So in the latest free-press free-pass, John McSame’s historical revisionism got a sterile bypass when Katie Couric asked him on a recent CBS interview (Tuesday July 22nd, 2008) what his thoughts were on Barack Obama’s take on the troop surge in Iraq and the “Sunni awakening.” This is from the transcript of the footage that CBS edited and aired:
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.
Actually, *real* history shows on record that the so-called Sunni awakening (also known as the Anbar Awakening) happened well before the surge was planned or even announced to the general public.
What kills me about this is that once again, McSame flounders the facts and uses his own ignorance of actual historical facts to demean his opponent. Maybe McLame’s historical facts are just a psychological thing.
Naturally, the right-wing conservative lap dogs leap up to defend their party and presumptive presidential candidate whenever this kind of fuck up happens. The kinds of defensive tactics that pop up are generally a few common flavors:
1.) Deny the screw up. Never happened. We didn’t say that. What we actually said was (insert appropriate bullshit cover story here)… Then proceed to attack their opponent.
2.) Immediately attack their opponents but completely ignore the fact that a screw up was made. Can’t you see that the other guy is on crack?
3.) Distraction tactic 101: Draw attention to a non-issue (and simultaneously attack their opponent).
Which brings me to the weapon of mass distraction today: Glen Beck’s latest conservative dribble about the unfair and imbalanced coverage that Barack Obama is receiving in the media (http://tinyurl.com/5hjg98).
Is this really a public issue, or is this something that should be taken up with the media moguls directly? Let’s see… What sells more–a young, fresh candidate with monumental momentum behind him and the genuine desire to get our country back on track for its population, or an aging cold-war era former military man who is stuck in the past and wants more of the same obsolete political and military tactics to rule them all? I could be wrong Alex, but I’m going to say, “Who is the young, fresh Democratic candidate?”
This joke of a commentato, Beck, wraps up his whining with the following:
“But all of this points to a larger point: We’ve become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak. McCain may not get my vote, but he gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks. Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who’s realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream. When your fans already love you, there’s no reason to risk it by offering anything that might be controversial. Remember the Dixie Chicks?
As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did.”
How do I skewer thee? Let me count the ways… OK–”We’ve become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak.” Excuse me but this has been in the RepuliCON playbook for decades. Scream as loud as you can and berate your opponent while not actually doing anything to fix the problem you’re bitching about. All sizzle, no steak. Look to the Senate yesterday when Harry Reid was trying to get a bill passed to curb oil speculators. Republicans bitched and moaned about Dems not doing anything to help the people of this country out but there they stood, ready to filibuster and add myriad amendments to the bill to declaw it. They
Next, Beck says, “he (McCain) gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks.” Are you kidding me? Substance and new ideas? You mean new ideas of substance like bombing Iran? Killing Iranians with cigarettes (If McLame is so convinced that cigarettes can kill, why isn’t he “protecting” people in this country from them?)? Keeping us in Iraq for 100 years while we slowly create a new American empire in the middle east? Yeah, those are great ideas, Beck.
Beck alludes that “Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who’s realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream.” Unintelligible words. Right. Glen, would you like to give us some specifics on that analogy? Seems to me that the last time I saw Obama speak (which was yesterday, incidentally) he was extremely articulate and what he had to say made a heck of a lot more sense than McCain’s marble-mouthed mumbling rendition of “Bomb Iran.”
It’s Beck’s closing paragraph that really makes my skin crawl: “As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did.”
McCain is “fact-filled”? Anbar Awakening? Czechoslovakia? Iran supplying Sunni insurgents and/or Al Qaeda? Seems to me that when you have a traveling companion who is constantly whispering in your ear to correct you on the “facts,” you’re full of something.