Worst of the Web Today: Taranto distorted Media Matters' Murtha coverage
SUMMARY: James Taranto falsely claimed that Media Matters for America "cheered" Rep. John Murtha's call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq but also "denied that he had done any such thing." In fact, Media Matters neither endorsed nor condemned Murtha's proposal, nor did we deny Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Media Matters instead corrected those in the media who falsely claimed that Murtha called for an "immediate withdrawal" or who falsely referred to Rep. Duncan Hunter's one-sentence resolution calling for immediate withdrawal as the "Murtha amendment."
In his March 10 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely claimed that Media Matters for America "cheered" Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq but also "denied that he had done any such thing." Media Matters neither endorsed nor condemned Murtha's proposal, nor did we deny Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Instead, Media Matters corrected those in the media -- such as Taranto -- who falsely claimed that Murtha called for an "immediate withdrawal," or who falsely referred to Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) one-sentence resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces as the "Murtha amendment."
Hunter's proposal, which stated simply -- "Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately" -- was defeated in the House 403-3 and was described in news reports as a "political trap" that was "aimed at embarrassing war critics." Murtha's November 17, 2005, proposal -- House Joint Resolution 73 -- called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Murtha's resolution was never voted upon. As The Washington Post reported on November 19, 2005, "Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a fair interpretation of Murtha's intent."
From Taranto's March 10 "Best of the Web" column:
"Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who has denounced the war in Iraq, was named a recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Thursday," the Associated Press reports. The award is given out by the JFK presidential library:
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, was recognized "for the difficult and courageous decision of conscience he made in November 2005, when he reversed his support for the Iraq war and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict," the foundation said in a statement.
What's weird is that when Murtha proposed withdrawal, many of those who cheered him on denied that he had done any such thing. Here, for instance, is a MediaMatters.org item denouncing us:
Taranto also falsely referred to a previous proposal (House Resolution 571) for immediate withdrawal as Rep. John P. "Murtha's" (D-PA). The proposal that Taranto labeled as "Murtha's" was, in fact, a one-sentence Republican proposal sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) that news reports described as a "political trap" that was "aimed at embarrassing war critics." As Media Matters for America has documented, Taranto has also falsely attributed this position to Murtha in the past.
Granted, Murtha doesn't run MediaMatters, but if he's so courageous, why are his backers so eager to distance him from his own views?
Taranto linked to this Media Matters item, which was correcting him -- for the second time -- for referring to Hunter's proposal as "Murtha's." Taranto has yet to acknowledge these errors. Nothing in the portion of the item Taranto quoted indicates that Media Matters "denied" Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Seems these Rightwingers just cannot make a SINGLE point unless they first completely fabricate a false set of "facts" surrounding the issue.
They must create a BOGUS "reality", by misrepresenting, purposefully misunderstanding, or just MAKING UP the supposed "positions" their opponents have taken.
All this is, of course, dishonest and a travesty to their readers, whom they hold in the utmost contempt.
Did Murtha call for IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL from Iraq? No he did not.
Did the REPUBLICANS, in a blatant partisan move which DID call for Immediate Withdrawal, go for the absurd exaggeration in the hopes of both embarrassing Murtha, and ending the topic of whether to remain in Iraq? Yes, they did.
Does the Republican-supporting Media continue to report the Republican SPIN, and ignore the FACTS? Yes they do.
This is not a "free press". This represents the PR arm of the GOP, printing lies and propaganda to further the partisan aims of the Rightwing. They should be ashamed, but the enablers of tyranny have only one GOD to serve, and shame isn't part of the agenda.
Once again, MMFA propagates a lie.
Murtha did call for an immediate withdrawal and Tex once again ignores Murtha's own letter:
"My plan calls:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. "
As Coop would say: DISMISSED.
Read the exact quote you just posted. How is that calling for an immediate withdrawal?
Murtha called for a smaller scale US force to be redeployed into a quick reaction strike group to deal with any large scale flare-ups in conflict. He even stated this force should be kept "in the periphery" of the main Iraqi population areas.
He never advocated an immediate withdrawal of all US forces.
Sorry but you are completely wrong. He wanted the troops moved completely out of Iraq leaving some forces in Iraq. He wanted them home NOW.
From interview:
"Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. "
QUESTION: My other question: What do you mean exactly by a quick reaction force in the region?
MURTHA: Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in. It only took us a couple days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army.
What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we can go back in. But not a civil war or something like that. That's up to the Iraqis to settle that.
So I think the Marine force could be in there momentarily, within a couple days, within 48 hours they could be in there. And if the Kuwaitis would agree and they wanted to put a force in Kuwait, that would be a good place to have them; they could go right down the road.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
What part of "consistent with the safety of U.S. forces." don't you understand. Liar.
Scott with all bluster and no facts.
QUESTION: Mr. Murtha, you say that -- your first point about bringing them home, consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters. What is your sense as to how long that would be?
MURTHA: I think that you get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you have to do it in a very consistent way, but I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.
Let me add something else: Let's say you wanted to go the other way; you wanted to put 500,000 troops over there. Now, we can't even meet the goals of 512,000. We're going to be 10,000 short in recruitment right now. Unless you have a draft, there's no way that you can have more troops.
And where are most of the attacks coming? On the roads to logistics. General Huck (ph) said every convoy is attacked.
I had a young Marine that -- I went to a young group that just came back, and he said that he'd been hit five times. Now, he wasn't wounded five times but his vehicle was hit five times, and people all around him were killed.
But what was the question?
six months equals immediate?
...LEATHERHELMET, just answer the question.............
A Bengal tiger from a porkchop than a rightwingnut from one of his talking points
.....Six Months does not equate to Immediate, even if you wear a Helmet.................
Don't let the bastards get you down. You speak sense but you are also angry. Keep the balance, the only way to defeat these sheep is to reason why they are bleating.
that MMFA really does not promote specific policy positions - nothing in any of the postings on MMFA supported Murtha's position, but simply clarified his position in light of unreliable accounting of the story by the MSM. By it's mission statement, MMFA is here to advance progressive/liberal politics by countering the incredible mass of misinformation present in the MSM. However, I, for one, do not recall seeing any type of position taken by MMFA on individual issues. I personally prefer it that way. What is odd to me, is that Taranto basically reprinted information from MMFA that directly contradicts his statements in the article and clearly states that the amendment introduced by Hunter was NOT the one proposed by Murtha. The problem really boils down to one thing - most of the right wingers will simply believe what they're told by the MSM, and never bother to do a little research.
Because arch-conservative Fox News bluster-bomb Bill O'Reilly has embraced the idea of immediate withdrawal, how about praising Murtha, giving him some angstrom of credit for being the first to stand up and say we need to leave Iraq soon, be it a phased redeployed or all at once. Taranto’s mischaracterization is a moot point. Regardless of which was actually voted on, Murtha's amendment or Hunter's, the fact is Congress said no to both. Congress said "we want more of this wonderful civil war in Iraq, please Mr. Bush, bankrupt the nation, make our children have to pay for this war for the next 25 years."
That is what we ought to focus on: the Congressional "pinheads" who won't listen to the wisdom of Murtha and O'Reilly and back the immediate implementation of some manner of withdrawal. We should have left six weeks in, since ultimately whatever Iraq is after the civil war won't be any better or worse than what 3 years of malingering will produce.