Busting The False Equivalence

In too many news outlets, John McCain still gets a free pass on Iraq. McCain was wrong from the beginning about the invasion, continues to flack for The Lie all across the country, and criticizes Barack Obama for positing a detailed and responsible plan to end the war - and many in the traditional media still creates a false equivalency between Obama's plan for withdrawal and McCain's empty "victory" rhetoric.

But it looks like the New York Times finally stepped up. Attempting to rebut Obama's recent op-ed detailing his comprehensive strategy for Iraq, the McCain campaign submitted many hundreds of words of the same detail-and-strategy-free political spin their candidate has used to desperately forward the myth that McCain is Much More Serious on foreign policy than Obama.

The Times editorial page said `thanks, but no thanks.'

Why? Because what McCain submitted wasn't a plan. It wasn't a strategy alternative to compare to Obama's. It was just rhetoric and spin. So, acting like actual editors, the Times rejected it.

Because it's Drudge, let's remain skeptical of the source. But editor David Shipley explained:

"The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans....It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

That would be terrific, wouldn't it?

More reporters should catch on. Ask McCain how he plans to turn Iraq into post-war Korea. Ask McCain why we should overrule the elected Iraqi government.

Update [2008-7-21 19:20:36 by Josh Orton]: A little more of Shipley's comments about the Times looking for substance:

"To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

So instead of actually re-writing the op-ed with real details, the McCain campaign leaked the whole thing to Drudge and played the victim. Pathetic. After the jump, see today's presidential race contrasted with two images. They tell the whole story.

Update [2008-7-21 21:12:43 by Todd Beeton]:CNN has posted the full text of McCain's rejected OpEd.

Via Ben Smith:

Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, John McCain, New York Times (all tags)



Re: Busting The False Equivalence

Busted!  And who's brass is Drudge polishing at the moment?  Weird.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

I read the McCain rebuttal on Drudge, it's nothing but an attack piece on Obama, distortions of his position, and lies about his own position:

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

And didn't Bush talk about a "time horizon" this weekend?
From a diary this morning- Andrew Card was on Morning Joe, and got hammered for using the phrase "time horizon":

Mika: You sound a lot like Barack Obama

Card: The president will take direction from military leaders. Yes, there's a horizon when the troops come home, but it won't be a deadline bad guys can plan around.

Joe: Are you suggesting Obama does have a time line?

Card: Sixteen months is pretty specific. The president has consistently said it depends on what happens on ground.

Joe: Obama is saying the same thing. It will be sixteen months depending on what the Generals on the ground tell him.

Card: That's not what he's always said, and there are not two presidents.

Joe: He never said there were two presidents; quite the contrary. And Bush is moving towards Obama's position.

h/t to Bob Sackamento and his great diary!

by skohayes 2008-07-21 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence
I wanted to make another comment about this, because this has been bugging me ever since McCain started carping on it last week- since when does a United States Senator have to go to war zone to find out what is going on there?
Shouldn't they be getting information from the Pentagon and the satellite conference calls from the military brass in Iraq? Haven't the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees been holding hearings?
I mean really, Bush goes over there for a one hour visit on Thanksgiving, does that mean he doesn't know what's going on over there?
On second thought, maybe he's not the best example....
by skohayes 2008-07-21 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

Drudge published McCain piece. It doesn't set out a plan or discuss the policy alternatives it's just an attack on Obama mixed with spin. It stands out a mile when you read it and the NYT were dead right to reject it and force McCain to submit a properly developed set of policy proposals. No doubt we'll hear lots about censorship from the Republican noise machine but that would be good because it will force the Times into defending their position and essentially saying it was a load of bs.

by ottovbvs 2008-07-21 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

NY Times should take whatever grief it gets , I believe it was a mistake on their part.

The next hoopla on iraq would come from Obama saying if he knew what he knew now ( which is a dumb question )he would have still voted against the surge and the supplemental funding for the troops in the battlefield.

There is no intellectual honesty there and he is wrong and I bet that would be a soundbite that would be seen in ads.

by lori 2008-07-21 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

The 'surge' is working?  Well, kinda':

Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties.  In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP.  These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday).  The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now!  Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me.  You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq.  Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.

The troop escalation, which actually allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the country, has largely been pushed as propaganda by the White House and the AEI.

Juan Cole - Obama in Iraq Informed Comment 21 Jul 08

Not to mention the cited Round-up of Daily Violence in Iraq, Sunday 20 July 2008, for example, from McClatchy.  Read it.  You may be surprised.  It's a daily feature.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 04:08PM | 0 recs
You're right

There is no intellectual honesty, at least among the politicians.

Obama has been pushing his 16 month timeline since January 2007, without regard to the consequences.  http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-oba ma_offers_pl_1/index.php  (By the way, there is no contemporaneous evidence of the contents of Obama's 2002 speech in Chicago -- the media did not cover it -- so all we have is his campaign's word on that.)

McCain has been parading THE LIE, I'll agree with Josh on that.

But Obama is a hack, just like McCain.  I've written this before, but it bears mentioning what Biden said about Obama back when they were running against one another.  

Jake Tapper, who compiled this info, noted:

But Biden's letter brought attention to the fact that Obama did not attend two of those three hearings -- and for the third, on March 8, 2007, Obama only asked one question, one unrelated to Afghanistan.

How do I know the latter fact? From an August 2007 press release from Biden himself, when he was running for president.

"BIDEN CAMPAIGN CONGRATULATES SEN. OBAMA FOR JOHNNY-COME-LATELY POSITION," it read. Noting that at the March 2007 hearing, "Sen. Obama asked one question that was unrelated to Taliban or Afghanistan."

Thanks, Joe!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/thanks-for-noth.html

Politico had more of the story on Biden's "Before he was nominated" criticism: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 807/Biden_Obama_stole_my_ideas.html

Sen. Biden has been talking about this for over 6 months. Dating back to January 5th, Sen. Biden said America Should Surge Troops in Afghanistan. He told the Washington Post, "If we're surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan," Biden said. Adding troops there would give the United States "the moral high ground" in its quest for more forces from NATO allies. [Washington Post, 1/5/07]

"We find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan" said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. "It's good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership."

Now let me ask Mr. Orton this multi-part question.  The current active duty military view is this:

The nation's senior military official warned yesterday against a plan, put forward by presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by early 2010.

"I think the consequences could be very dangerous," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on "Fox News Sunday." "I'm convinced at this point in time that . . . making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important."

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001955. html

Is Mullen wrong?  Why or why not? And what are your qualifications for making that judgment?

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-21 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right

If we constantly defer to the opinions of our highest ranking military leadership on matters of international policy what's the point of having an elected civilian government?  Where does the opinion of the highest ranking diplomatic leadership fit into the equation?

We have declared a 'war on terrorism' and then abrogated our collective will to the positions of a handful of hand-picked career military leaders?  Hmmm...  Sounds familiar.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right
"War is too important to be left to the generals."
by InigoMontoya 2008-07-21 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: You're right

And he would know!

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

The McCain op-ed that I read this morning added nothing to the conversation, but just objected to Obama's proposals.  It was basically a political ad.  I don't thing any newspaper should have to carry those without getting paid for them.

by Susan from 29 2008-07-21 04:15PM | 0 recs
You are letting your personal beliefs

blind you to the simple truth.

The NYT decision has nothing to do with who is right or wrong on Iraq. It has to do with whether it was a proper piece. It wasn't. There was nothing but distortions and attacks in McCain's op-ed. If he wanted it to be published they should have done a submitted more than a hatchet job.

I respect the fact that you disagree with pretty much everyone else here (and in the country) in regards to the war; but you really shouldn't let it color your perception of what happened here.

by JDF 2008-07-21 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: You are letting your personal beliefs

It is an editorial decision which was made on some kind of judgement and you can't rule out personal views out of the fellow making such decisions .

If I was in an opposing camp I would obviously make hay out of the fact that they made demands from my own camp to tailor my own oped to an opposing candidate whom they would favor in their opinion.

Especially coming from a paper that most know where their bias lie in terms of political party or views of the war .

Especially when I am told to talk about timetables , what victory is etc issues that have usually been used as a wedge.

In terms of my view on Iraq , I believe I am in line with the majority of Americans , I want an end to the war , but I want a responsible and successful one especially in light of the recent gains we have made  through no small measure of our boys and gals in the military and their heroism .And the efforts of Gen . Patreaus .

All too often the effort in Iraq as been viewed through the political prism of the next election and George Bush , not what is best for the country.


by lori 2008-07-21 05:05PM | 0 recs
Or maybe

there is just grave disagreement on what is best for the country?

I don't disagree with you regarding the heroism of the troops (although I think we probably do disagree about Patreaus.)

Of course we want a responsible end to the war however what is success and how do you measure it?

by JDF 2008-07-21 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

McLame's "op-ed" was just a blatant hit piece that belongs on the front page of the RNC website.

I liked the part of their response where they told him to put in some new ideas and resubmit it.

by Beren 2008-07-21 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Defining "Victory"

McSame should not only have to define victory, but to actually demonstrate awareness of the meaning of "Pyrrhic" victory, and how it differs from his idea of victory in Iraq. Like, how many Americans died in the World Trade Center on 9/11? And how many Americans (let alone Iraqis) have already died as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

There was a widely circulated photo from the Florida Everglades a few months ago showing the "victory" of a large python over an alligator: The python had managed to swallow the alligator, but in its death throes, the alligator's hind legs ripped open the python's belly, and both died. But the python won... didn't it?

"Victory" ain't all its cracked up to be.

Bob in HI

by Bob Schacht 2008-07-21 03:50PM | 0 recs
McBush wants to be seen with....
someone who makes him look young?

Or the Bush who failed less than the son?
by Beren 2008-07-21 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: McBush wants to be seen with....

Can there be a greater contrast between this photo and the one of Obama sinking a three pointer in Kuwait?

by Susan from 29 2008-07-21 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: McBush wants to be seen with....

I've 59, sonny.  Stop discriminating against older people.

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-21 04:14PM | 0 recs
I'm 51 and can't wait for senior discounts!

Two hobbling old farts in a golf cart. Only the retirment community demographic will be impressed.

(BTW, I run 5 miles a day.)

by Beren 2008-07-21 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm 51 and can't wait for senior discounts!

So then tell me how ageism is more acceptable than sexism, racism, etc.

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-21 04:26PM | 0 recs

Who said anything about their age? Age as a number has nothing to do with ability -- as my running 5miles/day at 51 demonstrates. But when you've lost it, you've lost it, and there's no getting around it. And McFossil has clearly lost it.

Actually, that's not a fair thing to say since McSenile never even "had it."

by Beren 2008-07-21 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

I think it essential that we start talking about how the surge HAS NOT WORKED.

This is McCains only talking point lately, yet he is wrong.

If a city has a high crime rate, a surge of cops onto every street corner will cause crime to plummet.  Does this mean that the surge fixed the crime problem?  Yes only if the cops stay there forever.  (100 years anyone?)

Same thing in Iraq.

When the Republicans come up with a talking point they want to get out, they hand that talking point out to everyone from Brit Hume to Dana Perino and maybe even to Bruce Willis.

Wouldn't it be great to get reality based talkers making this comment about the crime rate in cities?

Easy to understand, short and sweet, and it tells the truth that the corporate media wants to hide.  But if these talkers just used this analogy over and over, eventually people might notice.

by prius04 2008-07-21 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

The surge has worked.

Its hard to make a claim that is easiy disputeable.

That is the intellectual dishonesty in Obama's position , if he can take your advice and stick to your position i.e. surge didn't work ( which would lead to another round of questioning ) then his position would be understandable , now I don't know how he would defend it .

But he has said the surge worked , yet he says the surge was a mistake and he would have voted against it .

Not a clear position in my view , almost like he wants to have it both ways .

by lori 2008-07-21 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

So you are saying that when a city's high crime rate plummets because they have an extra 45,000 cops on the beat, then the crime problem really has been fixed?  This is absurd.

The only true measure of whether the surge has worked is if progress can be sustained after we have left Iraq.  And if the surge really has worked using that yardstick, then why aren't ALL the troops on the way home now?

There can be only one answer that fits.  The surge has not resulted in a sustainable drop of the "crime" rate.

by prius04 2008-07-21 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

And I agree that this is the wrong conversation for Obama.  It would lead him down a line of questioning that would be a waste for him.

I meant that this point be made by surrogates.  This is how the Republicans work.  Yes, I know that Democrats are not as good at "dirty tricks" like the Republicans, but I don't really see this line of argument as a dirty trick.

by prius04 2008-07-21 04:17PM | 0 recs
Just what are you?

A Bitter/Dead-ender/PUMA or a garden variety McTroll?

by Beren 2008-07-21 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Just what are you?

I'm convinced Lori is a loyal Democrat, just stubborn as hell!

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Just what are you?

Hey I am Irish , what can I say .

All I can say is , look who is talking .

You never back down yourself.

by lori 2008-07-21 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Just what are you?

When I am in form, my style is a little bit stubborn, almost brutal. Sometimes I feel a great spirit of fight which drives me on.

Boris Spassky

Didn't help against Bobby Fischer, but there you go.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Just what are you?

A loyal Democrat who posts right wing smears against the Democratic nominee?

No. We're talking McPuma at best.

by Beren 2008-07-21 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

"he would have still voted against the surge and the supplemental funding for the troops in the battlefield."

When did Obama vote against funding troops in the battlefield. You can't get away with a charge like that without proof, McPuma.

Iraqi Parliamentarian: The Surge Didn't Work

Iraq death rate belies US claims of success

The Escalation Didn't Work

by Beren 2008-07-21 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

The 'surge' essentially co-opted a large population of Sunnis and turned the rest into virtual refugees.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

...the McCain campaign leaked the whole thing to Drudge and played the victim.

But who wants a victim as President and Commander in Chief?

by Susan from 29 2008-07-21 04:11PM | 0 recs
Another Obama foreign policy gaffe

Obama probably relied on one of his college professor advisers who has never lived overseas for this stupid advice:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 8/11935.html

AMMAN, Jordan--An Obama campaign ban on green clothing during the candidate's visits to Israel and Jordan has created wide puzzlement among observers of the Middle East.

In a memo to reporters, described as "a few guidelines we sent staff before departure to the Middle East," Obama advance staffer Peter Newell laid out rules on attire for Jordan and Israel.

First among them: "Do not wear green."

An Obama aide explained to reporters that green is the color associated with the militant Palestinian group Hamas. But while the color does appear on Hamas banners, there is no particular symbolism to wearing green clothes, experts said.

Moreover, green is more generally seen as a symbol of Islam.

"A ban on wearing green seems bizarre," said Richard Bulliet, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University, who said the color is associated with the family of the Prophet Mohammed.

"I would hazard the guess that the campaign's concern is more with distorted--and religiously inaccurate--reporting by Obama's detractors than with any actual signal that might be conveyed," he said, referring to false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. "You don't want to have some blogger come along and say `Obama is showing his true color.'"

"I think they're just being overcautious to a ridiculous degree," Bulliet said.

Mohamad Bazzi, a professor of journalism at New York University and former Middle East bureau chief for Newsday, called the instruction "very strange."
See Also

   * McCain is odd-man out on 'time horizon'
    * News in hot spots appears to aid Obama
    * Obama small donors make big comeback

"I guess green is the `Hamas color' -- but it's also the color of Islam!" Bazzi said in an email from Beirut. "That's one way for the Obama campaign to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide."

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-21 04:28PM | 0 recs
Obama probably relied on ...

There's no doubt who you rely on -- GOP propagandists for more of the banal stupidity that Camp McBush has come to beknown for.

by Beren 2008-07-21 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Another Obama foreign policy gaffe

Take a deep breath and look at the bigger picture:

The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator's willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.

These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.


Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and--his key word--"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic--including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

Fareed Zakaria - Obama Abroad Newsweek 19 Jul 08

Is it possible that something is going on here which doesn't appear neatly within your, apparently narrow, ideological prism?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-21 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Another Obama foreign policy gaffe

My usual reaction to reading a Fareed Zakaria column is wanting to scream "Why the BLOODY HELL isn't this man Secretary of State!?"  Maybe Obama would appoint him....

by Alex 2008-07-22 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Another Obama foreign policy gaffe

And it would make the name Barack Hussein Obama seem about as exotic as Will Smith by comparison.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-07-22 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs19D3LLn 7Y

ABC News tonight busted Obama's chops.  I guess Petraeus told Obama he didn't know what he was talking about, and Obama was defensive when asked about it by the ABC talking head.

I repeat -- Obama's 16-month plan has never been anything but a number, with no tie to military or geo-political reality.  A number he came up with in early 2007.  It has no meaning.

by strongerthandirt 2008-07-21 04:38PM | 0 recs
It has no meaning.

Tell that to the Iraqi PM and government that wants the US out of Iraq on Obama's schedule.

It must suck to so far up shit creek without a paddle as your boy McDespearate is.

by Beren 2008-07-21 04:59PM | 0 recs
It's not supposed to "mean" anything

but that we will get out in 16 months. 16 months is the goal. The military's job is to make 16 months happen in the safest, most effective way possible.

The military's job is NOT to assume a different goal that 16 months is incompatible with. The tactical situation, from the military's point of view, does not override the strategic initiatives of civilian leadership.

How to wage a war is the purview of the military. Whether to wage one, is not.

by Neef 2008-07-21 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

"Obama's 16-month plan has never been anything but a number, with no tie to military or geo-political reality"

This is precisely wrong. Obama's 16-month plan shapes the geo-political reality, just as Bush/McCain's strategy of eternal occupation is shaping the current geo-political reality. If the Iraqi's know that we're leaving, with a clear timeline, then they know that they have to step up and take control over their country. And they know that they can stop attacking us to get us to leave. Bush/McCain's current strategy allows the Iraqi government and military to rely on us to do all of the heavy lifting, and drives the Iraqi people to attack us.

Imagine if during our civil war France had occupied the US in order to impose peace and democracy. If they did so and left, we might thank them (or at least forgive them(. If they did so and stayed as an occupation force forever, we'd fight them every chance we get. That's how the Iraqi's feel about us.

by laird 2008-07-22 03:52AM | 0 recs
Someone want to tell me why...

"Genurul 'Betrayus' is someone Obama should be listening to."

I expect the Genrul was listening to his next boss.

by Beren 2008-07-21 05:04PM | 0 recs
Hate to say it but Poppy....he won his war.

That's revisionist since for the decade leading up Bushboy's Blunder the standard charge was that Bushdaddy, "didn't finish the job."

Of course, not invading Iraq was the smart thing to do. But it was a shame Clinton keep the pseudo-war going with no-fly zones and murderous sanctions until Bushboy came along to really screw things up.

by Beren 2008-07-21 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Busting The False Equivalence

This move by the Times will raise the already often asked question: "Is the media being fair to McCain?"

Having suggested that McCain f*cked a female lobbyist in a thinly sourced article won't help the NY Times convince readers that they are an unbiased source.

by kingsbridge77 2008-07-21 05:25PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads