MSNBC's Holt to Rangel: If troops "come home" before Bush implements his Iraq plan, "is that a defeat?"
During MSNBC's January 10 coverage previewing President Bush's upcoming speech on Iraq, host Lester Holt asked Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, "[I]f the troops come home short of [Bush being] able to go ahead with his new way forward, is that a defeat?" Discussing whether Democrats should "consider[] cutting funding, or reducing funding, or capping the president's ability to add troops," Holt stated that "this is an emotional issue that often gets reduced to labels. Some say Republican supporters of the president's plan [to increase the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq] are delusional; others say Democrats such as yourself are defeatist." He then asked Rangel: "[D]o you think we have been defeated in Iraq, and if the Army comes home, will they have come home in defeat?"
Rangel responded: "[N]o one even knows what the president's talking about when he says victory ... so how can we describe whether it's a victory or its not?" Holt then followed up: "But, if the troops come home short of [Bush being] able to go ahead with his new way forward, is that a defeat?" Rangel replied, "[T]hat's for history and the American people to decide."
From the January 10, 12 p.m. ET edition of MSNBC Live:
HOLT: Well, Congressman, should Democrats be considering cutting funding, or reducing funding, or capping the president's ability to add troops?
RANGEL: I don't think that decision should be raised or made until such time as the president has answered the questions that Americans want: What is this surge? If it is successful, what will we have accomplished? How long will the surge take? And what is all of this money being used for? You know, one of the things that none of us had in the last few years is that we've never had oversight. We don't have to go cutting programs or capping the troops. He's the commander in chief. But he needs the support of the American people, and he's losing more and more each day and each week.
HOLT: As you know, this is an emotional issue that often gets reduced to labels. Some say Republican supporters of the president's plan are delusional; others say that Democrats such as yourself are defeatist. So let me simply ask you: Do you think we have been defeated in Iraq, and if the Army comes home, will they have come home in defeat?
RANGEL: Well, no one even knows what the president's talking about when he says victory. And, so how can we describe whether it's a victory or it's not when he has no clue as to where this thing is going to end up?
HOLT: But if the troops come home short of him able to go ahead with his new way forward, is that a defeat?
RANGEL: Well, I think that's for history and the American people to decide. When he has 28-percent support for what he 's doing -- I don't know how it can get much lower -- but just asking for additional troops and billions of dollars is not going to make a victory out of what looks like a very bad decision.
HOLT: And let me quickly ask you --
RANGEL: Someone once said, you can put lipstick on the pig, but it is still a pig.
HOLT: And before you go, Congressman, just your reaction, we got that figure just a short while ago, $6.8 billion, you see it on the screen. Sticker shock?
RANGEL: Listen, with this administration, borrowing money is just no big deal. Tax cuts and borrowing money is the legacy we're leaving our children, and it's a shame. We've got to turn it around.
HOLT: Congressman Rangel, always good to speak to you. Thank you, sir, for being with us. Appreciate it.
RANGEL: Thank you.











The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles



of the Coimmander-in-Chief , what is victory ?
minus the original purpose of wmd, the goal was to topple saddam and bring a democratic government to iraq. that has been done, if bush wants to save face best way to do it is declare victory on those terms and get out. when iraq falls into chaos, they can say they met their goals, iraqis screwed it up. of course, the further bush digs himself in, the more difficult it is to do that.
and get out. But wait, we probably want "peace with honor" or some kind of Kissengeresque bulls#*t like that.
Before asking Rangle if withdrawal would be a defeat, why isn't someone asking Bush to tell us what victory is?
An Iraqi oil industry controlled by Western Oil Companies, with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice on their boards of Directors drawing nice little 8-figure salaries. That's what this has been about from the beginning.
We already have defeat, Bush just doesn't want to admit it. Since he appeared on the aircraft carrier we have lost thousands of lives and many many more to serious injuries. Bush said even as recent as November 2006 that we are winning. The truth shall set you free, free to bring the young men and women home, give money to other middle eastern countries and have them clean up the mess Jr., Chenney, Rumsfield and Rice created and try once again (Vietnam) to heal this country.
Just so I am clear here, healing this nation is not a matter of allowing crooks and would-be dictators to go free. I want a lot more for the cost of lives, treasury, damage to our Constitution and freedoms, and the damage to our being, of sponsoring torture on persons grabbed off the street without evidence or due process.
I want seizure of the assets of every member of this administration, and criminal prosecutions for each of them and all their corporate sponsors, with eventual forwarding to international prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity - if only to save us the potential for imposing the death penalty so richly deserved by so many of the evil creatures.
So - heal away - just don't confuse allowing these reprobates to exist in comfort, with any part of healing the damage they have done.
Bush and Cheney in orange jumpsuits standing in front of the court at the Hague
Why is this even a story? Holt reported what some people are saying about the Dem position, and then asked a Dem what he thought of it...
Sometimes a question is just a question.
Instead of saying what "some people" may or may not have been saying, Holt would have stated explicitly who was saying it.
I'm pretty sure it was just the voices in his head.