Okay, I slept in this morning, finally got to the computer, went straight here like I always do, and saw the Kos front-page article on Obama.
Being front-paged, and being by Kos himself, I swallowed it, hook line and sinker. I respect Kos and almost always agree with him, even when his assessments are harsh and not what I WANT to hear.
I jumped into the comments and made a few comments about Obama being done. Game over. Looks like Obama's Kamikaze'ed himself onto the deck of the U.S.S. Bush.
Then I saw a comment by ctsteve that shook me out of my acceptance of the story.
Oh yeah. This is the ASSOCIATED PRESS who wrote this. Where are the direct quotes? There aren't any, even in their "updated" story.
Please follow me for why the AP is the "Fox News" of the wire services ....
I've written two well-received diaries about the AP here on Dailykos.
Here they are:
The AP makes me sick which I could have easily titled AP Asks: Why So Many Upset by Iraq Death Toll? since that's the E&P article on which it was based ...
And, more recently, How the AP smears the Plame story.
Both reveal that the AP has some serious Faux-News-like people calling at least some of the shots, and sending out some serious propaganda into our world under the guise of "news".
And now we have this brou-ha-ha regarding an interview with Obama.
Now I don't watch the races that closely but it seems Obama is getting a LOT of momentum lately. In fact, yesterday I just saw my first Obama '08 bumper sticker on a car here in Santa Monica California. For whatever that's worth, which I know isn't much.
But if you were an Anti-Dem, Obama is certainly someone you'd want to take down a few notches, any way you could. He's definitely a one of the three front-runners at this point. The excitement he generates must scare the literal shit out of the Repubs.
At any rate, let's look at the "quotes" attributed to him today:
If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.
This is an easy one. Because the QUESTION is not provided. The Question is everything in a situation like this. I mean, just imagine if the question was:
Q: Some say that for the Senate to be involved in any type of defunding is to play chicken with our troops. Do you think the Senate should play chicken with our troops?
OBAMA: No lawmaker wants to "play chicken with our troops". etc. etc. etc.
Another one (and this is the one that seems to really piss people off, and did me, when I first saw it):
"I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."
Again, they do not provide the question.
And I think the key phrase that Obama provides is the term "at this stage".
What could the question have been regarding the notion of "at this stage"? Today? Next week? July (when the current funding runs out)?
The question could have been anything. Remember sweet li'l ol' Katie Couric's interview of the Edwards' with the "some say" and "some are asking if .." type of questions, direct from the flatulent mind of Rush Limpballs.
This question could have easily been:
Q: Does the Senate want to simply cut funding, so it will simply run out in July? Is there a majority in the Senate who wishes to simply shut off funding at this stage?
Obama: I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage.
Let's face it -- the AP has a history of reckless disregard for fairness when it comes to Democrats. They have a history of blatant propagandizing for the Bush administration. I mean, my God, the story about "why are people upset with the death toll in Iraq" is enough to make you physically ill. Read the link I provided above, too, regarding how they handled Valerie Plame's testimony as well. It's disgusting.
I just noticed a comment Geekesque made to one of mine regarding how the AP handled the story about the Edwards' house, as well. So there's another example.
Kos should have known better and looked at the source and considered how the quotes were possibly abused. I trusted him and his front-page story and now wish I had not.
UPDATE #3: (yes, in reverse order)
Check this out, in a comment from dpg220:
AP Video is up now (3+ / 0-)
Obama says nothing like what the AP reports. The Ap may have pulled info from the CNN transcript and then misrepresented his views
http://video.ap.org/...
if this holds, and there is nothing more than this and the cnn interview, kos really should apologize
by dpg220 on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:47:37 PM PDT
Sadly, my MAC won't let me view this video. Could more people please corroborate what dpg220 is saying here?
UPDATE #2:
Some people are confused as to why I post (below) the transcript of the CNN interview, when the interview in question is with the AP. Well, the whole POINT is that the CNN interview actually lets you see what Obama has to say on this issue, complete with context (and he's heavy on the context). Seeing the CNN transcript, you are not subjected to the editing, the paraphrasing, and the taking-out-of-context of which the AP is guilty. YES they are two different interviews. I know that and knew it when I posted it. I don't think Obama is going to say different things in two interviews on the same day on the same subject. Ya know? I find it very interesting to compare the two. I think the AP piece strongly misrepresented what Obama was saying. Your mileage may vary.
DISCLAIMER: I am not supporting any particular candidate at this time. If Dean or Clark were to run I'd be behind one of them, but now? Nobody yet.
UPDATE #1:
Here's a transcript from CNN where Obama was interviewed by Wolf "slip the cash under my desk, Mr. Rove" Blitzer:
OBAMA: Well, I'm very proud of the fact that I was against this war from the start. I thought that it was ill-conceived, and not just in terms of execution, but also conception.
What I also said way back in 2002 is, once we were in, we were going to have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, and that we had some obligations to the Iraqi people, as well as the national security interests of the United States, to make sure that we handled an exit properly.
And that's what I have tried to be consistently projecting over the last two years of my time in the Senate.
BLITZER: Let me point out what you said back in 2003. And I'll give you the exact quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion, I said no. And I said no unequivocally, because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: You said no then. But, since then, you voted for funding the war.
OBAMA: Well, that $87 billion, I had a very particular concern. And that was, you had $20 billion worth of reconstruction funds that were given out on a no-bid basis. And, as a consequence, I was concerned that you would not see that money spent effectively.
BLITZER: That was largely for Halliburton.
OBAMA: That's exactly right.
And, since that time, we have discovered that in fact the money wasn't spent wisely. We still have $9 billion that's missing somewhere in Iraq that we still aren't clear about. Some of those procedures were tightened in the votes that I took.
But, most importantly, I have said consistently that I think it's important, if we're sending our young men and women into battle, that they have got all the resources they need to come back home safely and also to execute their mission.
BLITZER: Because some ardent opponents of the war, like Dennis Kucinich, for example, who is a Democratic presidential candidate...
OBAMA: Right.
BLITZER: ... he takes a principled stand. He's not going to vote to fund troops going off to this war, because he believes that would help bring the troops home.
OBAMA: Right.
You know, the problem is, is that you have got an obstinate administration that has shown itself unwilling to change in the face of circumstances on the ground.
And, in that situation, what you don't want to do is to play chicken with the president, and create a situation in which, potentially, you don't have body armor, you don't have reinforced humvees, you don't have night-vision goggles.
Now, there is a ratcheting-up of pressure on the president. And I am very pleased about the vote that took place yesterday, where a majority of the Senate for the first time said we need to have a timetable.
BLITZER: But he says he is going to veto that right now.
OBAMA: I understand.
BLITZER: And there is a game of chicken going on right now.
OBAMA: I understand that he says he is going to veto it. There is no doubt he will veto it. But what you are starting to see, I think, is a bipartisan movement in the direction of having a clear endgame.
And I am very pleased that the bill that I presented back in January calling for a phased withdrawal starting on May 1 of this year, with the aim of getting all combat troops out by March 31 of next year, that many of the elements in that bill ended up being part of this package that was voted on yesterday.
BLITZER: If the president does veto it, as he vows he will, what do you do next?
OBAMA: Well, I think we continue to put these votes up to the Senate. We put more pressure on many Republican colleagues of mine, who I think recognize that the Bush approach has not worked, but are still unwilling to put pressure on their president.
BLITZER: Because he says the money starts drying up in mid- April...
OBAMA: Right.
BLITZER: ... for the troops to head over to Iraq.
OBAMA: Right. I think that we continue to put a series of votes up and try to convince our colleagues on the Republican side that the only way that we are going to change circumstances in Iraq is if you see a different political dynamic; that there are, at this point, no military solutions to the problems in Iraq; that what we have to do is get the Shia, the Sunni, the Kurd to come together and say to themselves "We, in fact, are willing to start making some compromises around oil revenues, around the arming of militias and so on."
In the absence of that, we can send 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, we're not going to see a significant change.
BLITZER: Yesterday, I interviewed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: Failure is catastrophe. Failure is genocide. Failure means we come back. Failure means they follow us home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: What if he's right? What if he's right, and what you're proposing and a lot of Democrats are proposing results in genocide in Iraq?
OBAMA: Well, look, what you have right now is chaos in Iraq. After having spent hundreds of billions of dollars, after seeing close to 3,200 lives lost, what you now see is chaos. And there's no end in sight.
Now, John McCain may believe that it's an option for us to maintain an indefinite occupation of Iraq, regardless what happens in terms of the politics within Iraq, so that we're, every year, sending $100 billion over to Iraq, so that, every year, we're seeing hundreds or thousands of young Americans dying, so that we continue to see a deterioration of America's standing in the world.
I don't think that serves the best interests of the United States. And I don't think it will ultimately result in the kind of...
BLITZER: So...
OBAMA: ... stabilization in Iraq that's necessary.
Now, these are judgment calls. I don't question John McCain's sincerity in believing that the approach that he wants to take, which is essentially a continuation of Bush policies over the last six years, are the right ones to take.
BLITZER: If you're president of the United States in January of 2009, and the situation is basically the same in Iraq as it is right now...
OBAMA: Right.
BLITZER: ... what would be your immediate first step?
OBAMA: Well, the bill that I put in I think...
BLITZER: But assuming that bill doesn't go in.
OBAMA: No, no, but I think assuming that things are the same, I think the same dynamic will be at work, which is to say we're going to pull out our combat troops out of Iraq in a phased, systematic way, that we continue to provide the Iraqi government with logistical and training support, that we have those forces over the horizon to respond to crises that spill over into the remainder of the region.
And most importantly, we have an aggressive diplomatic initiative with those countries in the region to make sure that we are part of a broader conversation about how can we stabilize Iraq and stabilize the region?