ABC's Raddatz suggested that Democrats can't support Iraq withdrawal and "support the troops"
On ABC's This Week, Martha Raddatz argued that Democrats "don't want" to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq because "the lesson from Vietnam ... was you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash." This is not the first time the media have suggested that opposition to the Iraq war and support for U.S. troops are mutually exclusive positions.
On the August 13 edition of ABC's This Week, chief White House correspondent Martha Raddatz argued that Democrats "don't want" to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq because "the lesson from Vietnam ... was you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash." In other words, supporting the United States' withdrawal from Iraq -- where, according to the U.S. military, nearly 2,600 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 19,000 have been wounded -- is not supporting the troops.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous similar instances of media figures suggesting that opposition to the Iraq war and support for U.S. troops are mutually exclusive positions. The coverage of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's ejection from the 2006 State of the Union address is a case in point. Sheehan was removed from the House gallery for wearing a t-shirt with the political message: "2,245 Dead. How Many More?" Meanwhile, Beverly Young, the wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL), was also ejected for wearing a political t-shirt. Hers read "Support the Troops -- Defending our Freedom." But as Media Matters noted (here, here, and here), media characterizations of Young's shirt included "pro-military," "more patriotic," and having the "opposite message" of Sheehan's. CNN's Kyra Phillips labeled Young a "staunch advocate for the troops."
From the August 13 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous:
ROBERT REICH (former Clinton Labor Secretary): I think that the Democrats do have this 40-year legacy of anti-war -- and anti-war, unfortunately, in the public's mind often means anti-security, anti-defense. And that's why the Democrats have to say very clearly and specifically, "We are against the Iraqi war. It is causing more problems for us and more terrorism, but we are in favor of national security."
[...]
RADDATZ: It's a very different kind of war. And it's a war that the Democrats don't want to say, "This is terrible. The troops should come home," because, you have -- the lesson from Vietnam also was you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash from that. And I think that's where one of the complication comes in in all of this.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
the vietnam war should really have gone on for several more years, or maybe decades. That would really have been the optimal way to show that we all support them and most of all, value their life... right? that's why we should all hope the war in iraq takes at least 10 years... every year extra gives us an extra plus on our mark for showing support for our troops... eeeuuuhhh... right? :D
RADDATZ: "...the lesson from Vietnam also was you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash from that."
What an ignorant and irresponsible thing to say.
You know what brought the Vietnam war to an end?
The slow and terrible realization on the part of the American People, that no National Security concern was being served by the U.S. occupation of what was then called "South Vietnam"; no National Security concern whatsoever, least of all one to justify the deaths of 58,178 U.S. Troops
[link to thewall-usa.com]
There were approximately 11,500 U.S. Troops killed who were only teenagers at the time of their deaths.
There were 997 U.S. Troops killed on their first day in Vietnam (not even time enough to write a letter home, telling your loved ones not to worry about you), and there were 1,448 U.S. troops killed on the last day of their Tour (just one more day, and they'd have made it home alive).
There were 16,589 U.S. Troops killed in 1969 alone; there were 11,614 U.S. Troops killed the following year, 1970: It was the first year of that war in which the casualties were reduced, and the casualties continued to fall every year after, until they were only 160 U.S. Troops killed in 1975, the year Saigon fell.
Again, that war coming to end as the American People came to a slow and terrible realization that the National Security of the U.S. was in no way being served by all that death, I ask you:
Can you sensibly state how the Vietnam war served the National Security of the U.S.?
You can not. You can no more sensibly state today how that war served the National Security of the U.S., than could you have stated it back then, when all those Troops were being killed in Vietnam.
And if you think (as I do) that this is what Vietnam and Iraq have in common (no sensible National Security interest being served), then you might also agree to this other thing that Vietnam and Iraq have in common:
That the purpose of both of these wars is siphon off as many billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury, for the profit and the glory of Defense Contractors, and their agency the pentagon...
And to keep siphoning off those billions, for as long as the American People will suffer it...
Until those same American People come slowly (and terribly) to the realization that no National Security interest is being served by those thousands of deaths and billions of dollars scammed...
And that the cause of these two wars are both the greed of those that authored them, and the lies they told in so doing.
That's the lesson of the Vietnam war, as far as I'm concerned; not, as the "media" hack raddatz claimed, a lesson that "you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash from that".
I'll be danged if I can figure out, how killing U.S. Troops when there is no sensible National Security concern involved, is somehow supporting them.
Halleburton.
Kellogg Brown & Root was also a prime contractor (and instigator) of the Vietnam war also.
For all I know the ownership of that evil corporation is little different today, than it was then.
Without a war, their revenues just aren't the same; it was the best investment they ever made, hiring the former Defense Secretary dick cheney, and cutting him in on the profits, and then pulling out all the stops to see to it that he, and that other Defense Industry profiteer and business agent, bush, captured the administration of our government...
An initial investment that now reaps $8 billion dollars per month, industry-wide.
The greatest protection these NeoCons now have is that an average American citizen just cannot fathom that a person "in charge" would be so cold and callous as to consider profits above human lives.
Yet, we know from history that, for just one example (of many thousands), business owners employed "goons" as "strike breakers", killing workers who dared to seek collective bargaining rights to get fair treatment.
If you stand between a Republican and a pile of dollar bills, you are in mortal danger. Crony Capitalism has NO, ZERO moral component.
That was strong.
these war pimps suit-up, shoulder a weapon and march into their glorious death debacle. Oh, that's right it doesn't pay a living wage (pun intended).
Democrat’s Map to Power: White House, Congress, and, Senate.
1. Contrast Policy of the Republican Politic with the Realities in every day life of the electorate.
a. In doing so; make explanations visceral, simple, and short. Let the Republican make the long explanations.
b. Never step down into the congregation, always maintain the pulpit, the moral high ground. They say they have a moral mandate, so let’s keep the light on them.
c. Hang them with their own behavior and never concede half truths as explanations. We have let them off the hook to stay in their conversation, let’s dictate the conversation with their behavior.
2. Iraqi – Vietnam Comparison.
a. Let them explain how the differences play out; let them say we’re lost in the past as the present becomes more like the past.
b. Hammer the lies and the liars no matter how old they want to make it sound. Let them try to marginalize this argument. The events will in the course of time bring the argument to us as they are left making excuses. We’ll be offering solutions they cannot make while making excuses. This is an enormous weakness we cannot for any reason give up on. We have to keep digging into the details, and the events, and results of the war.
c. Link the oil, the pipeline, and Texas oil industry with the loss of American lives relentlessly. No matter how distasteful this may seem at times, do not relent.
d. Undermine the assertions for war and do not stop replaying the past statements in the prelude to war. Let Cheney, Rumsfeldt, and Rice’s words hang the Republicans. No matter how much you feel you’re being ignored, the truth of your words will do a full circle in the next Congressional Cycle.
e. We must make the Republican war rhetoric be the Democrats dagger in the next Congressional elections; this is the weakness we may not let pass because we don’t have the stomach to press the issue!!!
///continued>
continued >
3. Class War has Begun, Like it or Not. The Seven Deadly Sins: “Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed, Sloth”
a. Pride: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, these and other pundits will have to now look inward, since it will be the Democrats fighting the good fight and not the Republicans. We must not let the electorate forget that they empowered the right and they go unchecked. No more lies or, excuses should be allowed since we have them touting their mandate.
b. Envy: They have put a religious wedge into the electorate, and snuck out of the room with the golden goose, as the divide between the classes grow, they will attempt to label their opponents as communists, socialists. They will attempt to link liberals, and progressives with communists. This may easily be contrasted with the small numbers of rich people and their constant desire for us to be like them, but not. This is a frustration that will be impossible to hide from with all the reality shows and commercials we’ll be enduring. This not a problem that will be lost on the Moral Majority.
c. Gluttony: We must keep the focus on the rich, and this sin will make itself evident every day, every commercial break, every reality show, every day at work, every aspect of our lives will reveal the gluttony let loose on our society through their policies.
d. Lust: The thing with Washington D.C. is the centralization of power, and this is the greatest aphrodisiac, thus with the moral majority in office, I dare say the opportunities will be as abundant as ever. Why not make Republican sex scandals the new purview of the press. Always more fun to catch the sanctimonious with their pants down.
e. Anger: We have not to look far for their anger, it is manifested with the futility of their goals, legislating morality always fails, and will easily come back to harm them.
f. Greed: We have no worries here. Corporate greed will be rampant, and offensive even to the religious loyal. The fox never knows when to leave the chicken coup for all the chickens.
g. Sloth: This will be the sin of inaction that sees our enviroment disolve to what we had to live in during the 60’s when smog, burning rivers, and public oblivion was the rule while the world seemed to turn into a rotting pit.
h. Communist/Socialist vs. National Socialist/Nazi’s: As the labels get flung around; the parities will be obvious, class warriors being labeled communists should remind the audience that is what the Nazi’s called everyone who didn’t agree with them.
4. Take the Media Back; Take from the Right Wing Pundits Path.
a. When we are the minority opinion in Washington, and suffered such a severe, and painful loss, the pundits over the airways will have fertile soil for which ratings will most certainly grow.
b. When the loop-hole closes for the 527’s, MoveOn.Org’s should become a cable network stations, radio stations.
c. Mobilize Hollywood; even though people don’t vote with the entertainment industry, they still have a huge influence on the electorate through their art.
5. Refine the Message to Four Simple Principles.
a. The electorate needs to understand what happens to our freedoms, our liberties, and our health as a nation, when so much wealth is concentrated in so few hands.
b. Make the right define which religion they favor. Divide and conquer. The divide in the Judeo-Christian community could easily be exploited while the pie is being divided in the White House. Somebody in the community is going to be left in the cold. An ally?
c. Lets be the party of strong national defense. Boots on the ground is what we’ll be sorely in need of by this time next year, and a draft was ruled out by the Republicans. That’s burning the candle at both ends, and I predict it will run out by summer next year. Let’s make the them explain what their doing for our national defense, or to our national defense.
d. ‘Who is John Galt??’ remember the central character in “Atlas Shrugged,” the conservative movements anthem. I say “Who is Valerie Plame.’ We win this time next Congressional Cycle by making Dick Cheney and his shenanigans front and center. They are so aware of him as their weakness that they didn’t evan have his picture in our voter’s pamplet in Oregon. Think the country wants Dick Cheney as President??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady November 6th, 2004 "A Jimmy Carter Democrat"
In another fitting example of the right's black and white vision of the world you can't possibly support the troops if you want to pull them out. Which honestly doesn't make a bit of sense.
I support my military fully, because they are doing a job that I don't even have the guts to think about and I will admit that. They protect our freedoms (what's left of them anyway) and I will always support them. What I don't support are the decisions that send them into conflicts. I supported going into Afghanistan because that's where the people who planned 9/11 were. I didn't support Iraq because there were no WMD's, as bad as a person as Saddam is he didn't pose one threat to us, and there was never a Saddam-Al Queda link.
We should get our troops out of Iraq and as Sen. Feingold stated earlier today, refocus our attention of catching those responsible for 9/11.
Support the troops, don't support bad decisions that get them killed for no good reason.
the answer is why is it that the Republican party thinks that two American troops must be killed each and ever day in order to be able to say that we support the troops
How is wanting the troops to have adequate body armor, which they currently do not have not supporting them?
How is making their families of the troops feel they have to pay to send the troops body armor, and then claiming that if someone is injured while wearing such body armor, that they will not receive promised veterans' benefits, supporting them?
How is wanting the troops to have armor for their vehicles and aircraft, which they currently do not have, supporting them.
How is wanting the troops to be well-fed without the price gouging of Halliburton not supporting them?
How is wanting the troops to come home healthy and uninjured not supporting them?
And finally, how is leaving the troops undersupplied and unprotected in a 115-degree hellhole without supplies and cutting promised funding for the Veterans' Administration to help them when they come home supporting them?
How did the English language become so twisted?
Support the troops, get them the hell out of Iraq.
it's "the Democrats are against the war in Iraq BECAUSE they are pro-National security," not "BUT are pro-National Security." By using the word BUT, you are conceding a Republican talking point- that somehow the war in Iraq is making us more secure. That's the first and most important talking point to knock flat.
The Democrats should be absolutely unanimous on this: The War in Iraq is making it HARDER to defend our homeland because it drains our resources and gives breathing room to our enemies. Its that simple. We want to bring our troops home so that they can protect us. We want to stop emptying our treasury into Iraq so we can use it to boost port and border security. Its that simple. Its honest, and it is easy to understand.
I hate when "liberals" go on tv and concede any validity to Republican talking points. When they do that, they start right off with a big disadvantage. And its totally unneccessary, because the "we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" is the most brain-dead, irrational argument out there.
Sure they can! The Democratic party is also the only one who can protect our country while also protecting the rights of terrorists.
"Sure they can! The Democratic party is also the only one who can protect our country while also protecting the rights of terrorists."
And the Rethug party is the only one who can kill tens of thousands of innocent people abroad while also taking all of our rights away at home.
Just look at the voting records. Dems voting consistently to kill Iraqis since 1991 and no change in sight. Even Feingold votes for the bills that fund the war crimes. There's NO opposition to the war from the Dem leadership...none. Painting the Dems as opposition is another Repub lie...they know exactly how the Dems vote and it's always pro-war.
was just shy of 20 years old when he was killed in Vietnam and for 35 years our family has been asking "For what?" My father, who is a veteran of WWII and who just turned 90, watches these poor excuses for human beings spout their terrible nonsense on TV just so he can spit at them; my mother got to speak to the wonderful Cindy Sheehan and told her that the hurt never goes away but it does get a little better with time. She cries a lot, especially when she hears about another young person dying in Iraq. We are all so numb with with outrage and disgust at what is being perpetrated by these war criminals that after awhile there are no more words. And here we were thinking that the lesson of Vietnam was that families should never be put through the pain of loss ever again just so a few baseless and venal individuals can make a profit from blood. I feel so much better knowing that my brother died just so a bunch of self-serving morons have a chance to play Stra-Te-Go yet again with the lives of of another generation of young men and women. Damn them all.
I'm so sorry for your loss. I too thought that the only lesson we had learned from Vietnam was that we would never allow something like that to happen again. That has been the only thing that has comforted me for the last 36 years. Needless to say, I feel that my generation's sacrifice has been betrayed by others who were glad to see us go fight the war that they supported , but they themselves avoided. Now, these same people are responsible for sending other peoples sons and daughters to a war that to most of us, makes no sense whatsoever.
Thanks for giving us some material to read on a Sunday. It used to be only Monday through Friday. Keep it up.
This the distorted logic the corporate media would like people to believe. The machinery of the corporate media is being reved up to get ready for the November elections and is busy spreading its disinformation campaign to support the GOP and other right wing candidates.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the campaign in Iraq named Operation Iraqi Freedom? What exactly are we freeing Iraq from, if not their land resources and national stability? Saddam will have been in custody for 3 years this December. They have had elections, we have trained thousands of Iraqis and such. How free can this country stand for us to make them and how many lives must be sacrificed to this end?
And repeating a question asked by John Stewart to Sen. John McCain, "How much safer can we afford for Bush to make us?"
The deaths of nearly 60,000 American troops... as well as well over a million Vietnamese... the maiming, the chemical poisoning, & crippling of untold numbers from both nations, & the only lesson that this so-called journalist can come up with is that we should have maintained the slaughter longer, in order to "support the troops."
The real question is whether she is merely a dishonest neocon shill or is genuinely retarded.
Just who is this Stepford creature?
Who feeds these creatures this crap?
How come Bush doesn't identify himself anymore as the "War President'? I thought that was one of his claims to fame. What he is ,is the Occupation President! Can any of you trolls lurking out answer my question?
Look, I'm as aware as anyone of the smears that have been thrown against us on the left. However, I think it's unfair to point to this comment as one of those smears.
I watched that show. This conversation was in a larger context. Stephanopolous was asking about the netroots, and if they are a movement more like the anti-war Democrats of the late '60s-early '70s, or if they are more like the Republicans of 1994. George Will, of course, said they were like the Vietnam-era Democrats, and nobody really disagreed.
Unfortunately, part of the popular memory, fair or unfair, for that time period is war protesters screaming "baby killers!" at soldiers on the street. Vietnam vets talk all the time about the venom they received upon coming home. Radatz was taking a logical shortcut by suggesting that modern Democrats don't want to be seen as doing THAT, which would hardly be "supporting the trooops."
I'm actually quite disappointed that this made it on the Media Matters site. For this site to have maximum impact, it should hold itself to the highest standards, and this doesn't qualify.
the Republicans will realize what death is. A dead soldier is not a hero to everyone in this country...to their family yes. But let's face it, most people running around spouting their mouths-off are doing it for money. Maybe a Tour of Duty to the Army hospitals and morgues will open the closed eyes. Hell, we aren't permitted to see flag draped coffins because someone thinks it aids the enemy. Bull, it shows dead, yes, dead boys and girls. For what??????
For you death sympathisers...go see it in person. And for you cons, Liberals can multi-task. I'd explain it to you but your mind can't absorb it.
I didn't see a lot of venom directed at Vietnam Vets as they returned home. But, They were treated even worse than that. They were ignored.
our dead from Iraq. The families meet them at the airport and that is it. The returnees have the same greeting. Also, it is a shame that the President, the unseen V.President except for hate speech and Rumsfeld, cannot call him Mister, are treated like heros at thier gatherings. But the Cons continue to use them as a political football.
This broad doesn't even do her own grocery shopping what does she know about the mood of America. I support the troops by wanting them home so no other ones get killed for a stupid exercise in macho madness. With the exception of Helen Thomas, as soon as I hear "White House Correspondent" I tune out. That's one big social circle 6 figure whose arse can i kiss network of hacks.
soldiers came from democratic voting families ?
This argument was in every Republican throat during Vietnam, too. Hawks would say it like the doves were "stabbing our noble fighting man in the back," and that, if Americans stood by their boys, we would WIN! Remember, this was being said by Nixon voters. Who won in 1972? Nixon, not that stabber-in-the-back McGovern. Why was Nixon popular? HE WAS PULLING OUT OF VIETNAM, "stabbing our men in the back." Actually, the "stab in the back" meme is a favorite fascist idea. That's why the Kaiser lost World War I, according to, uh, politicians on the right who came afterwards.
So, who "spat in the faces" of the soldiers? Richard M. Nixon. How do you take people's minds off that? Blame the peaceniks. Blame the New York (Jewish) Times. Blame anybody, except the two Republican presidents who took down the flag in Saigon, because there was absolutely no choice.
Remember this, folks. Nixon didn't "stay the course" in Vietnam. He was getting the hell out in 1972. The last combat troops left in December. From that point on, it was the Asian boys who were doing the fighting. McGovern lost because of rioting, drugs, hippies, and crime in the streets. It was cultural reaction that won. The "Silent Majority" decided the president was going to bring back marriages that lasted forever, and respectful sons and daughters, and put the drug-dealers and blacks in jail and kill the Panthers. That's why McGovern lost. The war was already over, in all but name.
Yeah, funny, MM and I always get worked up over the very same offending remarks . Raddatz was offensive "This Week". The reported remarks are not the only ones that spewed out of her that pissed me off yesterday. Her holier than thou..'I have just returned from Iraq and no matter what (the left, my words, don't have exact quote but same meaning)...says, this IS the war on terror.' Speaking of Iraq as if she were channeling Bush himself. Yuk. Put her out to pasture now, her time is up. The NERVE! Charles New York, NY
goes something like this: when a superior force is in conflict with an inferior force there must be a swift and decisive victory. Otherwise, political and public support will erode.
U.S. citizens are willing to accept casualties in a just and proper war (think WWI and WWII.) Viet Nam and Iraq share the hideous similarity of unjust wars.
Support faded in Viet Nam and it has faded in Iraq.