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.

McBush ... just another 4 years of war / lies / kissing up to big business, and special interest groups. "Your doing a heck of a job Brownie" and let's not forget "Mission Accomplished"

Posted by: Bryn eltringham | Apr 8, 2008 3:51:24 PM

I'm an ardent Clinton supporter but as far as Iraq is concerned, I think that McCain has the best opportunity to resolve the mess we're in in Iraq - kind of like Nixon going to China back in the early 1970's.

Many believe it would have been years before a Democratic president would have been able to accomplish such an opening.

Obama has no credibility where Iraq is concerned - and he has no business smearing Sen. McCain.

With all that, Hillary Clinton is still the best all-around candidate. Go Hillary!!!!

Posted by: morningside | Apr 8, 2008 3:47:22 PM

Bubba:

I agree with you. Stella's posts are some of the best posts I have yet to read on this site.

They sure open up your eyes to Obama.

Posted by: norm | Apr 8, 2008 3:23:06 PM

Obama stated he would bomb Pakistan with or without their permission. Maybe he won't keep us in Iraq for 100 years. Does he have an estimate on how long we'll be fighting in Pakistan.

Posted by: sitting1 | Apr 8, 2008 3:14:31 PM

"This country would be better off with a stupid old patriotic pre-alzheimer's warmongering white man than an intelligent young "blame america for everything" race-baiting socialist who believes the only way to make this country great is by the government confiscating every dollar we earn." - Obama\Osama '08

-- LOL how incredibly clever, witty and insightful.

Posted by: Joe | Apr 8, 2008 3:01:58 PM

Can anyone expect that troops can be in any country where the people don't want them for a hundred years, or even for one year, and not have a state of war exist? Being there means war. End of story.

Posted by: jim | Apr 8, 2008 2:52:44 PM

McCain actually did support a prolonged war. He has said recently he only meant an established base, but during primaries he was very clear that a 100 ("or even 1000") year war was fine.


Posted by: Nathan Clark | Apr 8, 2008 2:45:26 PM

S, Unlink Iraq troops in Bosnia are part of a NATO deployment. Once NATO leaves Bosnia so should the U.S.

Posted by: indy_voter | Apr 8, 2008 2:41:00 PM

"This country would be better off with a stupid old patriotic pre-alzheimer's warmongering white man than an intelligent young "blame america for everything" race-baiting socialist who believes the only way to make this country great is by the government confiscating every dollar we earn."

- Government is already wasting our tax dollars, so nice try. Amazes me the breadth of ignorance among American voters.-

Posted by: bubba | Apr 8, 2008 2:08:44 PM

WestCoastMessanger, are you now defending McCain/McNasty against a fellow democrat? what a shame, Hill the Bosnian General has tried that and failed miserably. McCain/McNasty said it 100 years in Irak, he would like to become the Governor of Bagdag living in one of Sadam's palaces. That could be a good place for him. God bless America and God bless Obama.OBAMA08.

Posted by: BKMC | Apr 8, 2008 2:05:15 PM

If he says something that is not true or a half-true it should not be overlooked. He should be scrutinized the same as Clinton and Mccain. I can't believe the double standard, the media should be ashamed of the way they have covered this presidential season.

Posted by: Tina D | Apr 8, 2008 2:03:21 PM

Obama's whole campaign started in earnest by calling Senator Clinton a racist and a liar....General charges fed by perceptions not facts.

Obama's campaign will continue to use this winning combination of denial and hypocrisy. The media loves it, because they get to play a part in the game.

I am concerned though that Obama's lies about Wright, Rezco, gun control, sex education and his shift on Iraq are not even really pointed out. When the story seems to be which hospital a deceased unnamed woman that Clinton mentioned rather than Obama's blatant lies about his gun control and abortion stands (in his own writing)....it gets scary.

Posted by: Jackie | Apr 8, 2008 1:42:51 PM

wake up!
she can not manage her campaign.

She never managed Anything.

It is Baby talking to make president from Hillary.

Let's become adults and think.

Posted by: Linda,Fl | Apr 8, 2008 1:37:45 PM

Obama has spent his entire time as a Senator---running for President! If he can’t do his Senate job---he surely can’t lead our country. Obama has told so many lies that he is not credible.
does he realy know what is responsibilility?

Posted by: collins | Apr 8, 2008 1:34:22 PM

Mike in Tampa, FL and all other think you know Obama's Irq stance.

There is recent NPR talk about how Obama used the 2002 speech to support his anti-war position. In fact, per NPR, that speech was not made when he was running office, so there was no such so-called "high-stake" involved. Also, the speech was not even reported by any reporter covering the event that day. There is not even a recording of that speech left. The obama people went to the extent to re-make the speech and even adding the background applauding sound effects. (Please check NPR to verify)

NYT also recently reported on Obama's Iraq stance. He voted everything exactly as Clinton did, against troop withdraw and continue funded the war. He DID NOT openly do anything against the war after he started running for president.

The biggest problem I have with him is he only has his words but no actions at all to suppor his words. And when his actions are getting examined, you get to see complete hypocricy. Actions don't match up with his words. There is a long list of irony in Obama:

1. He claims he is a clean different politics, but his own evolution, associated with Rezko, Emil Jones, and other shady people is completely the opposite
2. He claims he can unite people, but his willingness to in a black racist church, his only contribution from his tax returns to the black-related cause, and his unwillingness even now to confront Wright's stance says other things.
3. He claims he cares about people. Why 11 Rezko's badly constructed low-income projects happened to be his own chicago district? How could he claim he did not know how terrible the living conditions were for those people living there? Just do a little bit online search you will see a lot of things he did in Chicago is not so goo.

The list can go on. My suggestion to all Obama supporters is "don't confuse words with actions"!

Posted by: AMy | Apr 8, 2008 1:30:47 PM

Axelrod should really be the one running instead of Obama.....he's the one pulling Obama's strings....oh but Obama has more Foreign Affairs experience.... Pakistan during college years, Indonesia during his elementary school years, ..... oh yeah ... I see the next President of the United States....

Hillary Clinton!

Posted by: carpenter.nyc | Apr 8, 2008 1:29:38 PM

Ken:

I want to be clear about what Obama did! as you probably know from my previous post, I am Pro-life.

Once in 2003, and twice before that, he effectively voted for infantcide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely living baby. Infanticide-I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes We Can"!

Even Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clilnton, etc. did not oppose the BAIPA bill to save late-term babies born alive to be killed. Only, Obama was opposed to it.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues as:

Immigration
Ethics Reform
Terrorist Surveillance
War Funding

Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002....the BAIPA Bill (Born Alive Infant Protection Act)

Just remeber Obama's own words:

I don't want my daughters to be punished with a BABY!!!!!

Posted by: stella | Apr 8, 2008 1:25:19 PM

This country would be better off with a stupid old patriotic pre-alzheimer's warmongering white man than an intelligent young "blame america for everything" race-baiting socialist who believes the only way to make this country great is by the government confiscating every dollar we earn.

Posted by: Obama\Osama '08 | Apr 8, 2008 1:15:13 PM

Here is something that matters, folks, and that tells us everything IMO we need to know about John McCain:

HE CONFUSED SHIITES AND SUNNIS AGAIN during today's Senate Armed Services hearing! Incredible but true.

So yes, he's worse and more laughable than Bush ALREADY.

Plus, therefore, more dangerous to our national interests and security.

Posted by: hencken | Apr 8, 2008 1:09:13 PM

indy_voter

When do you suppose Clinton's troops still in Bosnia will come home?

Posted by: S | Apr 8, 2008 1:05:07 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS