0
   

McCain lies

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 06:48 am
Here's the gist of it:

Quote:
    [size=16][b][URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/29/ST2008072902360.html]McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence[/URL][/b][/size] Washington Post July 30, 2008 For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true. [..] The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live." The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event. [..] McCain's campaign released a statement from retired Sgt. Maj. Craig Layton, who worked as a commander at the hospital, who said: "If Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief." McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct [..]. "It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here." Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital. [..] The McCain campaign has produced a television commercial that says that while in Germany, Obama "made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." The commercial shows Obama shooting a basketball -- an event that happened earlier in the trip on a stopover in Kuwait, where the Democrat spoke to troops in a gym before grabbing a ball and taking a single shot. [..] A reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding Obama's decision not to visit Landstuhl, based on firsthand reporting from the trip, shows that his campaign never contemplated taking the media with him. [..]


The story then continues to dissect the trip. Here's the full story, and it's not any better:

Quote:
McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence

By Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; Page A01
 
nimh
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:33 am
NBC has fact-checked the McCain campaign's lie too, adding a thing or two that the WaPo didnt cover:

Quote:
The New York Times writes about the state of the race and notes: "[..] Over the last two days, [McCain's] campaign has strongly implied that Mr. Obama declined to meet with wounded American troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany after he learned that he could not bring television cameras along. [..]"

NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports that there was never a plan for Obama to take the press to Landstuhl, despite the claim by McCain folks and others. The plan was to go with his military aide, retired General Scott Gration. The Pentagon said Gration was off-limits because he had joined the campaign -- violating rules that it not be a political stop.

Obama had gone to see wounded troops in Iraq earlier in the week, without even confirming he'd been there. No press, no pictures. He has done the same when he goes to Walter Reed -- never any press.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:40 am
So why didn't he go?

Media or not?

Don't tell me that when ONE guy was disqualified to accompany him that he couldn't find anyone else to go, or that he couldn't go alone.

Don't tell me that.

Why didn't he go?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:43 am
So in your view, nimh: "strongly imply" + "lacks evidence" = "lie"?


(And what is [..] supposed to mean in your post? I thought it meant you had deleted some irrelevant content, but at least two of them seem to just be placed at the end of a paragraph for no reason.)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:45 am
Tico,

I think the [..] strongly implies nimh is hiding some secret thought that he won't share till we pry it out of him with a Twinkie and a Dr Pepper.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:26 am
Ticomaya wrote:
So in your view, nimh: "strongly imply" + "lacks evidence" = "lie"?


If you assert something, people dig into it and find that there is no evidence for it being the case whatsoever, and when you're asked to provide such evidence yourself you turn out to repeatedly not be able to show any either -- yes, I'd say that would be a lie revealed.

For example, imagine that I'd state here that you have defrauded several of your clients. You say it's not true, and when other posters dig into the story they find no evidence at all that you defrauded anyone. When they confront me with that and in reply I can provide no evidence whatsoever for my assertion either; I'd say that would have proven me a liar. A libeller, maybe too.


Ticomaya wrote:
(And what is [..] supposed to mean in your post? I thought it meant you had deleted some irrelevant content, but at least two of them seem to just be placed at the end of a paragraph for no reason.)


Thats what it means. In the full article the paragraph continues still, I cut it short.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:36 am
nimh,
You still havent answered the question...WHY did Obama cancel his visit?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:36 am
Is Obama beyond criticism for ANYTHING!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:37 am
Yes, but Republicans can never lie, Nimh; for they always believed it was true at the time. It's the excuse they've been using for Bush's lies for years.

That's why Obama is going to win; people are tired of the McSame excuses for the McSame bullshit.

Yes Tico, McCain's camp is lying. Straight-up lying. And it's not a surprise that he's doing it; they are getting beaten, they know it, and they know that without resorting to lies and low behavior they cannot win. It will get worse from here.

Pathetic

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:45 am
real life wrote:
Why didn't he go?

Switch and bait?

Obama visited wounded troops in Iraq - without any press there, no pictures. He visited wounded troops in the US - with never any press. So what is your point? He's a bad candidate because he visited them, without cameras, in Iraq and America, but not in Germany? What is that supposed to reveal?

Meanwhile, McCain is lying about this, in a TV ad even. He has asserted that Obama "wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers" to the wounded soldiers in Germany and cancelled the visit because he couldn't, and his spokesmen have repeated this assertion. When it's flat out untrue.

They even put out an ad repeating that Obama "canceled a visit with wounded troops [because] the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras" - when it's a flat-out lie.

Why don't you address that, it being the topic of the thread and all?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:46 am
woiyo wrote:
Is Obama beyond criticism for ANYTHING!

No. Just for stuff he never actually DID.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:48 am
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
So in your view, nimh: "strongly imply" + "lacks evidence" = "lie"?


If you assert something, people dig into it and find that there is no evidence for it being the case whatsoever, and when you're asked to provide such evidence yourself you turn out to repeatedly not be able to show any either -- yes, I'd say that would be a lie revealed.

For example, imagine that I'd state here that you have defrauded several of your clients. You say it's not true, and when other posters dig into the story they find no evidence at all that you defrauded anyone. When they confront me with that and in reply I can provide no evidence whatsoever for my assertion either; I'd say that would have proven me a liar. A libeller, maybe too.


Thanks. I like to know what the rules are in case the goal posts get moved later on.

In my view -- as I've said before -- a statement is a lie if at the time the sentence is uttered the utterer knew it to be false. It doesn't appear that case has been made here, aside from the assertions of the media desperate to dig up a story ... or rather, I guess the "lie" charge has only been made by you and not the media, in this instance.

In your example, libel is the "knowing" recitation of a false statement. If your assertion was made with a reasonable, good faith belief that it was true, then it is not libel even if it is false. If I were to charge you with libel, you could defend by asserting your good faith basis, and the court would determine whether your belief was reasonable or not.

If there are media reports that exist that were relied upon to support the campaign's statements, then that may support their good faith belief. Whether there are or not, I don't know. I haven't seen a recitation to the reports, only the WaPo's opinion regarding them.

nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
(And what is [..] supposed to mean in your post? I thought it meant you had deleted some irrelevant content, but at least two of them seem to just be placed at the end of a paragraph for no reason.)


Thats what it means. In the full article the paragraph continues still, I cut it short.


Okay, thanks. ... I think it was this one that threw me:

Quote:
Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital. [..]


... because it doesn't appear you cut it short.


-----

Wow ... Cyclops accusing a political enemy of lying .... shocker!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:52 am
It is not I, but many who are doing so, Tico.

I mostly think you're pissed that I had pegged your lame defense in advance. McCain's crew knew they were making **** up, they're not stupid. How weak an argument are you prepared to forward?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:05 am
Ticomaya wrote:
If there are media reports that exist that were relied upon to support the campaign's statements, then that may support their good faith belief.

They were asked to name the "reports" saying so that they relied on. They came up with three articles. None turned out to ever say such a thing.

And yet they still continued to repeat the lie. By this time it's a knowing falsehood - they continued to repeat a lie even after they were pointed out that there was no evidence, and turned out not to be able to find any evidence themselves.

And that's just the most extreme point. Imagine that there were initial reports saying that Obama cancelled the visit for the reasons they say. But those reports were rebutted by other or later, major reports. Then it would still be a lie to continue repeating the falsehood anyway, airing it in ads, in full knowledge that it turned out to be baseless.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:13 am
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
If there are media reports that exist that were relied upon to support the campaign's statements, then that may support their good faith belief.

They were asked to name the "reports" saying so that they relied on. They came up with three articles. None turned out to ever say such a thing.

And yet they still continued to repeat the lie. By this time it's a knowing falsehood - they continued to repeat a lie even after they were pointed out that there was no evidence, and turned out not to be able to find any evidence themselves.

And that's just the most extreme point. Imagine that there were initial reports saying that Obama cancelled the visit for the reasons they say. But those reports were rebutted by other or later, major reports. Then it would still be a lie to continue repeating the falsehood anyway, airing it in ads, in full knowledge that it turned out to be baseless.


You and the media waste too much time of this bullsh!t.

Obama is not qualified to be CIC so no matter what "visits" he makes, will not change the fact he has no/limited foreign policy experience and no/minimal experience regarding matters of defense.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:32 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is not I, but many who are doing so, Tico.

I mostly think you're pissed that I had pegged your lame defense in advance. McCain's crew knew they were making **** up, they're not stupid. How weak an argument are you prepared to forward?

Cycloptichorn


Laughing You think I'm pissed because you and I have discussed your nonsensical position on this "lying" issue on prior occasions? I doubt you really believe that to be true.

I suspect you accuse the local weatherman of lying if he predicts rain and then fails to produce.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:33 am
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
If there are media reports that exist that were relied upon to support the campaign's statements, then that may support their good faith belief.

They were asked to name the "reports" saying so that they relied on. They came up with three articles. None turned out to ever say such a thing.


Have you seen the three reports they named?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:34 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is not I, but many who are doing so, Tico.

I mostly think you're pissed that I had pegged your lame defense in advance. McCain's crew knew they were making **** up, they're not stupid. How weak an argument are you prepared to forward?

Cycloptichorn


Laughing You think I'm pissed because you and I have discussed your nonsensical position on this "lying" issue on prior occasions? I doubt you really believe that to be true.

I suspect you accuse the local weatherman of lying if he predicts rain and then fails to produce.


No, because I predicted your response to Nimh before you made it - the same BS response you use to excuse every Republican who lies.

Nimh has accurately pointed out that the McCain camp has stuck with their story even after it has been shown to be untrue; there's no doubt that they knew all along they were lying, and just don't care.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:39 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, because I predicted your response to Nimh before you made it - ...


You are a freak of nature. I bow to your clairvoyant abilities. Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:40 am
Heres the most interesting part of this whole thing.

The Obama supporters are saying that Obama never planned to take the press with him.
They know this because Obama says so.
That still doesnt explain why Obama cancelled the visit.
If it was already planned into the trip, there was no reason for him to cancel it.If it was a spur of the moment thing, there was still no reason to cancel it.

But what strikes me as odd is the fact that the Obama devotees are saying that since Obama said it, it has to be true.
They totally discount the possibility that Obama is just covering his ass and that McCain may be correct.
After all, Obama is a politician and he isnt going to admit to anything that would make him look bad.
 

Related Topics

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain lies
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 06:11:41