decrease in violence in Iraq today.

Even Obama is on the spot to praise the surge just not in so many words... He just credits the soldiers doing their job that they're good at by just not saying what the job is.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick

#7    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 24 July 2008 - 04:59 AM

Quote

If Obama had it his way we wouldn't have been in Iraq.


Which year are you talking about?

Obama was against a withdrawel from 2004 to november 2006, going so far to say his stance was basically the same as Bush's...
In November 2006 he changed his mind, calling for the start of a withdrawel, basically saying that Iraq had failed and the US had to get out (with the clause that you guys would go right back in should the sectarian violence flare up again lol)

to be honest, the more I read about Obama's stance on Iraq, and his opinions on how things should be conducted over there, the less it makes sense.

and for what its worth, when the Anbar awakening occured,  2200 extra troops were sent to Anbar in November 06

Edited by bathory, 24 July 2008 - 05:19 AM.


#8    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 July 2008 - 05:17 AM

bathory on Jul 24 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

Which year are you talking about?

Obama was against a withdrawel from 2004 to november 2006, going so far to say his stance was basically the same as Bush's...
In November 2006 he changed his mind, calling for the start of a withdrawel, basically saying that Iraq had failed and the US had to get out (with the clause that you guys would go right back in should the sectarian violence flare up again lol)

to be honest, the more I read about Obama's stance on Iraq, and his opinions on how things should be conducted over there, the less it makes sense.


Obama voted against the war. remember ?

he was never against withdrawal.

Now it also has to be stated that with the Uprising of Sunnis ( 10 months before the surge) and what troops that were there and the addition of Iraq guards/MP's the surge just may have been unnecessary. We won't know that now. But violence did start dropping before the surge because of the above.

If what your reading on Obama's stance on Iraq is filtered via McCain and cons . of course it isn't going to make sense. that's called spin.


#9    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 24 July 2008 - 05:42 AM

Quote

he was never against withdrawal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU




#10    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,508 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:09 AM

bathory on Jul 23 2008, 11:42 PM, said:



Ok youtube for youtube, tit for for tat lol

I like Macains last statement. "I would rather lose the election than lose the war." The war is lost, hence the enemy can't be found and singled out and that the Iraqi gov is on Obama's side. The war is lost, plain and simple.  The U.S. should pull out and soon, and let the card's fall were they may. The war is over and and the false victory over terrorisim is a sham.  End the occupation and gaurd the borders of the u.s like a zip lock vapour bag, cause what this war has done is nothing more than guaranteed furthure attacks.  


Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#11    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:19 AM

bathory on Jul 24 2008, 12:42 AM, said:



Clearly that is CGI technology and voice programming. tongue.gif

The Silver Thong on Jul 24 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

Ok youtube for youtube, tit for for tat lol

I like Macains last statement. "I would rather lose the election than lose the war." The war is lost, hence the enemy can't be found and singled out and that the Iraqi gov is on Obama's side. The war is lost, plain and simple.  The U.S. should pull out and soon, and let the card's fall were they may. The war is over and and the false victory over terrorisim is a sham.  End the occupation and gaurd the borders of the u.s like a zip lock vapour bag, cause what this war has done is nothing more than guaranteed furthure attacks.


Having a stable Iraq is winning. Even Obama sees now that the ground situation cannot be ignored and that it must be kept on the right path.

Attacks and violence are now at much much lower numbers then they were thanks to the Awakening, the surge and the on going effort of the Iraqis.

We want out of Iraq but we also have the responsibility to fix what we bombed to hell and broke for the security of both Iraq and the US with tens of millions of lives in the middle.

Edited by __Kratos__, 24 July 2008 - 06:24 AM.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick

#12    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,508 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:33 AM

__Kratos__ on Jul 24 2008, 12:19 AM, said:

Clearly that is CGI technology and voice programming. tongue.gif



Having a stable Iraq is winning. Even Obama sees now that the ground situation cannot be ignored and that it must be kept on the right path.

Attacks and violence are now at much much lower numbers then they were thanks to the Awakening, the surge and the on going effort of the Iraqis.

We want out of Iraq but we also have the responsibility to fix what we bombed to hell and broke for the security of both Iraq and the US with tens of millions of lives in the middle.


It has been mostly a ground situation!  The question is how much longer and to what ends. A permanent u.s. presence will be required if stability is to be kept. How long is the question. The Iraqi's want the u.s. out and so do most Americans. It's been to long already and another 4 years is for what?  IMO  as soon as the U.S. leaves give it 4 yrs or 10 yrs the Iraqi's will have there cival war ten fold to what it is now.  This war on terror is a joke, it has done nothing. It's like fighting a ghost, as you said many times, until "these people start to live in the 21st century" whats the war about?

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#13    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:40 AM

The Silver Thong on Jul 24 2008, 01:33 AM, said:

It has been mostly a ground situation!  The question is how much longer and to what ends. A permanent u.s. presence will be required if stability is to be kept. How long is the question. The Iraqi's want the u.s. out and so do most Americans. It's been to long already and another 4 years is for what?  IMO  as soon as the U.S. leaves give it 4 yrs or 10 yrs the Iraqi's will have there cival war ten fold to what it is now.  This war on terror is a joke, it has done nothing. It's like fighting a ghost, as you said many times, until "these people start to live in the 21st century" whats the war about?


Till we push the goals of Iraq into place. 15 of 18 goals have already been reached by the Iraqis. A fact commonly ignored. The Iraqi army is a growing force with each day. They're the ones right now that control the majority of Iraq with the Iraqi police. Another fact ignored quite a bit.

Everybody wants the US out of Iraq. That's the goal. Though many Iraqis feel that if the US leaves now or too soon it will push their country backwards. I posted a thread about it just a few days ago that was ignored for whatever reasons.

Well the 21th century for them would be a nice goal but it's unrealistic. Right now stabilizing Iraq is a goal so it can work completely on it's own and pushing the Taliban hard in Afghanistan with NATO.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick

#14    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,752 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 24 July 2008 - 12:07 PM

__Kratos__ on Jul 24 2008, 07:54 AM, said:

They did work together though for the huge decrease in violence in Iraq today.

Even Obama is on the spot to praise the surge just not in so many words... He just credits the soldiers doing their job that they're good at by just not saying what the job is.


What worked is what Dubya and his gang did not want to do: getting the Sheiks in the boat by giving them enough millions to amply their harems (or whatever they have nowadays). Instead they opted for the surge. When the surge was evidently going down the tubes they opted for the cheaper version, bribing Sheiks. Those are the facts.

If they'd done that before the war there would have been no need to risk Allied lives.





A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#15    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 24 July 2008 - 12:36 PM

Quote

Those are the facts.


lol where are you getting those facts from?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users