The Political Voices of Women

John McCain Iraq surge blunder. Why did CBS air a heavily edited interview of John McCain with Katie Couric?

Part One…

—
Part Two…

—
From America Blog…

This one is hard to even explain, it’s so bizarre. McCain, looking just awful on camera, made yet another major gaffe about national security policy, on CBS. So what did Katie Couric do? She aired the interview with McCain, aired the question that led to the gaffe, and then inserted an “answer” to the question that wasn’t the real gaffe-filled answer - it was something McCain said in a total other part of the interview. It’s absolutely astounding how far the corporate media is willing to go in order to defend John McCain. And seriously, take a good look at McCain in this video, I was kind of shocked by his appearance - he doesn’t look well at all.

From A Long Tough Blog…

This is ugly. Katie Couric asks John McCain a question - and she and/or her producers air his answer to another question. Because his actual answer was so embarrassingly wrong. That her firing hasn’t been announced already shows us how bad off we are.

From Crooks and Liars…

As I reported earlier, CBS violated their own Standards when it aired the heavily edited interview of John McCain with Katie Couric. A CBS spokesman tried to defend their behavior and told TV Newser:

Of the 14-minute interview, a little less than three minutes was used on the Evening News. A CBS spokesperson tells TVNewser, “As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night’s Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates’ major differences. The full transcript and video were and still are available at CBSNews.com.”

OK, so this person is saying that they edited these segments to ‘ give viewers a fair expression of the candidates’ major differences’.

I’m sorry that is not what CBS did in this case and maybe the spokesman should look at their own standards in editing and then get back to me.

From Media Matters…

On the July 22 edition of the CBS Evening News, while airing portions of an interview she conducted that day with Sen. John McCain, anchor Katie Couric removed a part of his response in which he falsely asserted that the 2007 U.S. troop surge “began the Anbar awakening.” In fact, the so-called Anbar awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced. Couric had asked McCain, “Senator [Barack] Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shia government going after militias, and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?” But rather than airing McCain’s direct reply, including the false claim that the surge “began the Anbar awakening” — an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations — Couric aired comments by McCain spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview, one of which responded to a different question. Couric gave no indication that these comments had been edited in any manner, nor did she otherwise note McCain’s falsehood.

So…Why would CBS edit this interview with John McCain? How do we know this is the only time they have done something like this? What do you think?

Even though Afghanistan has become more deadly for our troops than Iraq, there will be no surge. It’s because of the war in Iraq, that there is just not enough troops available for a surge in Afghanistan. This will be another mess that the Bush administration will leave behind for the next President.

—

From Jessica…

First off, let’s be clear about what “surge” was supposed to mean in reference to Iraq. It was supposed to mean that troops would be added to trouble spots in Iraq for a period of six months. The addition of these troops was supposed to bring down violence so that political reconciliation could take place (as the violence levels were being blamed for the lack of political reconciliation). After the six month period, the troops were to be withdrawn, this was why the administration was calling it a “surge” and not what it really was, an escalation. (Keen observers might note that the “surge” has, in fact, lasted an entire year and that the ultimate goal - political reconciliation - is still very far from being achieved.). . .

Afghanistan has needed reinforcements for a long time as the forces there have, for many months, been losing the ground that was initially gained. Resources were directed away from Afghanistan when we went to war in Iraq and we’ve been paying the price for it dearly. This month will likely be the third month that U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are outpacing those in Iraq and considering we a much smaller force in Afghanistan, that’s really not good. Paul Reickhoff, Executive Director of the veteran organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America says that many soldiers that served there call it “Forgotistan.”

So, we hear a lot about how the surge in Iraq is working, and how important it is for us to “win” the war in Iraq. But…Are we winning the war in Iraq at the expense of our troops in Afghanistan? Could we “lose” the war in Afghanistan? Let me know what you think in comments.

Barack Obama meets Afghan leader and discusses terrorism, and he is also going to Iraq. Check out the video clip and let me know what you think? Is this trip going to help or hurt his campaign?

—
From The New York Times…

In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Mr. Obama said: “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism.

From Politico…

In a presidential campaign where the Democrat faces an especially intense variation of a familiar Republican assault-that he is, in some sense, not “one of us,” the trip abroad represents an opportunity for Obama to assert that he is, rather, not one of them.

He began with stops in which he has been pictured largely in the company of American soldiers. In Kuwait, he examined military vehicles and signed autographs for soldiers on a military base. The first images out of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where he landed after a brief visit to a base in Kuwait, show him with two uniformed members of the military, three other American officials, and a large statue of a bald eagle.

From Washington Street Journal…

I believe U.S. troop levels need to increase. And I for at least a year now have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three. I think it’s very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough. The Afghan government needs to do more, but we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism. …

I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.

Let me know what you think about Obama’s trip to Afghanistan and Iraq in comments.

Here is a guest post from Cynthia Samuels from Don’t Gel Too Soon.

From the day Richard Nixon was nominated in 1968 until Tuesday afternoon, forty years later, when John McCain began running this “Love” commercial, Republicans have been running against us. All of us who share a history of opposing the Vietnam war and working to elect an anti-war president. Against everything we ever were, believed, dreamed, voted for, marched against, volunteered to change, spoke about, created, sang, wrote, painted, sculpted or said to one another on the subway or the campus or anyplace else from preschool parent nights to Seders to the line at the supermarket.

How is it possible that what we tried to do is still the last best hope to elect a Republican? They used it against John Kerry. They used it against Max Cleland. They did it every time (well, almost) they were losing policy battles in the Clinton years. They called CSPAN and said unspeakable things. And now they are using the history of people my side of sixty to run against a man who was, if my math is right, seven years old during this notorious “summer of love” which - I might add, had nothing to do with those of us working to end the war. In fact, there were two strands of rebellion in those years. The Summer of Love/ Woodstock folks and the political, anti-war activists.

At the 1967 National Student Association Convention in Maryland, I saw a room full of students boo Timothy Leary off the stage, literally. We didn’t want to “turn on, tune in, drop out” we wanted to organize against the war. The anti-war movement was not a party. I know that’s not a bulletin but it is so hard to see all of us reduced to a single mistaken stereotype. Those who chose to find a personal solution weren’t nuts; communes and home-made bread were a lot more immediate gratification than march after march, teach-in after teach-in, speech after speech. “If you’re goin’ to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.” Tempting, romantic - and not us.

Read more »

Here is a guest post from my friend Cynthia Samuels at Don’t Gel Too Soon.

Have you seen this movie? I sat in bed watching it early Sunday morning on cable and was just blown away. It’s one of the saddest, scariest, most moving American documentaries I’ve seen in a long time. That’s no surprise, since it was directed by Barbara Kopple, who made Harlan County USA - the landmark documentary about coal mine union battles in Kentucky.

What happened to the Dixie Chicks is infuriating: performing in London just before the start of the Iraq war, lead singer Natalie Maines (married, by the way, to HEROES star Adrian Pasdar,) told the crowd “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” The scene is included in this preview.

—
As I watched the film, seeing the rage and cruelty that emerged in the response to this one sentence, my first thought was, “Oh my God, what does this mean for Barak Obama?” The people who went after the Dixie chicks were nowhere near a sense of respect for the First Amendment - and sounded like they would be particularly vulnerable to “elitist” or racist accusations against a candidate. If you remember the exit polls in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania you’ll recall that many respondents just about acknowledged that they would not vote for Senator Obama simply because of his race. Am I unfair to wonder if many of those people are the same ones booing and even threatening Maines’ life? Still “out there” in larger numbers than we wish? Look at these figures:

Read more »

This is a post by Shannon Lowe, BlogHer contributing editor — Military Families Blogging Deployment

My favorite thing about participating in the blogosphere is the opportunity it provides to walk a mile (or two, or twenty) in the shoes of people in very different life experiences from my own. I have been learning much lately by reading some of the blogs by parents holding down the fort at home while their spouses are deployed overseas in the U.S. Armed Forces. Many of these families are blogging their journey with great honesty and courage.

Read Full Post At BlogHer

It’s been almost seven years, why can’t the U.S. find Bin Laden? Should we still be in Afghanistan? How do you think the “war on terror” is going? Let me know what you think in comments.

From The New York Times…

Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easier for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

. . .

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Mr. bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

Afghanistan: Lowered Priority…

What is the purpose of our troops being in Afghanistan? At first, they were meant to capture Bin Laden, to topple the Taliban, so as to punish a regime that had allowed Al Qaeda to base itself there, and to deny Al Qaeda that base. But now? Presumably, they are meant to prevent the Taliban from coming back to power, and providing Al Qaeda a future base. But it’s one thing to strike at an enemy, another to deploy troops indefinitely to prevent a possible future threat. There is something to be said for defending a friendly Afghan regime, however weak, as opposed to the diplomatic and military costs of toppling an enemy regime once again–but still, the threat from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan must be taken as a diminishing hypothetical. And, yes, honor demands we capture Bin Laden — but we muffed our best chance, and keeping an army in Afghanistan in perpetuity is too great a price to pay.

What do you think?

[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]

Clark had said of McCain, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world.” Clark continued: “But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air — in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.”

This morning on CNN, Rick Davis defended McCain on national security…



Media Matters address the coverage of Wesley Clark’s statements by Fox News…

Summary: On Fox News’ The Strategy Room, Molly Henneberg asserted that Wesley Clark “seemed to attack [Sen. John] McCain’s military service,” and aired a video clip of Clark saying on CBS’ Face the Nation, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.” But Henneberg did not report or in any way indicate that, in making that comment, Clark was responding to Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer’s statement that, unlike McCain, Sen. Barack Obama has not “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

From Tennessee Guerilla Women…

Deranged Media Accuses Wes Clark of Swift-boating McCain & Obama Agrees?
Shocker, eh? In case you didn’t fully understand the level of treason embedded in the remarks of General Wes Clark, CNN’s Rick Sanchez interprets it for you:

Rick Sanchez’s lead-in to his next segment . . on CNN:

“Wesley Clark tried to Swiftboat John McCain today.”

I’m liveblogging. He goes on to say:

“It will reverberate for weeks. Wes Clark tried to diss McCain’s military record, that his service doesn’t qualify him to be president.”

That’s right, Sanchez said Wes Clark swiftboated John McCain because the new definition of swiftboat is “to criticize. . . to point out facts.” And just like when Obama took the media’s word as “truth” in countless lies and mistruths about Hillary and Bill Clinton - Obama, once again, agrees with the irresponsible madness we call media.

Also See:

Michelle Malkin thinks Wesley Clark is an Idiot.

Lynn Sweet: McCain Camp Jumps on Wesley Clark Comments.

John Cole: Wesley Clark Is Getting Screwed.

What do you think? Does Wesley Clark make an important point regarding John McCain’s experience with national security? Or, is it unpatriotic to question McCain’s service to our country? Let me know what you think in comments.

[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]

McCain Top Adviser Says…Terrorism Help Republicans — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)


The Republicans and the McCain campaign intend to run on the politics of fear. But, we already knew that. The question now is…How far are they willing to go to get elected? Would the administration ignore a terrorist threat for the good of the party? Watch this video and let me know what you think in comments…



Here is what other bloggers are saying…

Read more »

Roundup: McCain and Obama on the Iraq War — by Catherine Morgan (cross posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Today’s political blog roundup will take a look at the Obama and McCain positions on the Iraq war. We will start with this video clip by Keith Olbemann.

Keith Olbermann really gives the context, with a comprehensive look at McCain’s views on the war and why he has been wrong. Keith Olbermann’s Special Comments on John McCain’s Views on Iraq…

The Nation: Obama, McCain & Iraq…

It’s a tradition in American presidential politics that once the primaries are over, both the Democratic and Republican candidates move to the center in search of that all-important centrist swing voter. Let’s hope that this year, at least, Barack Obama resists that impulse when it comes to what is likely to be one of the most contentious issues in this fall’s campaign: Iraq.

In fact, we need to do more than hope. Progressives, antiwar activists and, yes, even swing voters–who long ago realized that Iraq is what Obama, in 2002, called a “dumb war”–should demand that the senator from Illinois draw as stark a contrast as possible between himself and John McCain over Iraq.

READ FULL POST AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG

Read more »