Truthiness in Action

Funny that you only seem to object to this when it's aimed at McCain.

DO YOU EVER DO ANYTHING BUT APOLOGIZE FOR JOHN McCAIN?

Yep, double checked and McCain remains as pure as the driven snow.
What a shocking conclusion coming from this source.

Is there no end to your deliberate confusing of this issue, Mr. Scherer? You yourself, in an earlier post, told us that McCain will not commit to a withdrawal scenario, and thus is implicitly committed to fighting in Iraq indefinitely. After the fighting settles down, he is also prepared to keep military forces in Iraq indefinitely. So how, exactly, is the "100 years" claim invalid? McCain could clear all this up by providing a strategy for near-term disengagement from Iraq. But he won't because he believes America's must control Iraq. Your writing on his position obscures it rather than clarifies it.

You protest against the unfairness of McCain's opponents misrepresenting McCain's position on Iraq, but it is the McCain campaign itself that takes pains to make McCain's position ambiguous and unclear. And you contribute to this effort at obfuscation by putting up these odd posts on Swampland. Your proper role is to help readers decide on the merits of the candidates, not act as a criticism deflector shield for John McCain.

Michael, about the gun show loophole that you so bravely beat back for McCain-was it the McCain-Lieberman bill Dean was referring to?

But voters don't want troops in the Middle East for 100 years, in any case. And wasn't the original context of McCain's comment that Iraq will be like the American presence in Korea or Japan? Earth to McCain and his Neocon policy advisers: The Middle East is not Korea or Japan. If we are in the Middle East for 100 years, we will p*ss off the people who live there for 100 years. This is not Seoul. This is not Okinawa.

So, even if McCain had been imagining a 100 year sunny Utopia for US troops in Iraq, it aint going to happen. And the 100 year line is fair game.

aww you guys always getting mad at me for defending john mccain. . . See here:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_conversation_changer_a.html

And here:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/on_why_it_matters_when_candida.html

And here:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/the_two_sides_of_mccains_south.html

And note that the post above calls out an unnamed Republican for planing the same Tom Foolery on Obama. But go ahead and come after me. You see what you want to see.

Another post from Michael Scherer in which obstensibly the topic is one thing, but really it always boils down to defending or 'clarifying' McCain's position. How surprising.

Thanks for reading the comments. Do you know the answer to my question or did Dean just make it up out whole cloth?

So you don't have anything more recent that January to prove that your really aren't anything more than a water carrier for McSame, Michael? Fail. Too easy.

But they all do it, anyway, and there is a good reason. It works. Lots of voters, unlike, say, the readers of this blog, are not paying very close attention

Michael
I agree with everything in your blog, with the above exception. How can you say that the readers of this blog are an exception? hahaha, just kidding!!

Other than drinking from the teet of the Democratic Kool-aide cow, the one-sidedness of this blog to the FAR LEFT EXTREME majority, do seem to be, well informed (brain washed) by their respective democratic candidate.

I can only hope that one day the power of the conservative spirit touches their soul.

Thank you for being fair and balanced.

McCain in '08! Join us and stop the liberal INSANITY!!!

So Michael, you're basically admitting it has been more than 10 weeks since you wrote something marginally negative about your boy?

But since he's become the GOP nominee, it's been defending 24/7.

Please engage this specific question, Mr. Scherer, if you have the time:

How is it unfair to say that John McCain intends for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years if he has no plans for ending the fighting, will not stop fighting, and sees nothing wrong with staying indefinitely even if the fighting should end?

I don't think he's defending McCain here, or clarifying his position. The clarifications are by-products of catching Dean in the same sort of exaggerations as McCain's staff.

It would be nice if JNS, who covers Obama, could do the same sort of clarification but I'm not seeing that happen as much.

And for the record, Led Zeppelin is scientifically proven to be the best rock band ever.

3 posts in January and the 3rd one has an "update" saying oh well everyone does.
Ouch! no wonder you have decided to "even things out"

Did he catch Dean? MS has flatly called Dean a liar I would like to know what he said.

Congratulations, Mr. Scherer.

You just earned Rustydog's praise for being "fair and balanced."

I'll let that semantically pregnant moment speak for itself.

The DNC director of research said that McCain said he did not want any more gun laws, after the Virginia Tech massacre. That was the basis for their poll question, but the context of the quote was not clear. And it is fair to say that the campaign website, which I linked to above, trumps the quote.

I like McSame, by the way. Had not seen that before. Have you all noticed all the plays on SnObama or Snob-ama on the right wing blogs? This is just the beginning of the nickname game.

As for fact checks since Jan, I have spent plenty of time looking into the facts of McCain's claims, as with the lobbying story from the mag a few weeks back and the torture story from last week, but then many of y'all thought those went too easy on him, so they probably aren't great examples. But I'll keep doing them. You'll see. Still won't be enough for some.

What a weird column. Thanks to the oh-so-helpful link to the McCain campaign webpage, I learned that "gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime." I suppose Senator McCain may have a point here, if we were talking about speeding, or embezzlement or international money laundering...gun control probably doesn't affect that kind of crime very much. But, a law prohibiting guns in the Capitol (together with the advent of metal detectors) - especially after the 1954 shooting episode on the House Floor - probably has affected potential gun deaths on the House Floor at least a little. I think that McCain is being a little "truthy" here.

But, of course, that kind of gibberish doesn;t get discussed...

Instead, the column claims that McCain wants to close the "gunshow loophole." The little blurb on the webpage says that McCain has introduced a bill to require instant background checks on "all sales" at gun shows. That's truthy. How on earth would McCain's bill be enforced?? Already, licensed gun show dealers must conduct background checks, but the gun shows themselves aren't licensed. So, unlicensed gun dealers go there too. The effect of McCain's bill will be to make unlicensed dealers go under-the-table. Instead of requiring that all gun shows be licensed or requiring that all dealers at gun shows be licensed, McCain's bill pretends that it accomplishes the same thing whilst inevitably creating another loophole.

Yet, this column merely blithely implies that McCain's bill equals that of legitimate efforts to close the existing "loophole" without creating another.

Dean's criticism is on target. Unlike on torture, where McCain blatantly flip-flopped by immunizing the torturers and specifically allowing torture to be conducted by non military U.S. agencies, he didn't exactly flip-flop here. He is merely a pretend advocate. The truthy thing is that Mr. Scherer apparently believes that "pretend advocacy" equals advocacy.

MS has flatly called Dean a liar I would like to know what he said.

Does it really matter after the scream? The guy's an elitist out-of-touch freak from Vermont. Isn't that proof enough he's a liar? It sure is for most people from the heartland. I know because some millionaires on "Meet the Press" told me this is how most people from the heartland feel.

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I understand your answer but that's probably me.

Gee, Michael you might occasionally deem yourself more than just McCain's researcher and clarifier.

You might report critically on things like McCain saying he's against torturing "Americans", conveniently omitting the other people it is now clear that WE DO TORTURE.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccain-opposes-torturing-americans/

But that would mean breaking free of the love the press corps feels toward McCain.

Were you in on buying him doughnuts this morning too?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/mccain-press-donuts/

The Press has McCain's back - so I wouldn't worry abouit any DNC attacks on him.

Thanks patrocius, my spidey sense was that it was water carrying that I was reading.

The entire right-wing "discourse" is based on distorting the left's positions and willful suspension of disbelief.

We can't hit McCain for something he actually said (his 100 years comment)? I think even if he was able to explain the context to every American, they still wouldn't care. Many of us understand the context in which he said it, and still find it insane.

Hmmm. So some DNC researcher says something, so Mr. Scherer criticizes Dean for it. Interesting truth...

Earth to Mr. Scherer - we're in a war in Iraq; we're not in a no-war in Iraq. McCain's comment was abominable and will continue to be criticized and criticized and criticized regardless of how often McCain fluffers defend it.

Both Republican and Democratic politicians and strategists lie. That's basically what this post is pointing out.

And what's really scary is that deception is clearly very effective even with the commenters on Swampland, who are paying attention to Politics. Dean and the other Democrats are deliberately misrepresenting McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment (and what he actually said is bad enough; the whole Korea thing is not actually going well, and it's not even an option in Iraq), but we're not even admitting it. Yet we're all quick to condemn Republicans for believing Rove's absurd lies. Yes, the Democrats' lies are definitely less harmful and absurd. But they're still lies.

Please engage this specific question, Mr. Scherer, if you have the time:

How is it unfair to say that John McCain intends for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years if he has no plans for ending the fighting, will not stop fighting, and sees nothing wrong with staying indefinitely even if the fighting should end?

HH, you get at another point that comes up in this fact checking business. Everything becomes confusing. It goes down like this: CJR calls out Obama on saying "he is willing to send our troops into another hundred years of war in Iraq."

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php?page=all

The incomparable Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker comes back with a deft post that says CJR is missing the forest for the tree.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/04/mccains-hundred.html

One can argue that both are right, or both are wrong. But the specifics of the CJR post are clear and correct. Based on what the candidate has said, if McCain were alive for another hundred years, or president for another hundred years, he would not support another hundred years of fighting. He just won't say how much more fighting he would support, because he will not set a timetable. So in my humble opinion, you can't say that McCain supports 100 years of war, but you can say he supports an indefinite commitment to continued U.S. fighting in Iraq, followed by a presence of U.S. troops that could be there for as much as 100 years.

Which is, HH, i think what you are getting at.Even in telling truth from falsehood there is lots of space for confusion. Now that I have responded to HH, you can all blame me for yet another instance of defending McCain.

Story suggestion: A history of the flip-flops, zig-zags and pirouettes of St McCain on torture: From the day he stood on the floor of the Senate and vowed to block the MCA even if it cost him his presidential campaign (he later voted for it... and David Broder had a whole series of columns on how The Great Moderates McCainLiebermanandGraham would save us from this blight on our history... he never wrote another word on it after they caved, you could use that as a sidebar), to his near-eloquent denunciations of torture as he explicitly voted to authorize it, to his statement today that we must have standards, and that's why we don't torture. Americans.

You could have chosen to write about 'truthiness' and used McCain's recent comments regarding 'elitism' and pointed out that a man who married into wealth is perhaps an imperfect carrier of that message, instead you chose an issue in which you knew you could defend him.

Michael, could you clarify McCain's position vis-a-vis his apparent flip flop on the mortgage situation? Let me guess, you don't think he flip flopped.

If Mr. Scherer is now answering questions, how about this one - how can a campaign website simultaneously claim that "gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime" and also advocate a gun control bill aimed (albeit poorly) at closing the gun show loophole?

If the answer is "he's trying to have it both ways," the follow-up is why do you think journalists don't bother to point this out?

Jim,Foolish Literalist, I am so glad you asked:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729891,00.html

I like McSame, by the way. Had not seen that before. Have you all noticed all the plays on SnObama or Snob-ama on the right wing blogs? This is just the beginning of the nickname game.

What are they saying over there about McBush calling his wife the c-word, Mike? You know, the one that rhymes with bunt. I bet they think it's pretty awesome, but not a lot of people know that story. You should write about it.

Since McCain has not, apparently, egregiously changed his position on torture, and has not advocated 100 years of war in Iraq, let's try some other questions.

What are some of McCain's most deceitful statements?
Where has he lied, or dissembled, or misconstrued?
And I mean McCain, personally, as opposed to his staff and PR department.
Are there any good examples, Michael? Since the ones the commentors pick don't seem to be panning out too well.

Cincinnatus, Mr. Scherer has yet to defend McCain's two-facedness on gun control. I'm waiting.

How is it unfair to say that John McCain intends for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years if he has no plans for ending the fighting, will not stop fighting, and sees nothing wrong with staying indefinitely even if the fighting should end? Posted by HH | April 14, 2008 5:49 PM

Could it be that he DID NOT say it to begin with, that you are just regugitating the political spin of a one-time wonder from Chicago???

And why do we say we are still in a War, when the war was over in less than a week? Earth to Democrats, its called "Stabilization"!!

We could try the Obama/Pelosi military strategy and just CUT AND RUN and let the whole place implode upone itself. BRILLIANT!!

Jim,Foolish Literalist, I am so glad you asked:

Wow. I'm not.

review of the record shows that McCain has neither changed his position on torture nor taken sides with President Bush on the substance of the issue.

Up till now I thought the people calling you a McCain apologist were way over the top. Now I think they're dead on.

That's really depressing.

Jim, indeed, that article is one of the biggest whitewashes I've ever read. Nothing about the MCA and McCain's statements and later flip-flop. It's like a biography that doesn't even mention its subject.

Very depressing.

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

I guess Howard Dean made the whole thing up, just like Michael and his sock puppet Rusty say.

So was McCain being truthful or truthy when he implied that Al Qaeda is the principal threat in Iraq that U.S. forces have to stay and keep fighting?

Thanks TomT, the actual words read lots worse than the way Mr. Scherer paraphrased them ("open to having"). We're in South Korea and Japan, but there isn't war there. There is a war ongoing in Iraq - the McLaughlin Group estimated 80,000+ actual casualties so far.

Or was he just being what Fred Sanford would call a dummy?

r was he just being what Fred Sanford would call a dummy?
Posted by Enceladus

Or what Homer Simpson would call "Dad"?

Here's some more questions:

Since McCain obviously isn't advocating withdrawal from Iraq until we meet a certain set of conditions, how does he reconcile that with the need for more troops to shore up the situation in Afghanistan? Will he pressure NATO to contribute? Does he have a plan for obtaining the clout needed to do so?

How would he rank the worsening humanitarian situation in Africa (Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe)? Will they require military intervention or will diplomacy be sufficient?

Does he have any thoughts regarding Israel and Palestine? (He may well have said something in regards to this but I don't recall hearing anything). Does he think this is a central factor in the Middle Eastern turmoil?

Does he give a lot of weight to the idea of developing energy independence?

What are his latest thoughts on Iran?

Thank you for helping us understand the Saint. I know Dean does not endear himself to your crowd. But stick with your guy. He will keep you in your job. All praise to the Saint. Dean: recall the scream?

Michael, here's McCain saying he backs no gun control:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041900430.html

Care to clarify Maverick's position?

Rustypoodle, frankly I reserve the phrase 'cutting and running' to those self proclaimed patriots who refuse to serve their country in a time of 2 wars. The running refers to the running to the back of the house when a recruiter rings the doorbell.

MS: ..aww you guys always getting mad at me for defending john mccain..

Oh; it's not just you, Mike.

Never mind that it is a statement of opinion as much as fact, like saying that Led Zeppelin was the greatest rock band of all time.

Er...Zeppelin was the greatest rock band of all time. Duh.

Problem is, McCain has not flip-flopped on the gun show loophole. He still wants to close it.

Words and action, Mike. McCain has also stated, "I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control."

So, umm...Which McCain do gun enthusiasts believe? The one who wants controls or the one who does not?

McCain said he would be open to having troops in Iraq for 100 years, not a war in Iraq for 100 years..

Hogwash. McCain's comparing post-WWII Japan to post shack-and-awe Iraq. McCain can qualify it to the Nth degree, but most people know better.

So was McCain being truthful or truthy when he implied that Al Qaeda is the principal threat in Iraq that U.S. forces have to stay and keep fighting?

Hell, Huggy Bear is still trying to figure out whether Al Qaeda is Sunni or Shi'ite. The guy is a walking disaster, but you'd never learn that from reading the MSM and guys like Michael Scherer here.

For various reasons, I'm reminded of this little exchange from "This Is Spinal Tap":

David St. Hubbins: We say, "Love your brother." We don't say it really, but...
Nigel Tufnel: We don't literally say it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't say it.
Nigel Tufnel: We don't really, literally mean it.
David St. Hubbins: No, we don't believe it either, but...
Nigel Tufnel: But we're not racists.
David St. Hubbins: But that message should be clear, anyway.
Nigel Tufnel: We're anything but racists.

MS: I am so glad you asked..

From your article:

Though McCain supports the President's position on the veto, he has spent the better part of a year on the campaign trail speaking out against waterboarding and other extreme interrogation methods as forms of illegal torture.

Action: Supports Dubya's validation of torture.
Words: Torture is bad!

...And what exactly does 'extreme interrogation techniques' mean, if not 'torture'? Talk about truthiness...

So two votes for Zeppelin as the greatest rock band of all time. What about the Stones, the Beatles, the Velvet Underground (most important of the early 70s?), the Pixies (greatest of the early 90s?), the Dead (greatest jam band?), Modest Mouse (greatest of the late 90s?)?

Does this mean Stairway is the greatest rock song of all time?

And I left out U2...

Okay I just googled. MSNBC did it already. I don't agree completely (sly?), but they are not far off...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595384/

So in my humble opinion, you can't say that McCain supports 100 years of war, but you can say he supports an indefinite commitment to continued U.S. fighting in Iraq, followed by a presence of U.S. troops that could be there for as much as 100 years.

Which is, HH, i think what you are getting at.Even in telling truth from falsehood there is lots of space for confusion. Now that I have responded to HH, you can all blame me for yet another instance of defending McCain.

With respect, Mr. Scherer, what are you talking about? There is no meaningful difference between an indefinite commitment to war in Iraq and a 100 year stay. I just don't get it. Is the fact that McCain won't be around for 100 years relevant? McCain intends to keep America in Iraq INDEFINITELY. That is the news that you should be reporting to America's voters.

Then Dean changed the topic and began talking about the use of

Then Michael changed the topic and began talking about the use of top 10 lists

But if you must Sly > Greatful Dead and the raeggae band.

The only band that matters (tm) The Clash

So we are going to continue to say what John McCain said, that the troops should be in there as long as 100 years.

Shearer: In your opinion, is there a legitimate way the Democrats could mention this quote? Cause to me, this sounds like a faithful rendition of what McCain said.

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be saying we should keep troops in Iraq to counteract terrorist organizations. Why is the press going along with the idea that he didn't really say it?

What about..the Stones

Nope, but close.

the Beatles

Game changers, but not 'rock' per se.

the Velvet Underground

Didn't sell enough records.

the Pixies

No staying power, eclipsed by bands like Soundgarden, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins..

the Dead

Yeeah. The Dead's on a completely different plane. And I mean that in a good way.

Modest Mouse

Revolving lineup, too soon to make a judgement.

Does this mean Stairway is the greatest rock song of all time?

No, but close enough.

And I left out U2

Two words: Zooroupa, Pop. Not too far off, 'tho.

Who are the Pixies?
And how about my questions?

"the Pixies (greatest of the early 90s?)"

Uh, that would be Nirvana or, my pick, Nine Inch Nails.

Why are you changing the subject? Oh that's right, your position is indefensible.

The truthiness is that John McCain is a Maverick Centrist*.

* "Maverick Centrist" is a copyrighted term owned by the MSM and is only available upon the full agreement and license of the MSM. All others will be prosecuted (unless you bring donuts and invite us to get drunk on the bus).

This just in from MSNBC....McCain's positions have evolved....not a flip flopper.

There are only two bands that can seriously be considered the greatest rock bands of all-time: the Rolling Stones or the Beatles. In 8 short years the Beatles changed the world (and I find the argument that they are not "rock" a bit bizarre), but the Rolling Stones have been non-stop blockbusters for over 40 years. Like 'em or not, its really not a contest. U2 is the greatest band of this generation. Oh, and Zooropa rocks.

Kurt Cobain said his life goal was to write a great Pixies song, so perhaps that's why they get a little dap here from Michael. Stairway as best rock song? That I'm comfortable with. Stairway, American Pie, Hey Jude... (I'm a sucker for the epics)

To sum up the 2008 campaign succinctly it would be: Bush-Squared vs. Bush-lite vs. The New Guy. In my opinion, the new guy is the only one of the candidates who has any actual interest in shaking up the system even somewhat. He's also clearly the only one willing to speak uncomfortable truths, which unfortunately may cost him the presidency.

This is a true classic: top 50 conservative rock songs of all time. Obviously, "conservative rock" is an oxymoron, but this list is funny (whether intentionally so or not, I can't tell). Here's an excerpt:

6. “Gloria,” by U2. U2 - Under a Blood Red Sky - Gloria ; buy CD on Amazon.com
Just because a rock song is about faith doesn’t mean that it’s conservative. But what about a rock song that’s about faith and whose chorus is in Latin? That’s beautifully reactionary: “Gloria / In te domine / Gloria / Exultate.”

I'm just going to warn you in advance that there is a Clash song on the list (their cover of "I Fought the Law", which for some reason is deemed more conservative than the original), and, as someone who lives by the credo "What Would Joe Strummer Do", I find that very disturbing.

TomT there is nothing funnier than the group from The Corner being "hip".
The combination of nerdieness, self satisfaction, and complete lack of self awareness can not be beat.

To reiterate what Attaturk said, that Michael Scherer comment is quite the tell. He writes " aww you guys always getting mad at me for defending john mccain. . . See here:" and then lists three posts from three months ago in which he pointed out that McCain was unfair to Republicans. I knew Michael's pro-McCain record was bad, but I had no idea it was that bad.

"It works. Lots of voters, unlike, say, the readers of this blog, are not paying very close attention."

Lots of voters are paying attention Michael and they don't necessary read or comment on this blog. Far be it from me to call you out of touch, but believe it or not voters were paying attention before blogs were invented. Ever heard of thing called letters to the editor?

While doing those hay days for the media who could write stories and suffer very limited feed back the difference with blogs is you can immediately be called out on crap.

Now how dumb do you think we are that we actually need a post on how campaigns will spin things? Do you actually think that you have imparted some inside knowledge here? OMG.

Michael Scherer at 5:25 PM

"You see what you want to see."

Oh, so you are the guy to go to see about the truth?

Michael Scherer at 5:51 PM

"One can argue that both are right, or both are wrong. But the specifics of the CJR post are clear and correct. "

Of course, with regards to the CJR and Hertzberg dispute about McCain's 100 years statement, Hertzberg was at the event where the quote was made and used 700 lines to support the context they were made in while the CJR writer wasn't there and used 100 lines to promote their argument.

But you, non-ideological Michael is the guy who is going to point us to the way of the correct specifics. Yeah, OK, gotcha.

The editors at Time really should promote you from the Washington bureau to the tortured logic bureau because you've earned your doctorate in it with your McCain torture post and this one.

from your post:
"He still wants to close it. (UPDATE: But he has not always been vocal in his support of closing the loophole either. As noted in the comments below, McCain spoke out against any additional gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech murders last year.)"

Either McCain wants to close the loophole, is willing to let the public know about it and is for legislation that will close it, or he is against any additional gun control legislation. (Doesn't your non-ideological truth meter tell you that maybe McCain is doing political posturing here?)

These last two posts of yours have proved that there is a Scooby Doo mystery here because someone is masquerading as straight talking John McCain in a poorly disguised suit. The flip flopping might mean it's John Kerry and the do anything to win drive behind it might mean it is Hillary Clinton.I'm sure your non-ideological bent makes you the reporter for the job. Rooby Rooby Doo!

McCain said he would be open to having troops in Iraq for 100 years, not a war in Iraq for 100 years.

So how then does he propose to end the war?

Army Times catches another McCain gaffe. What say you Michael?

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

"I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.

Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said.

"I've been sort of focused on another task," Petraeus said when pressed about whether more troops should be diverted to Afghanistan rather than Iraq.

http://www.armytimes.com/

"I've been sort of focused on another task," Petraeus said when pressed about whether more troops should be diverted to Afghanistan rather than Iraq. Posted by GySgt213 | April 15, 2008 3:39 AM

You shouldn't twist the concept of what McCain was saying, GySgt213. McCain was saying that he would leave the decision up to Petraeus whether to draw down the troops in Iraq. Then if needed, McCain would send them to Afghanistan.

You forgot to mention the part that came before your post above about McCain;
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

Nice try at SPINNING GySgt213

Sorry, Rusty I didn't twist anything. You are the one attempting to spin what McCain said and explain it for him. What you are saying he said he didn't. He was asked the question and could have phrase his answer the way you suggest, but he didn't. Finally, Go back and read my post and you will see that what you said I didn't include is actually there.

Rustydog: Nice try at SPINNING GySgt213

That's a direct quote from the Army Times, Rusty.

I'm not sure McCain flipped on this issue. McCain has been a lifelong supporter of the second amendment, but what I find strange is not how his current position compares to his past votes, but why he proposed the McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman gun show bill--S. 1807 in the first place. Supporting the bill seemed at odds with the rest of his career. If you look at his support of this bill and then look at his current positions I can see how it looks liked he flipped, but the bill is a strange strange anomaly.

Personally I don't think we should close the loophole. As wikipedia (obviously a very trustworthy site) points out "although gun shows remain a point of concern, a 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show."

And that's through any vendor at the show, not merelty those guns bought using the exemption for private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales.

Based on what the candidate has said, if McCain were alive for another hundred years, or president for another hundred years, he would not support another hundred years of fighting.

Where has McCain said that he would not support another hundred years of fighting?

I hope you're not referring directly to the passage in question, because, as so many here have pointed out, the logical inference is directly opposite.

So, what other statements, anywhere, has McCain made that support the proposition that "he would not support another hundred years of fighting"?

By the way, Michael, you might want to step back from this for a moment, and compare/contrast the way this statement of McCain's is treated by yourself and other members of the media, and the way two of Obama's statements are handled by other reporters here at Time and elsewhere:

1) Obama's written statement, on a questionnaire, to:

aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

and

2) His statement before a group of fundraisers in SF. In response to the question whether PA voters were, in fact, "too racist to vote for Obama" as described by Governor Rendell, Obama said:

Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Now, if we carefully parse the first statement, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that Obama made a promise to pursue an agreement with his opponent regarding public financing, but that he wasn't guaranteeing that pursuit would be successful. Yet I continually see here, and just about everywhere else in the MSM, references to "Obama promised to accept public financing." Nobody seems willing to give him the benefit of a careful parsing, even though he was obviously being very careful with his language, for just this reason.

With regard to the San Francisco statements, not only do does a careful parsing support Obama's side of the kerfuffle, but we have a solid record of both written and verbal statements that are consistent with his defense of those remarks.

Yes, I am aware that it wasn't you, Michael Scherer, who is solely responsible for this uneven treatment, but the end result is the same.

Shorter fedupwithswampland: McCain always gets the benefit of the doubt, even when he doesn't deserve it.

So, what other statements, anywhere, has McCain made that support the proposition that "he would not support another hundred years of fighting"?

Mr. Scherer delights in pointing out to us that it is normal for campaigns to obscure the truth, and he is happy to assist. Mr. Scherer is a perfect post-modern journalist, improvising his role, based on careerism, rather than following anything so clumsy and outmoded as ethical norms or civic duty.

This is all just a clever game that Michael Scherer has learned to play well. He dances around ambiguities, "reporting" on them in a way that makes them MORE rather than LESS ambiguous.

The classic engineering definition of information is "that which reduces uncertainty." By this definition, Mr. Scherer produces disinformation that makes us less certain about the positions of John McCain. The fuzzier the public perception of McCain's positions, the more crucial independent and undecided votes McCain can gather. This is exactly the outcome the McCain campaign and Time-Warner-Moloch desire, and this is why Mr. Scherer has been assigned to cover the McCain campaign.

So, Michael, if the DNC runs ads using video of McCain's statement, and then three slides saying "McCain. Iraq. 100 Years" that'd be okay, right? No truthiness. Direct quotation for voters to interpret as they would, right?

And if you don't see bias in the parsing of McCain's statements, and excuses for McCain's "gaffes" to defend his position as appearing biased next to the parsing of Obama's statements and endless focus on Obama's "gaffes" as terribly damaging, well then you need to get a new bias detector.

Let me try that last sentence again.

If you do not see bias in the way in which McCain's statements are parsed to minimize the damage to his campaign, and his "gaffes" excused as minor errors in speaking, in contrast to the way OBama's statements are parsed, and "gaffes" emphasized as damaging to his campaign, you should invest in a new bias detector.

And I turn on the radio, and there's U2 and BB King. Love Comes to Town. Pretty good version. Lucille ringing out.

As long as we're discussing McCain's area of expertise (endless occupations)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/military_mccain_petraeus_041408w/

Count me among those curious to see how long the myth that McCain has any credibility, let alone expertise on Military affairs and foreign policy (which in a sane world wouldn't be the same thing) when he consistently and repeatedly gets important or, dare I say it, vital details flat-out wrong.

My guess is at least another 8 months.

In regard to the debate over McCain's position on torture: Interrogation techniques have been limited by the Geneva Convention since its inception. Bush et al have chosen to interpret it in a way that allows waterboarding, stress positions, sleep depravation, slapping, nudity, etc. By not perusing legislation that would limit the CIA to Army Field Manual rules, define illegal interrogation techniques and allow for the prosecution of those who violate the law, these interpretations remain valid. McCain has, in essence, merely reiterated that the CIA is bound by international law enforced at the discretion of current and future presidents. McCain has spoken out against torture and, I believe, is passionately against it, therefore, his actions are contradictory and hypocritical. He should be called out by mainstream media.
As far as his 100 year statement, I believe that as long as we have a military presence in Iraq, there will be an armed and organized opposition to it. Whether we call our indefinite commitment to this presence "war" or "stabilization" is semantics. If soldiers are killing and dieing, its war.

Perhaps with all this sniping and snarking back and forth, the media will finally tire of it and do what they've had the power to do all along: ignore it. ... Nah ....

Perhaps with all this sniping and snarking back and forth, the media will finally tire of it and do what they've had the power to do all along: ignore it. ... Nah ....

Criminy Scherer, are you serious?

You are contorting to defend McCain, and contorting to an equal extent to attack those who are attacking McCain.

This is not a form of balance.

You just can't cut it all these different ways. McCain has flip-flopped on torture, he has made major and startling gaffes on knowledge of foreign affairs, and he is fairly criticized for wanting 100 years of continuation of whatever it is we are doing in Iraq.

Sure, he was also guilty of a low blow on Romney, but that doesn't really help out your cause much.

And I love Led Zeppelin, but Lynyrd Skynyrd was a better band, imho.

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
67 - - -p-2 - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور الأنمي - - خلفيات انمي - - انمي بنات حزينة - -
صور بنات انمي - - انمي بنات رومنسية - -
انمي حزينة - - صور بنات انمي - - اجمل بنات انمي - -
زفاف انمي - - زفاف عرايس - - انمي اطفال - -
بنات انمي رومنسي - - صور انمي حزينه - - صور الجاسوسات - -
صور انمي 2008 - - صور بنات حلوات - -
شباب انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور احلى بنات - - بنات انمي رومنسي - -
انمي رومنسي - - انمي رومنسي حلوة - -
صور انمي احضان - - افلام كرتون - - افلام انمي - -
انمي خليجي - - مسلسلات كرتون - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - - 68 - -
68-p-2 - - سياحة وسفر - -
سياحة - -سفر - -فنادق - -
46 - -46-p-3 - -46-p-6 - -
ناطحات سحاب - -أفضل 10 مدن - -
مدينة الحب الفرنسيه - -فندق الحب - -
صور - -24 - -34-p-3 - -
34-p-6 - - - -34-p-13 - -
34-p-15 - -34-p-20 - -
34-p-25 - -34-p-29 - -
34-p-30 - -34-p-35 - -34-p-38 - -
34-p-40 - -صور جيملات العرب - -صور طبيعية - -صور متحركة - -صور بنات - -صور رومنسية - -صور اطفال - -صور رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور قلوب حب - -
صور قلوب رومانسية - -ورود وزهور - -
زهور - -صورة الغروب - -
سوالف بنات - -صور حب - -صور حب رومانسية - -
صور حب 2008 - -صور قلوب - -
قلوب روعة - -صور قلوب رومانسية - -
صور حزينة - -صور متحركة - -
صور متحركه منوعة - -صور حب - -
صور خلفيات - -خلفيات رومانسية - -
صور انهار - -صور شلالات - -
صور مصرقعه - -جنس ثالث - -
صور جنس ثالث - -صور حزينة - -
صور شلالات وانهار - -صور جميلة - -صور غريبه - -
صور رومنسية - -صورطبيعة - -صور السعودية - -
صور الورد - -صور وتعليقات - -صور مضحكة - -
شموع - -صور حلوة - -
احلى عروس - -صور رعب - -24 - -24-p-3 - -
24-p-5 - -24-p-8 - -فوتوشوب - -
تصاميم - -صور تصاميم - - صور تصاميم رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور تصميم - -صور تصميم رومنسية - -
صور عيون - -صور دباديب - -بطاقات رومانسية - -
صور تصميم شباب - -صور بنات للتصاميم - -صور بنات - -
صور رومانسيه حزينه - -صور نسائية - -صور نسائية روعة - -
صور رجال - -صور احترافية - -59 - -
58 - -ملحقات التصميم - -دروس التصميم - -
جميلات العرب - -اليسا - -
صور طبيعية - -صور قلوب - -
صور رومنسية - -بلوتوث مزايين - - البوم صور مزايين - -
صور ماسنجر - -وسائط - -
صور حب - -صور بنات - -صور بنات للمسن - -
العاب مكياج و ميك اب - - العاب ازياء - - العاب مغامرات - -
العاب بنات - - العاب تلبيس بنات - - العاب باربي - -
العاب بلياردو - - العب - - العاب - -

1 - -2 - -3 - -4 - -5 - -6 - -7 - -
13 - -14 - -8 - -15 - -10 - -21 - -30 - -
17 - -16 - -23 - -20 - -25 - -24 - -27 - -
26 - -29 - -28 - -31 - -32 - -33 - -34 - -
37 - -38 - -35 - -36 - -39 - -40 - -41 - -
42 - -43 - -44 - -45 - -46 - -47 - -58 - -
53 - -54 - -48 - -55 - -56 - -49 - -57 - -
50 - -59 - -60 - -51 - -61 - -62 - -52 - -
11 - -12 - -63 - -64 - -
المنتدى العام - - مواضيع ساخنة ومثيرة - - ترجمة - -
ازياء - - موضة - - فساتين - -
مكياج - - ميك اب - - اكسسوارات - - ديكور - - غرف نوم - -
اثاث - - طبخ - - مطبخ - - حلويات - - اكلات - - معجنات - - تغذية - - صحة - - طب - -
شعر - - قصايد - - خواطر - - عذب الكلام - -
قصص - - روايات - - طرب - - رجة - - مسابقات - - صرقعة - - صور - - بلوتوث و مقاطع فيديو - - بلوتوث - - العاب فلاش - - صور انمي - - افلام انمي - - عدسة التصوير - -
افلام عربية و مسلسلات - - مسلسلات اجنبية تلفزيونية - - افلام عربية و افلام اجنبية و مسلسلات تلفزيونية - - برامج كمبيوتر - - فوتوشوب - - ثيمات - العاب الجوال - خلفيات - - برامج نوكيا - نغمات - برامج جوال - - رسائل جوال - مسجات - رسايل وسائط - sms - - مسنجر - برامج ماسنجر - توبيكات - - دروس التصميم - -
ملحقات التصميم - - بلوتوث - -
-
برامج نوكيا - - -كورة - - -صور - - -
مسنجر - - - طرب - - -
العاب - - -
قصص - - - مكياج - - - موضة - -
- ديكور - -
- وسائط - -
- برامج - -
-افلام - - -
مقاطع فيديو - - -
مواضيع ساخنة - - -ثيمات
جوال - - -نغمات - - -
افلام انمي - - -خواطر - - -
العاب جوال - - -افلام
عربية - - -ازياء - - - صور
انمي - - -
سياحة - - -مسلسلات اجنبية - - -
شعر - - -اناشيد - - -
توبيكات - - -رسائل
جوال - --تصاميم -
شات
شات الرياض
بنت حواء
بنت نجد
عروسة
عروس
العاب شمس
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
67
-p-2
توبيكات
مسنجر
برامج ماسنجر
توبيكات ملونة
- توبيكات -
توبيك -
صور ماسنجر -
مقالب للماسنجر
- ماسنجر بلس
- صور قلوب ماسنجر
- صور ماسنجر
رومنسيه - صور
للماسنجر -
أحلى توبيكات -
رموز للماسنجر
- توبيكات ملونه
- ثيمات ماسنجر
- توبيكات توبيك
- توبيكات رومنسية
- توبيكات اغاني
- صور بنات
للمسن - صور
بنوتيه - صور
مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
توبيكات حب وغرام -
توبيكات ملونه
للمسن - صور
بنات للماسنجر 2008 -
توبيكات شعر -
صور مسنجر اطفال
- توبيكات مصرقعة
- زخارف مسنجر
- سكربتات
للماسنجر -
اختصارات للماسنجر -
كلمات للمسن -
توبيكات مسلسل
سنوات الضياع -
صور مهند ونور
للمسن -
توبيكات روعة -
توبيكات رومانسية
ملونة - احلى
توبيكات للمسن -
توبيكات حزينة
- توبيكات
رومانسية ملونه مع صور -
صور قلوب رومانسية
للمسن - صور
بنات للمسن -
صور بنوتات للماسنجركلمات رومنسية عبارات رومانسية للمسن
بنات للمسن msn صور بنات رومنسية للمسن عذاب وحب للمسن توبيكات خيانة صور اليسا للمسنجر
صور فنانين للماسنجر احلى توبيكات رومنسية توبيكات روعة
جميلات العرب
اليسا
صور طبيعية
صور قلوب
صور رومنسية
بلوتوث مزايين
البوم صور مزايين
صور ماسنجر
وسائط
صور حب

صور بنات
صور بنات للمسن
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب ازياء
العاب مغامرات
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب باربي
العاب بلياردو
العب
العاب

صور ماسنجر
صور قلوب للمسن
صور مسن كتابية
صور مسن كرتونية
منوعات ماسنجر
صور مناسبات واسلاميات للمسن
صور ايدي وارجل للمسن
صور اطفال مسن
صور فنانين للماسنجر
صور بنات للمسن
صور مهند -
صور لميس -
صور توبا -
اغاني سنوات الضياع -
لحن اغنية سنوات الضياع -
فضايح استار اكاديمي -
سنوات الضياع -
مسلسل نور -
حلقات مسلسل نور التركي -
برامج نوكيا n73 -
مسلسل غزلان في غابة الذئاب -
لميس بطلة سنوات الضياع -
توبيكات ملونة بالصور -
توبيكات ملونة -
صور مهند مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
ثيمات بنات -
ثيمات بنات رومنسيه -
توبيكات مسنجر -
توبكات مصرقعة -
توبيكات مسنجر ملونه -
توبيكات ماسنجر -
توبكات حب وعتاب للمسنجر -
توبيكات رومنسية -
توبيكات ماسنجر -
العاب نوكيا -
صور انهار -
ثيمات n80 -