by Deb Cupples | Both John McCain and Barack Obama trouble me, for different reasons but to similarly serious degrees. Right now, I don't support either candidate. Fortunately, I have months to decide whose circle I'll bubble in on the November ballot.
That said, I am completely clear about my distrust of some U.S. media outlets. Throughout the Democratic primaries this year, we all watched many media use truth-obscuring tactics. Sometimes, media personalities would simply fail or refuse to report stories that other media were reporting.
Sometimes, they would hear a candidate speak 100 words; focus exclusively on, say, 10; then inflate them into a shrieking headline that bears little resemblance to the candidate's actual message.
This seems to have happened yesterday, when John McCain answered a question on the Today Show (video below).
When listening to the video clip, I did not hear McCain merely say "Troop withdrawal is not important." The message I heard was more along the lines of this: preventing casualties is more important than the timing of the troop withdrawal. Check it out, and see what you hear.
The person who kidnapped Josh Marshall (phrase borrowed from Daily Howler) made a lengthy attempt at explaining why McCain's statement and his campaign's response to criticism were just as bad as if McCain had actually said nothing more than "Troop withdrawal doesn't matter." I didn't understand the kidnapper's explanation.
Note that I'm not taking a hawkish stance. I have opposed the Iraq war since before the Bush Administration invaded that nation. Unfortunately, I didn't have a vote in Congress.
Back to McCain's actual statements: frankly, I don't know whether Sen. McCain was thinking about preventing casualties to the troops while they withdraw, preventing casualties to troops left behind, or both.
Military strategy is not my area of expertise. Given that I don't have access to all the facts (and can't count on most media personalities to accurately report said facts), I don't claim to know what the best move is.
For some time now, I've gotten the impression that McCain would like to see a peaceful but long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq. This gives me an uneasy feeling, and unfortunately McCain is not alone. For example, Barack Obama's website says this:
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
"Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
How many troops does Sen. Obama intend to leave behind in Iraq? We don't know, because he didn't edit for clarity.
First, it seems to me, if he leaves too few troops behind they'll be awfully vulnerable. Second,
it seems that protecting our $730 million embassy compound and keeping al Qaeda in check would require thousands of troops.
Wouldn't that amount to an occupation?
I know, Obama's website says that he doesn't want to build permanent bases. But unless we keep our troops in tents, it seems that the military will have to build (or buy) more permanent structures to house and protect the troops we leave in Iraq so they can effectively protect diplomats and keep al Qaeda in check.
Or maybe the $730 million embassy compound is big enough to double as a permanent military base. Having never been there, I don't know.
The upshot: Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama verbalize their plans differently, but both plans seem to involve long-term U.S. presence in Iraq.
While that plan is not consistent with what Sen. Obama has said since he started campaigning for president in early 2007, it is consistent with what he said while campaigning for U.S. Senate back in 2004. Here's part of what Sen. Obama said during an interview at a Chicago TV station in April 2004:
"No, no. I’ve never said. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve gotta make secure and execute, uh, the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly, and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline, uh, when to do that.
"I think what’s important is that we have a long term planning process and a short term security, uh, uh, strat [egy]….
I had to listen to the video clip five times to transcribe it. Fortunately, you don't have to rely on my transcription, because the video clip is below:
Obviously, Sen. Obama changed his stance from 2004 to 2007 regarding how to handle the Iraq war -- just as obviously as Sen. McCain changed his stance from 2003 to 2008 regarding President Bush's corporate tax cuts.
The real question is this: will Obama or McCain change his stated stance on certain issues come January 2009?
Right now, we have no answer. We're stuck making a faith-based decision.
But I digress. My aim is not to promote one candidate over the other. My aim is simply to point out that some media personalities (and bloggers) seem dead set on playing the advocate, even if it requires inaccurate reporting of "the facts."
The media's blatant lack of objectivity concerns me.
for example, what if certain media personalities -- or the executives they answer to -- decide that privatizing social security would be good for their pocketbooks (or for their friends in the securities industry)? What if media-owning conglomerates that enjoy getting government contracts (like GE, which owns NBC and MSNBC) decide that attacking Iran is a dandy idea?
Would those media outlets have any qualms about failing (or refusing) to report facts to us taxpayers? Would they mis-shape the facts in order to shape our opinions in certain ways?
Some of these media executives commanded editors and reporters to run positive stories about George Bush, both before and after our nation invaded Iraq -- apparently because they were afraid that doing their job would upset people and lead to decreased ad revenues. If that's any indication of our media's regard for ethics and professionalism, then we may be in serious trouble.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Obviously, I've got to disagree with you here. I don't know how Obama will deal with the consequences of partial or gradual withdrawals (obviously), but the larger question is one of intention. McCain is apparently comfortable with the objectives of the Bush administration in keeping bases in Iraq --- and as Sullivan notes, that's the broader issue.
Hillary too would have withdrawn troops for Iraq and in fact what sounded for this military non-expert like an excellent plan for doing so. Obama, I presume, will follow a similar scheme.
As Taylor Marsh argued, it's an issue of understanding (of the issues) and intention (as to the ultimate outcome).
The question for me is whether the candidate considers continuing occupation of Iraq to be a valid goal for the US. McCain has indicated that he DOES. Obama has made it clear that he does NOT (and if he were to do otherwise, the entire Democratic party would demand his head on a platter).
Posted by: Damozel | June 12, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Damozel,
I hear ya. :)
My issue (in this post) is that certain media and bloggers took a few words from McCain's statement, ignored the rest, and slammed McCain for those few, taken-out-of-context words.
Other than pointing out that Obama's own words show support for an occupation of Iraq, I don't really know how the candidates compare re: the war. That's why I didn't really address that in the post.
Posted by: Deb | June 14, 2008 at 03:40 AM
As a family with a veteran serving in Iraq, there's a very big difference between being posted in Iraq (even if there's no violence) and being home. And the national budget knows the difference, too.
But it's more than that. McCain is promoting a myth, that there can be an occupation without violence. For people who don't have a family member in harm's way, it's easy to forget that there is a war. If it's just 10 or 20 American deaths a month, people may not care. But when you do have a family member there, you care.
John McCain raises the precedent of Korea. In Korea, there is an official cessation of hostilities. There is political stability. There is even progress in national reconciliation. In Iraq, there are none of these things. So, when he says the occupation can go on for 50 years, when he says that it doesn't matter whether veterans are posted in Iraq or not, and especially when he votes against veterans's benefits...
...you know he doesn't care about the troops.
Posted by: Charles | June 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM
HI Charles,
As I mentioned in the post, I don't actually know what the best course of action is. My first cousin, incidentally, works for CentCom and has been to Iraq 3 times now, so I get what you're saying.
Truly, my post (at least the first part) is a criticism of the media's handling of the specific quote by McCain. They isolated 5 or 6 words and blasted him on those without considering the words that followed.
Having seen the media do that repeatedly over the last 5 months, I find it disgusting.
From there, I mention that Obama's own language doesn't come out and say "I'm for long-term occupation," but the message seems to be that he is.
On the bigger issue of who's better re: the war (McCain or Obama) -- I truly don't know, so I refrain from judgment at this point.
Posted by: Deb | June 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM