I thought you didn’t want to analyze the accuracy of all this…?
Right here, except it’s usually fish in a barrel.
Welcome to GD, by the way.
ETA: John, give it up, dude.
Your statement was factually incorrect. Sorry.
Then don’t you think that McCain should have said as much, instead of mouthing a talking point about those who wish to “do harm to America” when asked specifically about Zapatero? And doing it over and over again? He could have said something like “The Zapatero administration and the current administration have been at odds for the past few years so it will be important to assess the situation and reopen diplomatic channels before I as president meet with President Zapatero.” and it would’ve been an appropriate way of making that point. When McCain instead chose to cast quite serious aspersions on the Zapatero government, he opened the door to those aspersions being interpreted as enmity toward Zapatero, and his refusal to commit being interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as an outright refusal.
And this is the key problem. McCain’s campaign explicitly denied that that conclusion in the article:
This sentence, while not specifing where the cuts would come from, explicitly says where they WON’T come from: the existing benefits.
If that is the standard, then I’m prepared to defend pretty much every single Palin quote ever uttered… and I’m a guy that thinks fully half of Palin’s questionable statements on Sullivan’s list are fairly characterized as lies. But under this … eh… generous … standard articulated above, Palin is a bulwark of accuracy.
First of all, there was no need to “reopen diplomatic channels”, since they were never closed. Secondly, I find your attempt to blame Biden’s lie on McCain to be puzzling. What does it matter if McCain obfuscated about whether he’d meet with Zapatero. He never said he wouldn’t meet with the Spanish government (which is what Biden said, not Zapatero). And that, btw, is even more sweeping than what you are arguing about.
If I tell you I’m going to kill a cat, but I’m not going to kill any mammals, would it be a lie to claim I’m going to kill a mammal? Surely not. Similarly, if it is impossible to cut $1.2 trillion from medicare, but not any benefits, then my disavowal of the cut of benefits should not prevent others from claiming, on the basis of my plan to cut $1.2 trillion, that I will cut benefits.
I disagree about your characterization of Sullivan’s list of Palin’s lies as not being limited to statements that are not just misleading but actually false, but that’s for another thread I suppose. For the purposes of this one, my position is this: this ad involved a misleading, but not false claim. I’m happy to call that a lie, but do so in recognition that it is not a knowing falsehood, which is the standard so often applied in this situation.
Maybe she couldn’t find an evil enough librarian to carry out her nefarious book banning plans. 
Factcheck.org on Palin including that librarian accusation for anybody that cares. (With quite a bit of analysis.)
OK, let’s accept that.
Now: was it, in fact, impossible to cut without reducing benefits?
The one you imagined it to be, through lack of reading it, was. Now, since you refuse to do the wise thing and drop the matter, where is your equally-penetrating analysis of Shodan’s claim?
Bricker, if that’s what you too can come up with for a “lie”, perhaps you and John should go off somewhere and reassure each other in private.
Don’t seem all that impressive, stacked up next to the decade of robust candor offered by the Pubbies. But, in fairness, one should remember that power corrupts, and virtue can often be little more than an absence of meaningful opportunity. Would the Dems have been equally mendacious had they power to protect? In truth, we cannot be sure, but we must not be scornful of human weakness. True, the Pubbies record is a disgrace, but perhaps that is nothing more than the effect of temptation, the lure of power.
As the guardians of our brother’s spirit, it behooves us to do all that we can to ensure that such temptations are not placed in their way, that they might walk in the light of a pure heart and a clear conscience.
How long has the US had troops in Germany and Japan?
The claim that McCain wanted a hundred years of war is an outright lie. A more accurate claim is that McCain wanted a hundred years of peace, but had presented no plan of how to achieve that peace.
Germany and Japan are invalid comparisons. Our ostensible excuse for invading Iraq was that Iraq was a threat to the US. If Iraq is no longer a threat, there is no reason whatsoever to continue to occupy it, especially since nobody in Iraq ever wanted us there.
Your point is? It doesn’t make the lie not a lie, if anything it makes the lie even worse, because he had multiple good arguments to choose from and instead went with the bullshit. If he wanted to point out that Germany and Japan were invalid comparisons, he should have said so.
It’s not a lie, because there would be no other reason to stay in Iraq unless hostilities were still going on.
Okay, not reopen, rewarm, then. Relations between Spain and the Bush administration were frosty.
He didn’t obfuscate, he made a very plain insinuation that Zapatero was an enemy of the United States which is a far bigger deal than the nuance between “refused to commit” to a meeting vs. “refused a meeting” which is what Biden was getting to. McCain drew an equivalence between Zapatero and Hugo Chavez. Biden was calling him out on that.
Nitpicking over “refused to commit” versus “refused” ignores the actually important issue of the matter. McCain insulted our ally. And stupidly. And repeatedly. And even when given direct guidance to allow him to back down from the insult. Getting all het up about the peripheral characterization of Biden is focusing on the entirely wrong thing.
If McCain incorrectly believes that there’s a legitimate reason to have peacetime bases in Iraq then McCain wants to wage an eternal war against Iraqi insurgents?
Are you serious? This is seems like a reasonable conclusion to you?
Well, presumably we might be there in perpetuity as “invited guests” of a weak Iraqi “coalition” government that needs the tacit backing of the power of the U.S. military. We might not be playing an active role in day to day activities but would be clearly prepared to immediately jump into hostilities by virtue of the depth and size of our base there and troop commitment to the region. I don’t think that’s what McCain was getting at, though, when his comments were taken in context. But taking McCain (or Palin) in context is apparently not something we’re meant to do.
McCain did not say he believed that. The context was in answer to a question about how long he was willing to stay to subdue the insurgents.