A couple of weeks ago, a growing number of political insiders were noting the similarities between John Kerry’s comment four years ago about voting for a spending bill before he voted against it, and John McCain’s remarks about his willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years.
Mark Salter, a top McCain advisor, called on the media to help McCain out by explaining that the senator didn’t really mean he wanted another century of war. “If the press is going to play referee on what is a bogus claim and what isn’t, then this is one case,” Salter said.
And sure enough, the very same major media outlets that skewered Al Gore and John Kerry for minor gaffes — some real, most imagined — seem to be going to considerable lengths to defend McCain against something he really did say. Media Matters’ Jamison Foser wrote a gem on the subject.
On April 3, The Washington Post ran an item purporting to fact-check criticism of John McCain over his January comments about keeping the U.S. military in Iraq for 100 years. The Post’s Michael Dobbs concluded that McCain critics who claim that the Republican presidential candidate wants to continue the Iraq war for 100 years are distorting his comments. Dobbs’ article came one week to the day after a New York Times article about criticisms of McCain that “mischaracterize and distort” McCain’s 100-years comments.
The articles in the Times and the Post come in the midst of a great deal of media attention to McCain’s comments, much of which asserts that McCain’s remarks have been distorted or unfairly criticized.
Distortions and unfair criticisms are nothing new in political campaigns. Somewhat more unusual is the eagerness of some news organizations to defend McCain from such distortions. McCain and his staff distort the Democratic candidates’ tax plans on a near-daily basis, and the media don’t seem to care. And The New York Times and The Washington Post weren’t so concerned about distortions of a presidential candidates’ comments when the candidate was named Al Gore — back then, rather than debunking the distortions, the Times and the Post were the ones doing the distorting.
But what is most notable about the coverage of McCain’s 100-years comments is that while news organizations like the Times and the Post have rushed to McCain’s defense with reports pointing out what McCain didn’t say, those reports have failed to explore what he does mean.
That last point is especially significant. It’s not just that major news outlets are providing context to a key campaign controversy; some are pretending it isn’t even a controversy at all.
While several of those articles [from the WaPo and NYT] quote McCain staff members asserting that his comments have been distorted, not a single one gives any indication that either paper has asked McCain or his staff any questions that would clarify how long McCain is willing to continue fighting in Iraq.
McCain’s 100-years comment came as he avoided directly answering questions about how long he would be willing to continue fighting a war in Iraq in which American troops are being wounded and killed. Yes, Mr. Straight Talk was ducking the question. During the same event, McCain said “setting a date for withdrawal is a date for surrender, and we would then have many more casualties and many more Americans sacrificed if we withdraw with — with a setting a date for surrender.” In effect, McCain is having it both ways — he refuses to set a date by which the United States will stop fighting in Iraq, but when critics accuse him of being willing to continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years, he and his campaign reject that. Well, which is it? If he refuses to set a date by which we will stop fighting, then it is fair to say he’s willing to keep fighting for 100 years. And if he isn’t willing to keep fighting for 100 years, then he doesn’t really refuse to set a date by which we must stop fighting. But neither the Times nor the Post explore that tension in their articles about McCain’s 100-years comments.
Not a single article examines whether McCain’s desire for a long-term military presence in Iraq similar to the presence we have in Germany and Korea is even remotely plausible. Time’s Joe Klein argues that it isn’t: “That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is — and has always been — volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.”
Not a single one of the articles made any attempt to assess how much it would cost to maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years, or to determine how McCain would pay for it. Not a single one made any attempt to assess (or gave any indication that a reporter asked McCain) what effect such a lengthy commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq would do to our military readiness, or the effects it would have on the troops themselves.
Complicating matters, as we discussed the other day, is that McCain has contradicted himself (more than once) on his willingness to consider a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq. This, too, has been largely (if not, entirely) ignored by campaign reporters, anxious to give McCain a hand with one of his more troublesome public remarks.
Digby added that the media’s bene doing “triple backflips and double axels explaining away McCain’s ‘100 years in Iraq’ comment.”
On the best of days, John McCain’s fanboys rival 12 year old girls screaming themselves faint in the front row of a Jonas Brothers concert, but this rush to ensure that that mean Barack Obama didn’t “get away” with using McCain’s own words against him on the stump was a profile in Xtreme Flyboy-love. Once again, McCain is excused for saying something completely shocking because his scribbling sycophants are sure he “didn’t really mean it.” One can only imagine what it would be like if all candidates were given the benefit of the doubt on such matters.
I’d just add that it continues to amaze me when Republicans complain — as they often do — that the media has been too easy on Barack Obama. The lengths some of these news outlets go to help John McCain at times makes it appear they’re on his payroll.