Another McCain Gaffe

Ok ... I think we should stop these gaffe threads but .... another one by McCain this week. Here it is ... I only post this since LTRT had to post the Obama quote of 8-10 years ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25800799/

Quote from link above below ...

The broadcast networks invite McCain to appear on their morning shows, feeling guilty over their anchors-away coverage of Obamapalooza.

So, what does he do? He forgets that there’s a country named Iran between Iraq and Pakistan. You can’t make this stuff up.

"We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border,” McCain said on ABC News, effectively wiping Iran off the map.

Maybe nothing he says really matters right now.

The fact is, while Obama is receiving the Brangelina treatment in Europe, you can hear crickets in McCain's America.

Seriously freaky shit that he's even considering running for president. I wonder how many days it takes him to get going in the morning

meta4 wrote:I wonder how many days it takes him to get going in the morning

Probably as long as it takes BHO to get out a sentence that's not written down in front of him.

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:I wonder how many days it takes him to get going in the morning

Probably as long as it takes BHO to get out a sentence that's not written down in front of him.

Fair Fair... But I'd wager he's look at a map in the last ... oh I dunno... 8 years. Maybe it's more memorable because Obama's in the region now and McCain hasn't been there for a few months.

LT, I would vote for you sooner than for John McWaning...

meta4 wrote:LT, I would vote for you sooner than for John McWaning...

I once was President of my class.

Now you're bringing a smile to my face, keep it up.

LTRT wrote:I once was President of my class.

Kindergarten doesn't count...

I read the article. It also goes on to say this...
*******************

But, does McCain still have reason to have, shall we say, The Audacity of Hope?

Yes. And here’s why:

* A week is a month and a month is a lifetime in politics. This is still July; there is an eternity — three and a half months — until Election Day. And Obama proves this point. Only four short years ago, he was an obscure fellow busily voting “present” in the Illinois legislature.
* McCain can make some positive news and noise with a good vice presidential selection. There are rumors the move could come as soon as this week, but that would be folly. Most of the media would bury even that story beneath the pictures of Obama addressing a million people in Berlin.
* The Bush crowd will unite behind McCain (see the photo op with 41), and open their wallets to him — and so will most of the traditional evangelical Christian crowd. Yes Rick Warren is inviting Obama to his church in California (along with McCain), but the titans of broadcast evangelism are an aging and ailing lot, and their flocks are wary of Obama.
* The physics of the media could help at some point. Having raised Obama so far up the flagpole, the natural instinct of my brethren will be to haul him back down. The mob mentality that has elevated him can also shrink him down to size.
* If so, McCain can become the fighting underdog. He is the son and grandson of admirals — a prince to the Navy born — but he has faced long odds before, and performs best when facing them, whether in a prison camp or on the campaign trail.
* Last, and perhaps most importantly, the American people may be repelled at the sight of a man touring the planet in presidential style who has yet to even be nominated by his own party. There is something a little off about Obamapalooza, even if it is not entirely the candidate’s fault. The self-conscious mimicking of J.F.K. can be cloying or even worse. Kennedy went to Berlin in the midst of a Cold War crisis. To stand at the Brandenburg Gate and declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” took enormous guts. Obama has yet to match that fortitude — and he hasn’t been chosen president. However quaint it may seem, voters may want a say in that decision.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:I read the article. It also goes on to say this...
*******************

But, does McCain still have reason to have, shall we say, The Audacity of Hope?

Yes. And here’s why:

* A week is a month and a month is a lifetime in politics. This is still July; there is an eternity — three and a half months — until Election Day. And Obama proves this point. Only four short years ago, he was an obscure fellow busily voting “present” in the Illinois legislature.
* McCain can make some positive news and noise with a good vice presidential selection. There are rumors the move could come as soon as this week, but that would be folly. Most of the media would bury even that story beneath the pictures of Obama addressing a million people in Berlin.
* The Bush crowd will unite behind McCain (see the photo op with 41), and open their wallets to him — and so will most of the traditional evangelical Christian crowd. Yes Rick Warren is inviting Obama to his church in California (along with McCain), but the titans of broadcast evangelism are an aging and ailing lot, and their flocks are wary of Obama.
* The physics of the media could help at some point. Having raised Obama so far up the flagpole, the natural instinct of my brethren will be to haul him back down. The mob mentality that has elevated him can also shrink him down to size.
* If so, McCain can become the fighting underdog. He is the son and grandson of admirals — a prince to the Navy born — but he has faced long odds before, and performs best when facing them, whether in a prison camp or on the campaign trail.
* Last, and perhaps most importantly, the American people may be repelled at the sight of a man touring the planet in presidential style who has yet to even be nominated by his own party. There is something a little off about Obamapalooza, even if it is not entirely the candidate’s fault. The self-conscious mimicking of J.F.K. can be cloying or even worse. Kennedy went to Berlin in the midst of a Cold War crisis. To stand at the Brandenburg Gate and declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” took enormous guts. Obama has yet to match that fortitude — and he hasn’t been chosen president. However quaint it may seem, voters may want a say in that decision.

Sure there is a long time before the election, have I officially declared this election "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" yet like McCain and Bush did about the Iraq war 5 years ago. lol

Did the Republican Candidate say "Mission Accomplished" 5 years ago? I really don't know.

I look into the eyes of Obama and I see fire and drive.

I look into the eyes of McCain and I see a feeble old man stumbling in traffic looking for his world's fair spoon.

McCain is going to be be another 4 years of Bush.

Only older...and tortured.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FltLzeyACzY

Watch and listen


Below is a quote from MSNBC First Read

McCain: Mission accomplished? Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:08 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, McCain



McCain said he couldn’t blame Bush for the “Mission Accomplished” banner. He said though “he would be reluctant to ever declare ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq, but suggested rosy early predictions of success there by President George W. Bush and other officials fueled public frustration with the war. ‘I thought it was wrong at the time,’ McCain told reporters in Cleveland, where he continued a week-long tour to discuss his health care plans. ‘I thought phrases like 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' all of those comments contributed over time to the frustration and sorrow of Americans,’ he said. ‘Those were, unlike the banner, direct statements that were contradicted by facts on the ground.’”

But is that really the case? A YouTube dredged up by liberal group Progressive Media USA shows McCain on FOX from June 11, 2003 -- five weeks after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech. [A correction: The DNC informs us that the creation of this video comes from their research shop.]
ANCHOR TO MCCAIN: …Many argue the conflict isn’t over.
MCCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said ‘Mission Accomplished’ on the aircraft carrier? … The major conflict is over. The regime change has been accomplished.

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:I wonder how many days it takes him to get going in the morning

Probably as long as it takes BHO to get out a sentence that's not written down in front of him.

sorry i gotta say your shit is weak...unless you think its rare for politicians to have notes the refer to when speaking.

and yesterdays gaffe when mcsame was spouting off in an interview about the surge..discussing petraeus, the "awakening council"...of course to some, obama referring to 57 states will still be the biggest gaffe of the political season...until obama commits another gaffe

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-gets-history-of-th_n_114419.html

During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the "surge" strategy in Iraq. In an interview with anchor Katie Couric, the Arizona Republican said, inaccurately, that the surge strategy was responsible for the much-touted "Anbar Awakening," in which Sunni sheiks turned against Al Qaeda, helping in turn to reduce violence in the country.

From the transcript:

Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.


In fact, as Spencer Ackerman and Ilan Goldenberg have reported, the record firmly establishes the opposite: instead of being caused by the surge, the key signs of the Anbar Awakening occurred not only before that strategy was implemented, but before it was ever conceived.

Yet McCain's error was not seen by any CBS Evening News viewers. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted (video below), "CBS curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric's question, but in response, it aired part of McCain's answer to the other question instead." (Ironically, this edit came on the same day that McCain's campaign released a video mocking the media's "love affair" with Obama.)

The fact remains, however, that the military official cited by McCain, then-Colonel Sean MacFarland, described the Anbar Awakening in September 2006 -- four months before the "surge" was even announced -- noting that tribal leaders were "stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against Al Qaeda." Moreover, a military review written by MacFarland notes that his unit actually left Anbar before most of the surge troops arrived; his success in the region came between June 2006 and February 2007.

Especially notable is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the Awakening, and whether or not it was caused by the surge. Fresh off one of his much-touted trips to Iraq, McCain delivered remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007. Alongside fellow Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain specifically advocated for the newly proposed surge, and cited the already-in-progress turning of Sunni sheiks as a reason to send more troops. From the transcript of the event:

"Too often the light at the tunnel has turned out to be a train, but I really believe -- I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region. ... But it's important, as I said in my opening remarks, that this troop surge be significant and sustained. Otherwise, don't do it."

Sen. Lieberman also spoke about the Anbar Awakening at the same press conference while standing next to McCain:

"I wrote last week of a conversation I had after John and I and our delegation met with our military leadership in Anbar province -- a tough, brilliant, committed group of soldiers making progress there, turning the Sunni sheiks in that province to our side against Al Qaeda."
All of which raises the question: how much of the surge's history has John McCain forgotten, and when did he begin to forget it? Oddly enough, his own campaign may have primed him to make the error. In a conference call for reporters early Tuesday, McCain's senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann told reporters: "He [Obama] believes Sunnis and Shias would have made the same decision if there was not the security provided by the surge? This is ludicrous."

LATE UPDATE: CBS appears to have posted their entire interview with McCain online:

floridafun wrote:

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:I wonder how many days it takes him to get going in the morning

Probably as long as it takes BHO to get out a sentence that's not written down in front of him.

sorry i gotta say your shit is weak...unless you think its rare for politicians to have notes the refer to when speaking.

LTRT,

See, there you go! You may be able to pull off a successful campaign... look see... your first opponent/critic. This must mean you are a threat and should keep on running... don't stop... spend millions and millions... but never uh, concede.

I have noticed that we talk about gaffes here more than real issues.

Markwes wrote:I have noticed that we talk about gaffes here more than real issues.

... what was that? oh, sorry I thought you said something about the economy, global warming, the auto industry, energy policy, energy market, oil speculators, lending reform, banking holocaust...

Isn't this a gaff thread?

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:I have noticed that we talk about gaffes here more than real issues.

... what was that? oh, sorry I thought you said something about the economy, global warming, the auto industry, energy policy, energy market, oil speculators, lending reform, banking holocaust...

Isn't this a gaff thread?

Why, yes it is. In fact, it's the 2nd thread named "Another McCain Gaffe". I know we have at least one thread named "Another Obama Gaffe". So which one to choose, the guy who doesn't know how many states there are or the one who doesn't know what country in the middle east borders what? Tough decision!

did anyone ever point out that you have control issues?

Not trying to control anything. Just stating my opinion, like sometimes is done on message boards.

Markwes, are you suggesting we UNITE the gaff threads for concise reference? Or are you just whining about listening to others whine?

All I'm saying is that their sh*t is weak.

Markwes wrote:In fact, it's the 2nd thread named "Another McCain Gaffe".

Take a wild guess on who started both threads.

After thinking about this, there is a lot of irony in that the only reason Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is even feasible is because of the troop surge, which McCain supported (and Obama voted against) when it was hugely unpopular.

Markwes wrote:After thinking about this, there is a lot of irony in that the only reason Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan is even feasible is because of the troop surge, which McCain supported (and Obama voted against) when it was hugely unpopular.

Which Surge? McCain is even confused (see the cbs news website or google Keith Olberman ... lol) McCain is getting so many things confused today it is unreal. The whole Anbar uprising has him befuddled? I think we Obama-bots just need to sit back and just let McCain implode ... it is happening before our own eyes.

Personally, I like how Obama says he wouldn't do the troop surge knowing what he knows now if he had the chance to go back and do it again.. good job turbo.. admit that even though you've seen first hand that it worked, you'd rather not do it and see the situation there deteriorate.

I think McCain said it perfectly when he said Obama would rather lose the war than lose a political battle, whereas he'd rather win the war and lose the political battle. Kinda puts into perspective who should be commander in chief.