CNN's Bash declared as fact McCain view that Obama "stumble[d]" in Landstuhl decision, not noting CNN analysts' position that he was in no-win situation
SUMMARY: Dana Bash pronounced Sen. Barack Obama's decision not to go through with a visit to U.S. troops at a military hospital in Germany a "stumble," asserting that as a result of Obama's decision, "the McCain campaign got something they could use -- an Obama stumble." Simply presenting McCain's reported take on the issue as fact, Bash made no mention of comments made earlier in the day by CNN analysts Bill Schneider and Gloria Borger, who agreed with the view articulated by an Obama spokesman that the Illinois senator "felt like he was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation."
During a July 25 Anderson Cooper 360 report on Sen. Barack Obama's decision not to go through with a visit to U.S. troops at a military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, CNN correspondent Dana Bash pronounced Obama's move a "stumble," asserting that as a result of Obama's decision, "the McCain campaign got something they could use -- an Obama stumble." Simply presenting the McCain campaign's purported take on Obama's decision as fact -- that Obama "stumble[d]" -- Bash didn't note that two of her CNN colleagues earlier that day expressed agreement with the view articulated by an Obama spokesman that the Illinois senator "felt like he was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation."
During the July 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider reported that Obama had visited with troops earlier in his trip, but according to a campaign spokesman, canceled the Landstuhl visit because he did not want to "put our troops in the middle of our campaign back-and-forth." Schneider continued: "Obama's spokesman said, just as the candidate has been criticized for not visiting the troops in Germany, he would have been criticized if he had met with them. Probably true. That's what happens in a campaign."
Later in the Situation Room broadcast, senior political analyst Gloria Borger asserted: "But it's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. Because you never want to make going to visit the troops look like a political photo opportunity, ever."
From the July 25 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
BASH: With those sound bites, McCain is trying to make up for what he lacked all week in imagery, from this golf cart to this grocery store, McCain struggled to find the right backdrop to counter Obama's overseas images. Minutes after his rival's speech in Berlin before a sea of people, McCain was in front of a German fudge house in Ohio. Yet finally, the McCain campaign got something they could use -- an Obama stumble.
Obama abruptly canceled a visit to see U.S. troops stationed in Germany and offered a series of evolving explanations. First, an Obama spokesman said, "The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign." Later, another statement from retired Major General Scott Gratian traveling with Obama. "We learned from the Pentagon Wednesday night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event." But Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell tells CNN the military had already arranged for Obama's campaign plane and staff to land at the air base and for the senator in his official capacity to visit troops. Morrell said canceling the trip was, quote, "based on their own calculation and had nothing to do with any judgment by us about the nature of the trip."
McCain campaign aides eager to make this fight Obama v. Pentagon, not Obama v. McCain, were more short and to the point than usual. A spokesman saying, "Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to meet with troops." And privately, McCain aides, at last, found some joy with one Obama moment captured in this photo in a German newspaper, Obama leaving the gym, not visiting with U.S. troops.
A spokesman for Obama said the Democratic candidate felt like he was in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation and decided in the end it was best to avoid the perception of making wounded troops part of a campaign event. Dana Bash, CNN, Washington.
From the July 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SCHNEIDER: A controversy broke out after Obama canceled plans to visit wounded members of the U.S. military in Germany. His campaign issued a statement saying, "The senator decided, out of respect for those servicemen and women, that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."
The McCain campaign was quick to respond. "Barack Obama is wrong," the McCain spokesman said. "It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military." In fact, Obama did visit the troops elsewhere, with the congressional delegation, which he called the highlight of his trip.
OBAMA: Everywhere we went in Afghanistan and Iraq, they were just really eager to tell their story of what they were doing. And -- and it was moving.
SCHNEIDER: Bloggers immediately picked up on the canceled visit to the military hospital in Germany. An Obama adviser issued a statement that: "We learned from the Pentagon Wednesday night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event."
A Pentagon spokesman says that Obama was welcome to go to the hospital as a sitting senator, not as a candidate. Asked why they canceled the visit, Obama's spokesman said: "He was far more willing to take the criticism from some political people or political opponents in a political atmosphere than to put our troops in the middle of our campaign back-and-forth. That is the decision we made, and we are comfortable with it."
Obama spokesmen said, just as the candidate has been criticized for not visiting the troops in Germany, he would have been criticized if he had met with them. Probably true. That's what happens in a campaign.
[...]
BLITZER: Gloria, I want to just change subjects for a second because we've got a limited amount of time. You heard Bill Schneider's report on this controversy that Senator Obama had time to do a lot of stuff in Germany, including work out, but he didn't have time or he decided that it wasn't a good idea to go to meet some of the wounded troops at Landstuhl at Rammstein in Germany. And this is causing an uproar, especially among the conservative bloggers out there. His explanation is, you know what, it would have been a political event and it was really probably not appropriate.
BORGER: You know, the Obama campaign tells you that they were discouraged from going over there because it was a campaign event. And the Pentagon says, we didn't discourage him, we just discouraged bringing the campaign, that he could have gone by himself. And of course, the McCain campaign is saying, it's never inappropriate to go visit the troops. I think this is one of those situations where we need to kind of know the full story here. But it's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. Because you never want to make going to visit the troops look like a political photo opportunity, ever.















Let's review the con job the Bush administration and McCain campaign just pulled on Obama:
Obama plans to visit wounded troops at hospital in Germany.
Bush administration Defense Department representatives contact Obama's campaign staff and ask that he defer planned visit out of concern that it will appear to use hospitalized service members as props in a partisan campaign.
Obama complies.
McCain and the usual Republican elected officials and political operatives attacks Obama for deferring hospital visit, which they claim somehow proves he doesn't respect members of the military.
Members of the traditional media repeat, elaborate on, over analyze and embellish McCain's attack, giving it plenty of credibility and mileage.
Mission accomplished.
Here's why visiting wounded troops is a "no win" situation for Obama.
If he does it on camera, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of using hospitalized service members as a prop for partisan campaigning while secretly being a traitorous, liberal, Muslim homo who wants America to lose its wars.
If he does it off camera, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of being embarrassed to be seen with wounded service members, thus proving that he is a traitorous, liberal, Muslim homo who hates the military and wants America to lose its wars.
If he doesn't do it, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of being a traitorous, liberal, Muslim homo who hates the military and wants America to lose its wars.
Have you figured out the common theme yet?
Exactly.
The military is only allowed to be exploited by Republicants, we all know that.
Putting the traitorous, Muslim, homo stuff aside:
You are correct it's a no-win situation, but Obama has put himself in this position due to the anti-war stance he has taken and accepting the support of the far-left which hates military action and the military itself.
I know this will come as a complete shock to you, but it's possible to be against a particular policy that involves the use of military force, yet still be supportive of those in uniform who are duty-bound to carry it out.
Further, I wonder where this belief that Democrats are anti-military came from? For instance, I'm a Democrat, and I'm also a 26 year veteran of the military, and I served in Iraq in 2005.
If you were to look at the current 100 members of the United States Senate, you'd find 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Of those 100, my best estimate is that 28 have served in the military in some capacity. Of those 28, 14 are Democrats and 14 are Republicans. The 14 Democrats include such liberals as Kerry, Kennedy and Dodd. And that's just one example to show that the meme of Democrats somehow being anti-military is not valid.
It should apparent that Obama will be attacked as unpatriotic for anything he does or doesn't do, because that's the GOP standard operating procedure. He needs to expect those assaults and be prepared to knock them down as soon as they pop up.
!st republic 4th star, I wanted to first of all say that you always make really good salient points and I enjoy your posts. And thank you for pointing out the Democrats in the senate that have served. But I always wondered this: I have the perception (from where I don't know, MSM or Republicans) that military personnel skew towards the right. Since you've been in the military for 26 years, is that perception true? Or has that been perhaps a propaganda campaign all these years. I would think the military would fall in the same categories as the general public, but what is your considered opinion?
Good question. In my experience the top leadership of both the officer ranks (colonels and generals) and NCO corps (sergeants major) tend to be Republicans -- "conservative" on national defense and foreign policy, but less interested in the issues that motivate "social conservatives" or "economic conservatives".
The rank and file -- enlisted soldiers, lower ranking NCOs and officers from lieutenant to lieutenant colonel -- tend to be a political mix in terms of liberal to moderate to conservative on the left-right spectrum.
I think this is because the guys currently at the top are the ones who came of age in the post-Vietnam, pro-Reagan era. They blamed Democrats and liberals for the "loss" in Vietnam, the supposed gutting of the military's equipment, weapons and vehicles, and the reduction in personnel. Those feelings still carry over. Those who haven't been around as long don't have the Vietnam and Reagan era points of view, which is why I think they reflect broader viewpoints.
One thing that has especially annoyed me in the Bush era is the politicization of the military. Good leaders have felt compelled to quit or retire, meaning that those who are not as capable or who are willing to do the administration's bidding are the ones who move up.
The administration thinks nothing of using the reputation of a military officer like Petraeus to promote its policies, enabling the administration to claim the policies are nonpatisan. I also object to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff taking sides in the debate between presidential candidates. In both cases my argument is the same -- the military is supposed to execute policy. Ideally, we're not supposed to care what it is or who made it -- once the desired end state has been named and the strategy set by the civilian leadership, we're supposed to carry it out, period.
I also object to overtly partisan displays like in 2006 when uniformed Marines appeared at a county Republican party fundraising dinner in Colorado. The Marine Corps chief of public affairs said these Marines were not violating law or policy by merely being present to receive acknowledgement of their service. That's a damned lie. What they did is explicitly counter to both law and regulation. To prove it, let me ask this -- what would happen if a uniformed member of the US military appeared at a Green party event? I think you'll agree that he or she would not be let off the hook so easily as would be the case if it was a Republican event.
Oh, you've got that straight.
And I hate the way everything has been politicized by the Bushies too. It's downright disheartening and disgusting. Thanks for your perspective.
the far-left which hates military action and the military itself.
Really...? Ask yourself this...what would Republicans do if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ended tomorrow? Driven by neocon theories of world domination they'd start another war. Halliburton would make billions and thousands more American servicemen would die. And you say the left hates the military? No, the left hates modern Republican war mongering.
the support of the far-left which hates military action and the military itself.
It seems to me that wanting to leave the military in an unrelenting meat grinder shows hate more than wanting to bring them home safely. The left (and the right should as well) hates wars of choice against sovereign nations who have not attacked and did not have the means to attack us. Sadaam Hussein "gassed his won people" with helicopters and gas sold him by Donald Rumsfeld. The US reaction to the heinous act? Rumsfeld sold him more helicopters and more gas.
The wingnuts are losing the framing battle. Volunteering to be their pallbearers is not "supporting the military."
-- wanting to leave the military in an unrelenting meat grinder --
Your dogma is in need of an update. From the AP:
-- Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13. --
It was the view of the "Obama spokesman" that it was a no win situation. So MMFA is attacking here because a member of the press did not agree with a paid worker for the Obama campaign. Yea, that is big time conservative mis info. Give me a break.
This would be an example of conservative misinformation. No break necessary.
Media conservative misinformation is news or commentary from the media that isn't reliable or accurate and that furthers the conservative agenda.
This is a prime example of that. Reporting that commentary from a McCain spokesman that said that this was a stumble as fact furthers the conservative agenda. It's not reliable or accurate to say that it was a stumble. He was in a no-win situation. That's different than a stumble.
You lose again, POV, and demonstrate for all to see how desperate the McCain supporters really are, and how bankrupt the Republicans are in this election cycle.
It was the view of the "Obama spokesman" that it was a no win situation.- pointofview
Absolutely.And backed up by facts from the reality-based universe.
Later in the Situation Room broadcast, senior political analyst Gloria Borger asserted: "But it's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. Because you never want to make going to visit the troops look like a political photo opportunity, ever."
like putting on a flight suit and landing on a carrier ?
To be fair, Mary, Dubya' did give up golf out of solidarity with the troops.
Except when raising money for the Republicans, of course. That, after all, is his patriotic duty .
And those days after the torn meniscus in his knee had healed.
And... well, why nitpick?
It was a no win situation for Obama because republicans basically have no shame and will exploit any issue they think will help them. If the situation were reversed, I couldn't imagine Obama going after McCain. In his quest for power, McCain has not only lost his bearings, he has lost all credibility and respect.
Thanks for your service.
That base has been there 50 - 60 years! Why are we still there?
It was a slip up by his campaign...they should have been better aware of the applicable protocol in advance so that the rug could not be yanked from under Obama.
I think the "applicable protocol" from the Pentagon was to wait and see what Obama wanted to do, and then make up a rule that he wasn't allowed to do it, and wait to tell him until two days before the scheduled event.
Yup.
This is the same thing as when the rightwingers made a mockery of Kerry's service and his Purple Hearts, then cried foul when Wesley Clark, a former General, simply pointed out (after being prompted to do so) that McCain's POW status is not a criteria for being President.
They really have no shame.
They really have no shame.
Perfect description...that says it all.
Obama doesn't go to visit one set of wounded troops in Germany, and this is ALL we'll hear for about the next 2 weeks. Wait and watch, and see.
I have one correction to make of your previous post: you called them "phony Republicans". They are not "phony", they are REAL Republicans. Please, continue...
For anyone wanting to read an uplifting piece about Obama's trip, Frank Rich has one in today's NYT:
http://www.truthout.org/article/how-obama-became-acting-president
I know I needed a lift after all the stoopid talk by the media this week.
Oh, Oscar. I just like you so much. Why do you have to be so obstinante sometimes :-0)
Since you like alliterations, here goes:
Obstinate Oscar obviously offers opposing opinions to obscure Obama's omnipotence.
And alternatively, always apt assistance in aid of annual alphabetical alliteration.
P.S. Can't wait to see her get to "X".
I can do anything with the help of my bad ass urban dictiontionary. So getta outta here with your xpinion.
What's actually been said about the NY Times is denial that they're a liberal-leaning newspaper, and discussing the fact that they sometimes push conservative misinformation.
But you go with that strawman argument that people here have said that, Oscar, if it makes you feel good.
Whatever Obama did in this situation, the McCain campaign, aided by the Corporate Media and the Pentagon under the thrall of the Bush regime, was going to make an issue of it.
If we had a real objective media in this country, the theme would be that it is Sen. McCain who has blundered by attempting to use wounded troops as a political cudgel to beat his opponent with. An act so cynical, undignified and beneath contempt that it is a clear demonstration of McCain's unfitness to be Commander an Chief revealing a personality that is devoid of integrity, a moral center and respect for the lives and welfare of our troops.
I recall very clearly that the Landsthul complex was HUGE. It covered almost the top
of a mountain with many facilities. It has to be even bigger today. When I was stationed there, in 1957, I was a lowly clerk with a hospital administration outfit. Today, as then, Landstuhl can handle enormous numbers of service members for any and all conditions.
"If he does it off camera, he's accused by Bush, McCain and the media of being embarrassed to be seen with wounded service members..."
You know I was wondering why he didn't just go without his campaign staff or whatever it was the Pentagon objected to but this explanation makes sense.
Your script would not be pundit proof, trust me. I've heard he did have some conversations with troops via the phone. Is this a get out of pundit hell card?
How many more overstressed monologs will appear insisting that Obama hates the troops?
Is this the default neocon position for any progressive/liberal/democrat?
Not a trick question,but probably a silly one.
To eweston8542983
I think that no matter what Senator Obama did the conservatives were going to criticize his decision. But the right thing to do was just to visit the troops without the accompanying entourage and keep it low-key. Let the pundits make him out to be an opportunist - it's what they get paid to do. I think most Americans would see through the smoke screen of self-righteousness. I don't question Obama's patriotism or concern for the troops.