Descent Into Parody
Tweet
Patrick Ruffini writes.
Finally, a Republican campaign that is unafraid to explicitly take on the media.
Apparently Patrick has been under a rock for the last 30 years. Every Republican campaign – from president on down to dog catcher – builds itself around the myth of the liberal media. The conservative movement has invested millions in propping up this myth for their candidates to fight against. But apparently some of them missed it.
61 Responses to “Descent Into Parody”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
God, those idiots crack me up!
Those millions would be wasted if they didn’t use the narrative, in this case, making the pander bear look fiesty.
Anybody that doesn’t believe Barack Obama is not getting fawning media treatment and much more favorable press coverage than John McCain is truly in denial.
Yeah Jay, McCain is getting such a hard time from the press that they are actively editing his misstatements and intercutting with old interviews trying to pretend it’s all live so that he won’t look so friggin bad.
Until we have evidence of the media editing Barack’s interviews to make him look better, Jay, we’d really all appreciate it if you’d just shut the fuck up.
How many times have reporters been to Barack’s for tasty, delicious, manly, straight-talkin’ barbecue lunches?
I’d say it’s pretty much been a wash. Barack is a lot better looking and well-spoken than McCain and has natural charisma. McCain gets by on the myth of his “maverick”-ness, when in reality he’s been Bush II’s lap-dog.
Jay: “Anybody that doesn’t believe Barack Obama is not getting fawning media treatment and much more favorable press coverage than John McCain is truly in denial.”
John McCain lied about the timing of the surge and the Anbar Awakening. CBS cut out his lie.
Find me anything that the media has done to help Obama. Anything.
Sen. Obama’s hostile media (Fox, the talk radio circuit, etc.) is also much more hostile than anything Sen. McCain faces, even if Barack receives marginally better treatment from the MSM, something of which I’m not positive either way.
One has to go to the blogs or KO’s program to find coverage of McCain as negative as what Obama gets from FNC and the radio, each of which have audiences in the millions.
Before this devolves into a “which side has benefited from press laziness the most” fight, followed by the “my inferior semantics are still better than your inferior semantics” fight , can we just all simmer down a minute and agree the press has been a bit sycophantic as far as both candidates? Too eager to appease both at the same time like the lap-dogs theyve chosen to become? Too set in their belief that being partial to both will somehow make them appear impartial? I think we’d all like to see both candidates challenged legitimately on their policies (not least of all because we each believe our favored one will thrive as the other wilts) so can we just let that laziness on their part enter the discussion here and not become about fighting on either site of the “Librul Meedea” debate? My migrane and I would appreciate it.
I agree with Rex. I am interested in seeing a European style media, or at least an Irish one, that asks pointed questions of our candidates. And by that I don’t mean gotchas. I mean questions that are about policy and are followed up when the politician evades them.
I think this would be the best for the public, and it definitely would be best for Obama. Someone like Obama who doesn’t speak in soundbytes would be well served if allowed to tell “the rest of the story”.
Nice Straw, Oliver. Ruffini isn’t saying that this is the first time a Conservative/Republican has ever complained about media bias: it’s the first time a CANDIDATE and/or CAMPAIGN has explicitly made it an issue. His argument goes that the campaign itself (appears to) assume the press is impartial and lets the Limbaughs, O’Reillys, Instapundits and Novaks of the world bang the “bias” drum.
I’m not entirely sure that, even on that point, Ruffini is correct. But so far, neither Oliver nor his commenter bretheren have rebutted that particular argument with anything relevant.
Shorter Farris: I don’t like the fact that y’all have demonstrated such an empirically observable piece of outlandish media servitude in favor of McCain, so I’m demanding that you debate within the narrow confines of what I insist all this means.
Finally, a Republican campaign…
Shorter Rheinhard: Me No Read Good.
For an encore, Ruffini frets about the Obama people printing flyers in German…to distribute before his speech in, um, Germany!
This one issue with McCain doesn’t refute my overall point. If anybody likes, they can go over to the Project For Excellence in Journalism website and they can see the coverage disparity between Obama and McCain.
In addition, we have this weeks NY Times hilarity as they ran an op-ed piece by Barack Obama and then refused to run McCain’s rebuttal.
Jay – in the past various TV and print outlets have refused to run ads by liberal groups including MoveOn.org claiming that the ads contained “factual errors”. Should the same standard not be applied to op-eds? Or do Republicans, as usual, get a pass on this? Or maybe only McCain does, because of his straight-talking-maverickness or his vast foreign policy genius?
I wouldn’t call it “fret[ing]” so much as “seems like an odd way to spend your campaign cash” what with Germany having so few electoral votes. But then again, I’m not the Messiah, so what do I know?
Rheinhard, the NY Times didn’t refuse to run McCain’s piece because it wasn’t factually correct. Obama wrote a piece about plans for troop draw-down in Iraq. McCain wrote a rebuttal piece. But the NY Times op-ed editor, David Shipley (a former Clinton lackey) said he wouldn’t run the rebuttal because it needed to “lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.” I mean, WTF?
Maybe somebody should remind Shipley that the NY Times is in the business of covering the news, not dictating a candidates policy proposals. He demands timetables despite knowing that McCain is opposed to arbitrary timetables for withdrawal.
Did the NY Al-Times just refuse to run McCain’s piece on the surge?
That’s one example, right there.
Do you need more?
Marxists respond right now.
Jay & j mccann:
You could have read McCain’s op-ed in the NY Post. That other NY paper didn’t run it because it was a hit piece. It didn’t address the issue at all. Why can’t McCain address the actual issue? Or is that because he really doesn’t have a clue(like his admitted cluelessness on economics)?
Farris,
You do not want us to try to answer that question for you.
BTW, I love your attempt at snark (German electoral college votes…priceless), however it is (again) ill-informed.
Perhaps the flyer in question was trying to convince the large number of American expatriates who now live in Germany. Forgot about them? How about the large number of US GIs who live and work stationed in Germany? Don’t they get to vote as well?
Maybe somebody should remind Shipley that the NY Times is in the business of covering the news, not dictating a candidates policy proposals.
The NY Times Editorial page is in the business of covering the news? I thought they were in the business of printing editorials.
Yeah OW, KO, Couric, Brokaw, NYTimes, TIME, Newsweek, the entire MSNBC, Stephanopoulos, et al….McCain just has ‘em all in his back pocket. And all those Billary loyalists still whining about sexism & their candidate getting the short end of the stick from the national media, what the hell do they know?
This one issue with McCain doesn’t refute my overall point. If anybody likes, they can go over to the Project For Excellence in Journalism website and they can see the coverage disparity between Obama and McCain.
In addition, we have this weeks NY Times hilarity as they ran an op-ed piece by Barack Obama and then refused to run McCain’s rebuttal.
You do realize what the difference between plain ol’ coverage and fawning coverage is, right? I guess it isn’t a big deal having a major party nominee for president being some one other than a pasty old white guy, is it?!?! CBS’ covering up for McCain isn’t a big deal? The two AP reporters bringing McCain donuts and coffee isn’t a big deal? Having a weekend BBQ at a candidates house isn’t a big deal? Brian Williams is an admitted dittohead. I could go on, but I think your brain is probably scrambled enough now.
Maybe somebody should remind Shipley that the NY Times is in the business of covering the news, not dictating a candidates policy proposals.
Maybe someone should inform Mr. McCain that the NY Times gets to decide what to print. If Shipley asked Obama to write about his plans for the Iraq war, but instead he decided to write about reality TV shows, wouldn’t the Times have the right to take a pass?
That’s essentially what McCain did. He was offered free space to write about a specific subject. He accepted, but then failed to write about that subject.
An editor who actually edits. Who woulda thought?
locus, were that the case the flyer would have been printed in English.
And now for some bonus snark: Wait, there are still GIs in Germany? Why isn’t Obama calling for THEIR withdrawl as well?
Maybe someone should inform Mr. McCain that the NY Times gets to decide what to print.
That’s funny, I don’t remember McCain saying the NY Times had to print his editorial. He took issue with their reason why, which was absurd.
If Shipley asked Obama to write about his plans for the Iraq war, but instead he decided to write about reality TV shows, wouldn’t the Times have the right to take a pass?
Shipley didn’t ask Obama to submit a thing. Obama submitted his piece which Shipley said “offered new information” when it was nothing more than a retread of what Obama has been saying for months. There was nothing new in it at all.
He was offered free space to write about a specific subject. He accepted, but then failed to write about that subject.
Apparently you didn’t read McCain’s piece. He did write about that subject: A well written, pointed rebuttal of Obama’s op-ed.
An editor who actually edits. Who woulda thought?
An editor who is dictating what policies a presidential candidate should endorse. It’s telling a candidate who says he’s not going to cut taxes to make sure his piece contains what kind of tax cuts he’s going to propose.
There’s no question that the media is not a neutral transmitter of information and is, instead, an active agent in shaping public perception but let’s it face it, McCain’s campaign is also horribly managed. What more evidence do you need than this latest lurch to make media coverage an issue in the campaign?
In the instance of the New York Times incident, the McCain campaign had a choice: Rewrite the piece or go public about the request for revisions and whine about it. We know what they did.
Now maybe, McCain’s people thought they could a twofer out of the deal, with the controversy ensuring that McCain’s actual op-ed would get reprinted all over the internet while adding the bonus of good old base stoking media bashing. Of course in reality, whatever the fuck McCain’s Iraq policy is this week has been completely lost amid the noise over those damn liberal elitists at the “NY Al-Times”.
Now if McCain were running a focussed, well-run campaign they would have kept the focus on the issues, rather than suddenly inject “media bias” into the discussion just to see if it would stick.
The whole thing smacks of desperation.
If Obama is getting better media coverage than McCain it’s got everything to do with the fact that he’s running a much better campaign.
Apparently you didn’t read McCain’s piece. He did write about that subject: A well written, pointed rebuttal of Obama’s op-ed.
Incorrect. I read it carefully. Your characterization of it is bald flattery. It was not well-written or a rebuttal, but a catalog of attacks against Mr. Obama. It was clearly not on topic.
Now for the cleanup of the more mundane details:
That’s funny, I don’t remember McCain saying the NY Times had to print his editorial. He took issue with their reason why, which was absurd.
Have you considered seeking a patent on this method of hair-splitting? It certainly seems to be unique in its capabilities. Only in the most literal sense is “taking issue with their reason for not running it” any different from “saying they should have run it.”
It was not well-written or a rebuttal, but a catalog of attacks against Mr. Obama.
Oh please. Here we go with liberal narrative when criticizing The One: Any criticism is just an “attack on Obama.” McCain criticized and countered what Obama wrote. Nothing more.
Have you considered seeking a patent on this method of hair-splitting? It certainly seems to be unique in its capabilities. Only in the most literal sense is “taking issue with their reason for not running it” any different from “saying they should have run it.”
Uh yeah. Different. Exactly. “I don’t like what you did and here’s why” is not the same as, “You have to do this!” Give the hair splitting BS a rest.
Give the hair splitting BS a rest.
After you. Please.
“That’s funny, I don’t remember McCain saying the NY Times had to print his editorial. He took issue with their reason why, which was absurd.”
Right. McCain just told the Times it had to run the piece as it was written or no go.
What this boils down to is that the Times offered to give McCain a platform with perfectly reasonable conditions and McCain refused, probably because they realized they could get more mileage with the base by whining about press bias than they could in actually defining McCain’s strategy for Iraq.
What this boils down to is that the Times offered to give McCain a platform with perfectly reasonable conditions
So it’s “perfectly reasonable” to lay down a condition for a candidate to spell out his position on an issue that he doesn’t support.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Specifically, the condition was that McCain had to tell NY Times readers what his arbitrary timetable is for removing troops from Iraq, even though he doesn’t support such timetables.
The myth of the Liberal Media lives on!
“So it’s ‘perfectly reasonable. to lay down a condition for a candidate to spell out his position on an issue that he doesn’t support..”
No and that’s not what the Times did. The editor wrote:
“It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.”
The Times was asking for the specifics of McCain’s plan, not a string of critiques of Obama’s, and then laid out the kinds of specifics it was looking for. They aren’t saying McCain has to support timetables to get his piece published. They are saying he has to say something, anything about timetables as they relate to his plan for “victory.” That’s two different things.
One would think, McCain could have easily re-submitted the piece with less criticism and more specifics. But why didn’t he?
I’d venture to guess because he’s got nothing more than the vague generalities that were in his original piece which amount to nothing more than “working for victory until we achieve it.”
The Times was asking for the specifics of McCain’s plan, not a string of critiques of Obama’s, and then laid out the kinds of specifics it was looking for.
The Times did not ask McCain to submit a piece laying out any plans. Obama wrote a piece, and McCain submitted a rebuttal to that. It’s a common occurrence when it comes to the op-ed pages of pretty much any newspaper.
They aren’t saying McCain has to support timetables to get his piece published. They are saying he has to say something, anything about timetables as they relate to his plan for “victory.”
Oh. Then I guess Shipley couldn’t see this portion of McCain’s piece:
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
That ran counter to this “brilliance” from The One:
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
No hyperbole there. And “we need more” fluff. Wow.
I’d venture to guess because he’s got nothing more than the vague generalities that were in his original piece
And Obama’s piece was loaded down with specifics? Other than his continued promise to “end the war” (Not WIN the war) by getting all of the troops out in his fantasy timeline, he offers nothing.
“The Times was asking for the specifics of McCain’s plan, not a string of critiques of Obama’s, and then laid out the kinds of specifics it was looking for.”
Jay: “The Times did not ask McCain to submit a piece laying out any plans. Obama wrote a piece, and McCain submitted a rebuttal to that. It’s a common occurrence when it comes to the op-ed pages of pretty much any newspaper.”
And the Time thought McCain’s rebuttal was crap. Not worth printing. They then told McCain that if he wanted his rebuttal printed, he could submit a second draft. They even gave him some pointers to make it better.
Jay: “Oh. Then I guess Shipley couldn’t see this portion of McCain’s piece:”
“No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges.”
That’s just a fucking lie.
You got me here, Jay:
“I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.”
So Obama wants to welcome home most of our troops in the first 16 months, Maliki expects us to welcome them home by 2010 and McCain expects to welcome them home by 2013.
Jay, how is McCain’s direct and specific reference to bringing most of the troops home by 2013 not a timetable? You can bullshit around it all you want by repeating “conditions on the ground” but McCain expects to bring the troops home by 2013. Anytime someone mentions a specific year by which they expect to do something, that’s a fucking timetable.
Now maybe the NY Times wanted McCain to flesh that out a little more. Or at least explain why 16 months is retreat and 4 years is victory.
And as for this bullshit – “continued promise to ‘end the war’ (Not WIN the war)” – first, it’s amazing how rapidly you’re able to suck up and regurgitate McCain campaign spin. Second, the idea that Obama doesn’t want to win the war is rank hackery of the most odious sort. It’s just the kind of shit that McCain said he wouldn’t stoop to. But there he is, accusing Obama wanting to lose the war. He repeated that claim in a different context the other day.
Maybe the NY Times also wanted to help McCain help himself without having to say directly, “Hey, asshole, you’re embarrassing yourself.”
And finally there’s this: “No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges.”
Really? No one? So why did the Bush administration push for dozens of permanent bases in its talks with Maliki on the status of forces agreement? Why has McCain repeatedly compared Iraq to Germany and Japan where we have permanent basis suggesting that this would be a okay with him?
Maybe the NY Times was also trying to steer McCain away from out and out lying in their pages.
All points far more reasonable than the NY Times is in the bag for Obama and wants to force McCain to accept timetables.
The 800 lb. gorilla in the room in all of this, of course, is not how much press each candidate gets, but how much press, specifically bad press, McCain DOESN’T get. Take the lop-sided coverage of Reverend Wright vs Pastor Hagee, McCain’s endless flip-flops, McCain’s opposition to the recent Webb GI bill (and subsequent claim to have supported its passage) vs constant attacks on Obama’s patriotism (anybody have the stones yet to ask McCain if he loves his country or check his attire for proper patriotic flair?), The non-stop gaffes on Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan, the coverage of Michelle Obama vs Cindy McCain, and now the blatant editing of a news piece by CBS to white wash a major blunder.
And when any actual criticism of McCain does surface, the media as a collective, robotic whole rushes en masse to eviscerate the offender (General Clarke).
That’s just a fucking lie.
What’s a lie?
Now maybe the NY Times wanted McCain to flesh that out a little more.
Oh but the Times didn’t say that did they? They said they wanted timetables. You’re saying that he did offer timetables. So I guess the Times was full of shit.
Second, the idea that Obama doesn’t want to win the war is rank hackery of the most odious sort.
You can call it all the names you want, but the fact of the matter is, if Obama had his way, we would have yanked our troops out Iraq one, two or three years ago which would have assured our defeat and in that same vein has said nothing about “winning” but instead “ending.” If we were to have followed Obama’s (and other Democrats) lead on Iraq, the results would have been disastrous. Disastrous. And his current plan is no better. He said he’ll consult the Generals, but it doesn’t sound like he’s consulting anybody. He has a ‘plan’ and he’s sticking to it, regardless of conditions on the ground in 2010.
Maybe the NY Times also wanted to help McCain help himself without having to say directly, “Hey, asshole, you’re embarrassing yourself.”
Right. By offering up a pointed rebuttal of Obama’s bullshit. It’s no wonder the NY Times value is going into the crapper and their stock price is plunging.
So why did the Bush administration push for dozens of permanent bases in its talks with Maliki on the status of forces agreement? Why has McCain repeatedly compared Iraq to Germany and Japan where we have permanent basis suggesting that this would be a okay with him?
Where has Bush pushed for those permanent bases? I’d like to see your source on that one.
And McCain is suggesting what? You’re reaching your OWN conclusions. Unless you have some evidence of McCain calling for a permanent presence in Iraq, then he’s absolutely right.
All points far more reasonable
Yeah and a lot of people in the crazy house think they’re normal and everybody else is crazy.
You people live in a f**king fantasy world.
I just wonder if you believe what you say, or if you know you’re lying sacks of s**t and don’t care.
Here ya go. Read it and weep.
End. Of. Story.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
mccann – So what??? No one has ever demonstrated that giving $ == unfair press coverage. If the press is so biased, why are they selectively editing McCain interviews to prevent him from looking like the jackass he is?
Right, right. I’m sure the press that gives more donations to Dems by a 100:1 ratio is totally fair.
And I gotta bridge to sell ya too.
I mentioned two categories that commenters on this site fall into. You sir, fall into the first one and live in a fantasy world.
I can just imagine the squealing from all of you if donations favored republicans 100:1. Really, think about it.
Seriously….you don’t HONESTLY think the media generally favors conservatives, do you??? LMAO!
mccann, we get it, alright? We all know you have a bullshit persecution complex, and its cute how you try and get us to care.
And I could point out a few problems with reading the editorial which, predictably, you gloss over instantaneously, such as the simple fact that the conventions havent even happened yet, when of course a great deal of money is going to be raised, the pecularity that Fox News hasn’t given any money to republicans but “liberal” MSNBC has given more to republicans than democrats, no mention at all of the simple fact that democrats have done a better job of fundraising this election than the republicans have generally, the whole conspiracy theory angle in the middle about MSNBC reporting on this fact so we would all ignore it because they’re INSIDE OUR MINDS, MAN, and oh sweetened fanciful moses-flavored paste do I just love the ending bit: “When we lower one of these numbers by 86% and fail to give any reason for doing so, it compares even less favorably to this other number!” Oh my what brilliant statistical foresight the author truly has. “When we make up a different number, we see its different! OogaBooga!”
But it would all be ultimately futile because, y’know, yeah. Newspeople give more money to democrats than republicans. Now, your job is to explain why the everlasting fuck is that relevant? Why does that suggest unfairness professionally, particularly in the face of… well everything mentioned in this thread? McCain’s Press BBQ, editing the interview recently to remove the mistake he made, the glossing over Hagee at the same time we obsess over Wright, “Terrorist Fist-Jab,” etc. How are all these apparent demonstrations of bias in one direction irrelevant in the face of a statistical point that suggests, not demonstrates, the bias goes the other way?
Of course we can expect naught but the finest snark from you as you reply by simply calling me crazy, and truly I must be for expecting anything more by way of an answer from you.
So forgetting that douchebag, um, Jay? You were saying the NYT’s crime was basically forcing McCain to adopt a policy (timetables) that he doesn’t endorse before publishing his rebuttal. Then you quote it as giving the date of 2013 as when he “expect[s] to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq” in the face of his opposition to setting dates. Does this not require a bit more clarification on McCain’s part? Given how we’ve already been handed arbitrary “timetables” in this war (“six days, six weeks, I doubt six months” jumps unbidden to mind) that have all turned out all to be holy fuck wrong, is the NY times really that in the wrong to read a date like that and ask what McCain thinks might happen between now and then? Some sort of, oh call me crazy, Table of things that would happen over Time?
and ask what McCain thinks might happen between now and then? Some sort of, oh call me crazy, Table of things that would happen over Time?
You’re right! McCain should just take out his crystal ball, learn what is going to happen during that time – specifically – and then write it down!
But seriously, McCain actually does clarify his point in the next paragraph (and this further fuels my suspicions that some people haven’t even read it):
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
What if leaders in 1944 said, “We’re going to end the war in the pacific on August 1, 1945.” Would that have made any sense? I cannot understand the rationale that people think it is reasonable to say, “Tell us what day the war is going to be over.”
mccann, according to the IBD’s little table, even Fox News is in the tank for Obama.
Your guy must really suck.
“Oh but the Times didn’t say that did they? They said they wanted timetables. You’re saying that he did offer timetables. So I guess the Times was full of shit.”
Just to focus on the timetable thing, maybe the NY Times thought it was somewhat newsworthy that McCain actually offered a specific year that he expected to be bringing troops home. McCain wrote:
I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
But what “realistic assessment of conditions on the ground” now leads McCain to expect to welcome home troops in 2013? What about Iraq now makes withdrawing troops in 2013 victory and in 16 months defeat? What about Iraq now makes expecting to bring the troops home in 2013 not a timetable and expecting to bring the troops home in 16 months a timetable?
What if leaders in 1944 said, ‘We’re going to end the war in the pacific on August 1, 1945.’”
But isn’t this exactly what McCain wrote? He expects to bring troops home by 2013.
Now if you’d like to explain some of these inconsistencies, be my guest, but they are indeed inconsistencies and the Times was asking for more specifics about the plan. As I suggested, I think the Times was being very diplomatic about their wording. They could have just said, “Hey, this doesn’t make any sense. Please re-write it to explain your inconsistencies.”
“You’re right! McCain should just take out his crystal ball, learn what is going to happen during that time – specifically – and then write it down!”
Jay, do try not to be so infantile. If McCain said he expects to be bringing troops home in 2013 he should have some reason for why he is expecting it. Wouldn’t you agree? He doesn’t offer any reasons in his piece but he does attack Obama for suggesting that he expects to be bringing troops home in 16 months.
Now Obama’s website includes this:
The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Clearly Obama is not going to arbitrarily remove troops if military commanders and Iraqis say the withdrawals have to stop because of conditions on the ground. That’s what “responsible” means to me.
So why is McCain opposed to withdrawing troops by 2010 but expecting to do the same thing by 2013? Expectation suggests he has reason to believe now that this is possible.
He doesn’t need a crystal ball to explain the basis of his own expectations does he?
“Where has Bush pushed for those permanent bases? I’d like to see your source on that one.”
Here’s a link to one of the many stories written about this:
“BAGHDAD, June 10 — High-level negotiations over the future role of the U.S. military in Iraq have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate, with Iraqi politicians denouncing what they say are U.S. demands to maintain nearly 60 bases in their country indefinitely …
In a news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Satterfield repeated several times that the U.S. goal is to create a more independent Iraq. “We want to see Iraqi sovereignty strengthened, not weakened,” he said.
Abadi and other Iraqi officials said that assertion is undercut by the U.S. request to maintain 58 long-term bases in Iraq. The Americans originally pushed for more than 200 facilities across the country, according to Hadi al-Amiri, a powerful lawmaker who is the head of the Badr Organization, the former armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the country’s largest Shiite political party.
Iraqi officials said the U.S. government also demanded the continuation of several current policies: authority to detain and hold Iraqis without turning them over to the Iraqi judicial system, immunity from Iraqi prosecution for both U.S. troops and private contractors, and the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.
The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to Askari, positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061003415.html?nav=rss_email/components&sid=ST200806110105
Now you can argue that the Iraqis are exaggerating or lying for their own domestic political reasons if you want, but given the other demands listed and the larger rhetoric about Iraq from Bush and McCain, I don’t see a reason to disbelieve the Iraqis.
What if leaders in 1944 said, ‘We’re going to end the war in the pacific on August 1, 1945.’”
The world’s most popular false analogy. WWII was a classic war of control-territory and take-the-capital, for the most part major powers engaging each other’s conventional militaries, whereas this is a guerrilla war that has much more in common with Vietnam or France’s Algeria experience than with World War II. The conventional part – Saddam’s army vs. ours – ended basically way back when Bush did his ‘mission accomplished’ speech.
As the insurgency probably will not be ‘over’ when we leave, it makes sense that we have some leeway as to when we leave.
Yes, hah, crystal ball, so very much the funny are you, because thats anything like what I was saying. I’m very clearly not saying “If McCain’s going to give a day, maybe he can tell us why he thinks thats the day,” but instead am obviously saying “Obama’s psychic superpowers are better than McCain’s, blar!” Well spotted, Jay.
I cannot understand the rationale that people think it is reasonable to say, “Tell us what day the war is going to be over.”
Agreed. Further, I cannot understand such people who then give such a date, and then get in a snit when asked what they base that date on.
You say he clarifies his point but to me, foolish benighted imbecile that I must surely be, he just seems to confuse it further. “Expect them home by January 2013, but understand you have no right to expect that?” “You can’t trust people who make arbitrary deadlines, such as the one I’m making right now?” “My predicted date, which I should not be predicting, will be within my first term, but so what if it isn’t?” “The Time table I didn’t make ends by…”
Honestly, this would be a different situation if he said “I would hope situations on the ground within the first term improved such that they could return home” but he doesn’t. It’s not a blind hope, its an expectation. I feel, and evidently the Osama Bin NYTimes (just beating mccann to the oh so witty punch there) agrees. McCain wants to talk about bringing them back, bitch about Obama doing the same, but can’t offer any elaboration on what he basis his disagreement on beyond the confusing “Obama’s wrong to do what I rightly did just now.”
Jay, do try not to be so infantile.
I was being sarcastic. Get a grip.
If McCain said he expects to be bringing troops home in 2013 he should have some reason for why he is expecting it. Wouldn’t you agree? He doesn’t offer any reasons in his piece
Yes he does. And I’m not cutting and pasting anymore. Read the fucking thing. His expectations are based on the fact that the war is essentially won (something probably differs from the editors at the NY Times who essentially declared the war lost in 2007). Now comes the difficult part of making the full political transition of power and continuing to sustain the counterinsurgency that is taking place.
Contrast that with Obama, whose position on when the troops should come home has differed with changing positions on the ground. In February of 2007, he said he wanted to have troops home by March of 2008, not because we were winning but because the situation was supposedly hopeless. In May of 2007, he changed up once again and declared the troops should be brought home “immediately.” Why isn’t Obama asked to explain this constant shifting on his part? McCain has been consistent from day one on this.
Now you can argue that the Iraqis are exaggerating or lying for their own domestic political reasons if you want, but given the other demands listed and the larger rhetoric about Iraq from Bush and McCain, I don’t see a reason to disbelieve the Iraqis.
There’s plenty of reason to disbelieve them as you yourself pointed out. Bush has repeatedly said he doesn’t want to establish permanent bases, so I until I see something concrete to the contrary, your assertion that’s what he wants cannot be accepted.
“His expectations are based on the fact that the war is essentially won ..”
So McCain now favors a withdrawal date of 2013 because the war is essentially won but Obama’s 16 month withdrawal window is retreat and defeat. Jay, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Um…..it’s relevant because it gives credence to the notion that the media tilts left and is in the tank for Obama.
That’s kinda um……uh……common sense maybe?
Evidently that bypassed you.
Your welcome.
douchebage Marxist.
So McCain now favors a withdrawal date of 2013 because the war is essentially won but Obama’s 16 month withdrawal window is retreat and defeat. Jay, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Dude, do you pull these conclusions out of your ass?
Jay, here’s a line from McCain’s op-ed:
“I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.”
Please explain how that jibes with your statement that McCain believes the war is “essentially won.”
At the same time, Obama is clearly focussed on “the difficult part of making the full political transition of power and continuing to sustain the counterinsurgency that is taking place.”
His withdrawal timeline, as clearly supported by al-Maliki, is, as Obama has said, based on the recognition that reducing the US presence is essential to stabilizing the political situation in Iraq. Obama goes on, however, to say that:
a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
This has been Obama’s plan and position since the beginning of the campaign. If anyone has changed his position it’s McCain, although I don’t think McCain believes “the war is essentially won.” He certainly doesn’t say anything like that in his rebuttal.
Please explain how that jibes with your statement that McCain believes the war is “essentially won.”
Because McCain also says:
The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
His withdrawal timeline, as clearly supported by al-Maliki,
Nonsense. It is not “clearly support” by al-Maliki as Maliki himself said, “Assuming that positive developments continue.”
This has been Obama’s plan and position since the beginning of the campaign.
Yeah, that all assumes the “campaign” began several months ago while his viewpoint has changed substantially over the last several years.
If anyone has changed his position it’s McCain
Total bullshit.
“the difficult part of making the full political transition of power and continuing to sustain the counterinsurgency that is taking place.”
Yeah. Something that never would have been possible without the surge that Obama says he STILL would have opposed.
Um…..it’s relevant because it gives credence to the notion that the media tilts left and is in the tank for Obama.
That’s kinda um……uh……common sense maybe?
Evidently that bypassed you.
Your welcome.
douchebage Marxist.
Wow… never been called a douchebage before, ‘your’ clearly a genius.
Just to be clear then, your saying that the donations by reporters are not simply suggestive of bias but positively dictate it? That a media outlet which gives P more money to the Obama campaign is going to slant the news P in his direction? You’re suggesting a direct correlation here, and I want to make sure I understand the ratio. As mentioned, Fox News has given nothing to the RNC, does that mean they slant 0 left? “Liberal” MSNBC has given more to republicans than they have democrats, does that mean their reporting must logically favor McCain over Obama? I’m trying to understand your clearly well-thought-out theory here of how personal preference dictates professional behavior, and an struggling due to how much um… uh… derrr… common sense I lack, so could you just elaborate a bit? How do you account for FNC and MSNBC, to say nothing of all the McCain whitewashing (the CBS thing f’rinstance) within the context of your great “Grand Unified Field Theory of Librull Medeaa!!!1!”?
“The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help.”
Um right, which is why Obama’s plan also includes this, as previously quoted:
…a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Also, Obama has said that his 16 month timeline will be done “responsibly” in consultation with our generals and the Iraqi government. How is this not a reasonable position to take?
“Something that never would have been possible without the surge that Obama says he STILL would have opposed.”
Do I have to remind you again that the surge was not the only factor in the reduction of violence?