Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Continues to Twist Truth About Twisting Truth

April 08, 2008 9:44 AM

Here are the facts.

* Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has suggested he would be fine with an indefinite US troop presence in Iraq for 100 years or more "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" -- not a continued war for that long, but for a US troop presence there, the way the US continues to have troops in Japan more than 50 years after the end of World War II. Watch McCain make this comment HERE

* Generally when Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has hit McCain for this remark, he has been accurate in his description.

* There have been at least three times when Obama has twisted what McCain said to portray McCain as advocating war in Iraq for 100 years or more: As recently as the end of March in Lancaster, Penn., Obama said, “you know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years."  At the Cleveland, Ohio, presidential debate, Obama said the U.S. is "bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years." In Houston, Texas, on February 19, Obama said that McCain "says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq."

* Yesterday on MSNBC, Obama senior strategist David Axelrod said Obama "is not saying that Sen. McCain said we'd be at war for 100 years." I suppose that depends on what the meeting of the word "is" is.

* Today on TODAY, Obama was asked by Meredith Vieira if he's willing to admit that he has distorted McCain's statements. Obama said: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.”

* It is accurate to say that Obama has in the past distorted McCain's comments. Watch a Republican Youtube video that shows Obama's words from today and from the past HERE

* It is a matter of opinion to say that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” But it is accurate to say that Obama wrote that opinion in his book "The Audacity of Hope," and that he is violating his own stated aspirations. (Audacious indeed.) Because not only has he distorted what McCain said, he is not being honest about having made those distortions.

It's beyond me why Obama would want to change the focus of this debate from McCain's willingness to have troops in Iraq indefinitely to his misrepresentation of what McCain said. As ABC News' Ron Claiborne sagely noted McCain's actual remarks are sufficient Democratic ammo.

- jpt

April 8, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (144)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until American soldiers are no longer being killed. That could very well take 100 years... "perhaps 100 years of war," as Obama put it.

And then, once peace is finally achieved in Iraq, we'll say for 100 years more.

Nice.

It's really hard to criticize anyone for jumping all over McCain's insane Iraq policy.

Posted by: Erik | May 13, 2008 12:10:41 PM

I can kind've understand how you might twist things yourself to suggest Obama is twisting the truth on this issue. You want to be an equal opportunity sandbagger: clearly able to call out both sides. But this sort of faux balance is phony.
Because McCain clearly said he was happy to be in Iraq for however long. He also said the public weren't concerned about US troops being there, but about casualties. What he didn't say- what he won't say, because he knows how it'll wash- is what his plan is to acheive no casaulties in Iraq.
Because his plan is simply to keep troops fighting there. However long it takes. Until there are no more casaulties, or no US troops left, or hell freezes over. You take your pick. I can't work out which one is more likely to come first.

Posted by: rob stowell | May 12, 2008 11:57:56 PM

Obama is a Pied Piper. He is going after the high schools, (our children) with his melodic speeches and promises. Where do you suppose he is leading them, and what will it take for us to get them back? His mezmerizing tone and slow, deliberate speech pattern makes it possible for him to get away with lying openly, saying he didn't, and the fools who follow him just believe.

Posted by: RMJ | Apr 9, 2008 4:03:07 PM

Hillary suppporter calling somebody a liar?

I think I just giggled a little.

Posted by: FEDupwithNeocons | Apr 9, 2008 11:06:28 AM

Why should anyone thank you?
Mccain has gotten a pass from the press. He wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely with an ambiguous open ended goal. 100 years if there are no US causalities? What does that even mean? So if there are US causalities after 5,10, 15 years then what? US soldiers causalities seems to be irrelevant to the conversation. He wants a continued presence in Iraq so that he can have leverage over Iran. One can obviously interpret this from his continued hawkish stance on the middle east. So Obama is correct. Mccain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely and instead of just openly admitting it, you play this word parsing game, of Mccain's double speak that isn't specific enough to be critical of Obama.

The problem is a continued acceptance of vague rhetoric that has been occurring for 8 years. At what point do you make them accountable. All the predictions of how this war would turn out have been wrong. It is up to you (THE PRESS) to grill Mccain on what he means, not attack Obama who simply looks at Mccain's history and comes to a logical conclusion as to his intent.

Posted by: FEDupwithNeocons | Apr 9, 2008 11:04:52 AM

Thank you for telling the truth, unlike most people in the media who want us to believe Obama is the Messiah

Posted by: MSG | Apr 9, 2008 9:52:46 AM

If the shoe was reversed ... oh wait, McCain hasn't distorted anything Obama has said for political advantage ...

McCain may not be as conservative as some would like and he may be willing to finish the fight in Iraq that others claim is a lost cause but does anyone think he would lie to win ?

Apparently Obama will do anything to win and lying about your opponent or allowign your suppoters to smear him is fine with him ...

This is a big con job ...

Obama claims to be a moderate, but...

Would a Moderate man go to that church ?

Would a moderate man marry someone who is obviously not moderate ?

Would a Moderate man NEVER cast a moderate vote in his entire political career ?

No to all 3 ... so why does Obama claim to be what he clearly is not ? Because it won't win this election, so he lies to everyone, everyday ...

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 9, 2008 8:10:54 AM

Look here, everyone.
The much larger issue than parsing words over Obama's interpretation of McCain's 100 year comment, in which many here believe he interpreted correctly, by the way, is which president candidate will use common sense and keep America out of future Vietnams and future Iraqs.
McCain has demonstrated in action and words little except that he would carry on the same mistaken shoot-first-ask questions-and plan-later, military-action-before level-headed- diplomacy policies of the failed Bush Administration. Do we want four more years of failure?
Do we want to continue four more years of a no-end-in-sight, black hole war sucking away our economy, our best young men and women, our credibility and security overseas?
The choice between McCain and Obama is clear. Obama for president!

Posted by: Ron125 | Apr 9, 2008 8:09:20 AM

Gee...do you think Obama will twist the truth when he is in the White House? I wonder who can twist it the best...George or Barack?

Posted by: mpwdc | Apr 9, 2008 2:51:20 AM

All politicians seem to embellish facts. I think you have to look at who does it in a way that is most harmful to the American people. I am concerned about Obama's many links to people of questionable background. They are always brushed off as "acquaintances" but it seems to suggest a pattern of poor character judgement.

Posted by: Judy | Apr 8, 2008 10:34:11 PM

Of course Obama twisted McCain words. Obama is a politician. No big surprise to anyone but his hard-core supporters who cannot fathom that their Savior would ever say anything but the whole truth.

The more things "change", the more they stay the same.

Posted by: MIT | Apr 8, 2008 7:12:43 PM

There are only 2 kinds of republicans. Rich ones and suckers.

Posted by: wirehedd | Apr 8, 2008 7:11:50 PM

Senator Obama's arrogance about foreign policy is only matched by his cluelessness.

Posted by: Annagain | Apr 8, 2008 7:01:09 PM

Senator Obama's arrogance about foreign policy os only matched by his cluelessness.

Posted by: Annagain | Apr 8, 2008 7:01:01 PM

PP, I think she is locked up until Nov.

Posted by: Ken FL | Apr 8, 2008 6:13:19 PM

where has michelle o. been?????

Posted by: pp | Apr 8, 2008 5:41:34 PM

re: Sitting1

When I get my next bill for the war, I will send it to you!!!

Posted by: BillForObama | Apr 8, 2008 5:23:02 PM


ken its simple, he is running as a black candidate and media, superdelegates are hestitant to mention that fact, otherwise they are considered to be racist. Go Hilliary 08 or McCain08.

Posted by: Diane | Apr 8, 2008 4:26:27 PM

Obama has a lot of experience twisting the truth about twisting the truth. Not to change the subject, but it was the same thing he did on the Rezko issue. For 16 months he lied about it in various forms, then had to twist some more when he finally met with the Tribune board.

Posted by: cappamore | Apr 8, 2008 3:58:16 PM

Morningside:

What credibility does Hillary have in regards to Iraq? I'm still waiting for substantive arguments from a Clinton supporter.

Posted by: bubba | Apr 8, 2008 3:53:32 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS