CBS reporter Dean Reynolds on Wednesday night described the attacks on the other candidate by Barack Obama and John McCain, but only felt McCain's required a correction. After conveying how Obama is painting McCain as “out of touch and asleep at the switch are two...Obama favorites,” Reynolds cited a new McCain “ad attacking what it said was Obama's position on Iran.” Viewers saw a clip of the ad: “Iran. Radical Islamic government, known sponsors of terrorism. Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat.' Obama, dangerously unprepared to be President.” Reynolds pounced:
But the ad is a stretch because this is what Obama really said last May in Pendleton, Oregon, on the need for diplomacy.
CBS then played a clip of Obama on May 18, part of the statement the McCain campaign cited to support its ad: “Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. I mean, think about it, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
Sounds like he said what the ad quotes him as having said. I've yet to hear Reynolds describe any of Obama's anti-McCain ads as “a stretch.”
From the start of the Reynolds story aired on 6:30 PM EDT edition, which was mostly live coverage of the roll call at the Democratic convention, of the CBS Evening News:
DEAN REYNOLDS: Barack Obama tried to build a bridge to a key voting block today, telling an audience of veterans in Montana that this election provides a stark choice.BARACK OBAMA AT CAMPAIGN EVENT: Do we have a President who gets that people are struggling everyday? Who gets that veterans are struggling everyday? Or do we have somebody who doesn't get it?
REYNOLDS: It was the latest in a series of similar descriptions of McCain: Out of touch and asleep at the switch are two other Obama favorites. But the McCain campaign has been hard at work trying to undo those efforts. First, with an ad attacking what it said was Obama's position on Iran.
McCAIN AD: Iran. Radical Islamic government, known sponsors of terrorism. Obama says Iran is a “tiny” country, “doesn't pose a serious threat.” Obama, dangerously unprepared to be President.
REYNOLDS: But the ad is a stretch because this is what Obama really said last May in Pendleton, Oregon, on the need for diplomacy.
OBAMA, MAY 18: Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. I mean, think about it, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.
REYNOLDS: But painting Obama as a dangerous risk is a Republican mantra. Giuliani led the way in Denver just hours before Obama arrived...
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Stretch
August 27, 2008 - 20:36 ET by nkviking75Hey Reynolds, your criticism is a stretch. McCain may have shortened the quote, but he didn't change the basic meaning of the original line. Barry says Iran is not a serious threat. McCain knows better.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
You have to believe
August 27, 2008 - 21:03 ET by 10ksnookerThat the clowns are running the whole Democrat party -- What is the theme of this delusional crap-fest? It has none, isn't that the problem.
Change, what change -- I doubt the majority of Americans want the USA to be changed to a Marxist top down Soviet style economy.
So Reynolds
August 27, 2008 - 21:20 ET by well99How long have you worked for Obama.Shouldnt you post that your in the tank for him?Or are you a unofficail bootlicker?
Don't you just love ithow,
August 27, 2008 - 21:36 ET by motherbeltDon't you just love how, according to the Liberal media, Obama isn't inexperienced, he isn't an elitist, he isn't arrogant or unpatriotic? It's always that Republicans "paint" him as those things. The fact that they use his own words and actions to "paint him" just slips right by them.
The real Iranian threat
August 27, 2008 - 21:55 ET by gdonovanThe real Iranian threat is from an EMP pulse (nuclear warhead on a rocket launched from a ship at sea, that explodes 400 km over the US) that would take out all electronic and electrical devices in the country. No cars, no electricity, which means no pumps to pump water or fuel, no food because no means to transport it, etc. Iran has been working on this, and even publicly admitted it. All they now need is the nuclear warhead. For more info you can go to http://www.wnd.com/i... . For this reason alone, the election of Obama would lead to Iran getting a nuclear warhead, and destroying this country.
I really doubt that Iran
August 28, 2008 - 01:33 ET by Dan The Man 2I really doubt that Iran could get a large missile and EMP warhead that close to the USA. In addition it would affect a very small portion of the US. One city and or its surroundings. I would be more concerned over a warhead or number of warheads smuggled in by terrorist groups and detonated in conjunction with other warheads.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Go read the link
August 28, 2008 - 06:31 ET by gdonovanGo read the link. If it detonates 400 km above central U.S., it effects ALL of the U.S. and parts of Canada and Mexico. Iran has tested launching a rocket capable of doing exactly that from a ship (and the only perceived reason for doing such a test is to use it as an emp weapon). And the size of the ship does not have to be that big, just a freighter. They have tested detonating such missiles in mid flight. They have just tested an improved missile, capable of putting satellites into orbit. In otherwords, Iran has publicly expressed the desire to hit the U.S. with such a weapon, and has demonstrated the capability to do so, except for the nuclear weapon. In actuality, the technology to do it is not that advanced. The only way we could stop it is if we destroyed the boat before launch.
If you were Iran, which would you rather do, set a weapon off in a city, killing a hundred thousand or even a million, or use that one weapon and completely destroy the U.S. When you understand how dependent we are for our everyday existence on electronics and electricity, and then have that completely taken away EVERYWHERE....the death totals from starvation, riots, the cold, etc, would be staggering.
The point is this. A nuclear Iran is a true threat to our survivability, for they would not only have the capability, they would have expressed an intent. Thus under NO circumstance could you EVER allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. With the current regime, the ONLY way you will be able to stop them from getting nuclear weapons is with military force. The question is, do you think McCain, or Obama has the guts to use that force (or allow Israel to do so) to defend this country. Obama's pacifism could easily lead to the destruction of this country. The technology is there, the intent is there, all that it requires is for us to do nothing.
Here is another link (video) from the Discover channel about it. http://dsc.discovery... I really recommend you research this, for if you think about it, this really is the biggest threat to the country as a whole.
You may doubt it, but it is true never the less
August 28, 2008 - 07:58 ET by c5thenDo you really think that Iran is trying to get 'satellite launch capability' because they want to start their own DirecTV service?
A nuclear warhead detonated 400km in the air would effect an area about 2/3 the size of North America with and EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse). Any electronic device that is not sheilded, would be 'fried' and inoperable. No Cars/trucks/busses (electronic ignition) no phones, no cell phones, no stop lights, no computers, no TV, no radio, no, refridgeration, no air conditioning, no washing machines, no microwave ovens, no heart monitoring equipment, no artificial ventilation, etc.
The warhead that would be needed would weigh less than 1000 pounds and be able to be launched by a medium range missle of the same type that Iran has operational right now. If the ship is in international waters, the missle only needs to be able to go 2500km downrange and 400km altitude.
This is 50 year old technology.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Just how "true" is it?
August 28, 2008 - 10:06 ET by CobraManJust how "true" is it? That EMP theory is just that, theory. It seems to me that the EMP danger is not as great as people assume. Both the Soviet Union and the United States performed high altitude, high yield (3 megatons or more on average) nuclear tests. The highest altitude for an American test was a 3 megaton detonation at an altitude of a little over 300 miles. These tests disturbed the ionosphere and that disturbance interrupted some a.m. radio broadcasts, but that was pretty much ALL it accomplished (although the Soviet Union did manage to fry some overhead telephone lines and start a fire one of in their power stations, Heh.). Despite the "dangers" of the EMP, there were no widespread blackouts, no disruption of critical electronic equipment, and very little inconvenience to anyone, outside of the Soviet Union that is.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Those tests were done in the days of vacuum tubes
August 28, 2008 - 11:17 ET by gdonovanWhile I was in the Army, it was known that the Russian equipment was antiquated, primarily because they still used vacuum tubes instead of transistors. A noted side benefit of this was vacuum tubes were resistant to EMP, at least that is what they told us while in the Army. As a tanker, if there was a "nuclear attack warning" one of the things we were to do is disconnect the radio and detach the attenae, and also completely shut down the tank.
Emp is quite a real threat. I would love to see the link where you got the info about the test 300 miles test. Was that conducted in the U.S. or in the Pacific. According to Discover (see above link), 300 miles would affect about do a big chunk of the U.S. but not all.
No such thing as "just a theory".
August 28, 2008 - 12:43 ET by SchnikeysA theory is basically a robust hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested.
It is a system of ideas that functions well as an explanation of a set of observations.
Hey, if it functions well...
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
Iran is a much bigger threat than Russia ever was
August 28, 2008 - 09:21 ET by geoksterThe Russians may have had more nukes, but they were run by people who did not particularly want to die. They knew that if they pushed the button first, it would be over for them as well.
Iran, and the other Muslim nations, are headed by men who really believe that if they die in the name of Allah, they go to a virgin-infested heaven. What do they care if the US were to counterattack after a first strike? They are therefore much more dangerous to have with their finger on the button, because they are happy to die for their religion.
There is no adequate defense against fanaticism such as this.
Another great link about it
August 28, 2008 - 18:25 ET by gdonovanCovers everything
http://www.unitedsta...