Obama Claims He Is Not Distorting Sen. McCain's "100" Years Remark, Even As He Continues To Do So
______________________________________________________________________
Click Here To View Obama's Distortions
Today, Obama Claimed He Has Been Accurately Re-Stating Sen. McCain's "100 Years" Comment:
Obama Told The Today Show's Meredith Vieira That He Has Not Distorted Sen. McCain's Comments. Vieira: "Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. Sunday in The New York Times Frank Rich wrote, really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. He felt that the American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they were in Japan and South Korea. Are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?" Obama: "No. that's not accurate. We can pull up the quotes on You Tube." (NBC's "The Today Show," 4/8/08)
Click Here To View
______________________________________________________________________
Click Here To View Obama's Distortions
Today, Obama Claimed He Has Been Accurately Re-Stating Sen. McCain's "100 Years" Comment:
Obama Told The Today Show's Meredith Vieira That He Has Not Distorted Sen. McCain's Comments. Vieira: "Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. Sunday in The New York Times Frank Rich wrote, really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. He felt that the American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they were in Japan and South Korea. Are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?" Obama: "No. that's not accurate. We can pull up the quotes on You Tube." (NBC's "The Today Show," 4/8/08)
Click Here To View
Yesterday, Obama Chief Strategist Said Obama Hasn't Charged That Sen. McCain Wants 100-Year War In Iraq:
Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod: "Senator Obama hasn't said that Senator McCain said we would be at war for 100 years..." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 4/7/08)
But As Recently As This Weekend, Obama Has Repeatedly Charged That Sen. McCain Wants 100-Year War In Iraq:
Obama On Saturday: "[McCain] wants to continue this war in Iraq maybe for another 100 years." (Bonney Kapp, "Obama Campaign: 'McCain Is Not A Warmonger'," Fox News' "Embeds" Blog,
Obama: "And when it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a hundred year war, a hundred years he says, as long as it takes." (Mike Dorning, "Obama Fires Away At McCain," Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" Blog, www.chicagotribune.com, 2/9/08)
Obama: "[W]e are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years..." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
Obama: "[Sen. McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq..." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Primary Results, Houston, TX, 2/19/08)
Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Sen. McCain's Position:
The New York Times' Frank Rich: "Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain." "Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is 'willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq' (as Mr. Obama said) or 'willing to keep this war going for 100 years' (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where 'Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.' See for yourself on YouTube." (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, "Tet Happened, And No One Cared," The New York Times, 4/6/08)
Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth: "[L]ately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain's '100 years' notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters--if not outright lying to them--about exactly what McCain said." (Zachary Roth, "The U.S., Iraq, And 100 Years," Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)
The [Manchester] Union Leader: "It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It." "You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it." (Editorial, "McCain's '100 Years': The Democrats' War On The Truth," The [Manchester] Union Leader, 4/6/08)
The New York Times Reports That Democrats "Mischaracterize And Distort" Sen. McCain's "100 Years" Comment. "But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain's six-minute exchange on Jan. 3..." (Kate Phillips, "McCain Said '100'; Opponents Latch On," The New York Times, 3/27/08)
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they're fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region." (Marc Ambinder, "100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq," The Atlantic's "Marc Ambinder" Blog,
The Associated Press: "[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That's a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain's position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone's lifetime." (Calvin Woodward, "Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq," The Associated Press, 2/29/08)
Fox News' Carl Cameron: "[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be fine..." (Fox News' "Special Report," 3/31/08)
USA Today: "[Sen. McCain's] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for '100 years' has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren't getting killed or wounded)..." (Editorial, "5 Years After 'Shock And Awe,' A Shallow Debate On Iraq," USA Today, 3/18/08)
Roll Call's Morton Kondracke: "Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren't being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly." (Fox News' "Special Report," 3/31/08)
The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer: "But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: 'Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.''" (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, "A Rank Falsehood," The Washington Post, 3/28/08)
Krauthammer: "As Lenin is said to have said, 'A lie told often enough becomes truth.' And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it..." (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, "A Rank Falsehood," The Washington Post, 3/28/08)
The Washington Post's Michael Dobbs: "The charge that John McCain wants to wage a '100-year war' in Iraq has become a recurring theme of the Obama campaign. The candidate has made the claim several times on the campaign trail, as has Susan Rice, one of his top foreign policy advisers. McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq." (Michael Dobbs, "McCain's '100-year war,'" The Washington Post, 4/2/08)
Richmond Times-Dispatch: "Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them." (Editorial, "100 Years," Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)
National Review: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain 'wants to fight a 100-year war,' in Obama's words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse..." (Editorial, "The 100 Years War," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Haven't we been listening to talk of '100 years' of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "100-Years' Sideshow," National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)
Slate's Christopher Beam: "In context, McCain's statements seem clear: He doesn't want the war to continue for 100 years. But he's willing to keep a few brigades there as long as they're not getting killed. ... [F]or Obama and others to paint McCain's stance as a war without end doesn't quite hold up." (Christopher Beam, "The '100 Years' War," Slate's "Trail Head" Blog, www.slate.com, 4/1/08)
Non-Partisan Fact Check Groups Called Attacks On Sen. McCain's "100 Years" Comment "A Rank Falsehood":
Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On "100 Years" Comment A "Serious Distortion" And "A Rank Falsehood." "The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an 'endless' war in Iraq. DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying 'Make it a hundred!' That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ...There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea." (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)
Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On "100 Years" Comment "False." "Obama twisted McCain's words in the Cleveland debate. He said, 'We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.' As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama's statement False." (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)
Politifact.Com's Bill Adair: "It's really a distortion of what McCain said. McCain was talking about a peace time presence in Iraq that would continue. He even said as long as 1,000 years, not a war that would last that long. And so, the line that Obama and some other critics of the war have been using is really not an accurate description of what McCain said." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 4/2/08)
PDF Format
A Product Of The RNC Research Department
No comments:
Post a Comment