Taranto responds to Media Matters -- and is still wrong
SUMMARY: James Taranto once again misrepresented Media Matters for America's position, this time in response to an item noting his false characterization of Media Matters' coverage of Rep. John Murtha's call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
In his March 13 "Best of the Web Today" column, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto responded to a March 10 Media Matters for America item highlighting Taranto's false characterization of Media Matters' coverage of Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Taranto again falsely claimed that Media Matters is "desperate to distance" itself from Murtha.
Once again, Media Matters has neither endorsed nor condemned any of Murtha's positions. We have not articulated any position on Murtha's proposal for Iraq -- so there is no way in which we can be said to be "distanc[ing]" ourselves "from Murtha." We have focused on misinformation from those in the media, such as propagated by Taranto, who have falsely claimed -- again and again -- that Murtha called for the "immediate withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. Taranto has yet to acknowledge his errors, continues to repeat them, and insists on introducing new ones in the form of falsehoods about Media Matters.
From Taranto's March 13 "Best of the Web Today" column:
Murtha? Who's That?
From MediaMatters.org:
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.
Boy, these guys are desperate to distance themselves from Murtha, aren't they?
This is all he's got in response? MMFA has pulled Tranto's pants down and now he wants to live in denial. How can he possibly get desperation out of a clearcut exposure by MMFA?
These people have no shame.
I gotta admit, Murtha does ask for immediate redeployment in this press conference...
"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy."
Redeployment and withdrawal are not the same. The cons are using the latter because it polls better for their cause.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Look, you've got a propagandist/misinformant reading what MMFA wrote -- in my mind, a COMPLETELY neutral response -- and interpreted it as a cop out. That's how this guy operates.
And, of course, WSJ backs the Bush crime family... so, it's no wonder this guy would FURTHER spin the story to make MMFA look bad.
beside the fact that anyone would be "desperate to distance themselves" from murtha. he made a sensible proposal, far more constructive than the "what me worry" cluelessness of this administration. the people who have been utterly wrong on iraq continue to insist that only they know the true way.
Because Iraq is not our country and the invasion that started it all was illega. How would we like Guatemala to invade us and later claim that "oops, we have to stay because we screwed up". When have you seen a house owner ask a thief to stay in his house because he stole stuff and must put it back where they belonged? Never.
Say anything these guys don't like or don't understand, as in neutrality, objectivity, and they take you the shed for it. I don't see what the problem is with Murtha's proposal and then some has since been endorsed by Bill "Cut and Run" O'Reilly.
Taranto knows this, he just wants to paint it as a liberal website so his readers won't bother to look here. MMFA has never, to my recollection, endorsed any policy situation, but has simply pointed out factual errors found in the MSM and provided the corrections that the MSM refuses to make. I would agree, they nitpick sometimes, but overall, they're pretty much on the money.
- left of center / Tuesday March 14, 2006 12:48:44 PM EST >>> MMFA doesn't take positions...
Hah! Point out one MMFA item that does NOT take a position.
>>> Taranto ... just wants to paint it as a liberal website so his readers won't bother to look here.
Right. Every time I have come here for a new topic, I clicked once on a link in a Taranto column. Have you, on the other hand, ever read anything directly from Taranto's column, or do you always rely on the "MMFA Digest" version.
Here's what Taranto actually had to say about the Murtha kerfuffle, if you dare to read it for yourself: [link to www.opinionjournal.com]
- expat
"Hah! Point out one MMFA item that does NOT take a position"
All of them. They are coldly pointing out factual inaccuracies. They leave it up to the individual to decide the subjective stuff. That's why they are so good, as opposed to MRC which tries to read minds.
When Taranto was easily contradicted by Franken in a past argument, he seemed courteous in his responce. Sorry of what he had said. But this encounter has nothing of that quality.
Is MMFA claiming that Taranto is wrong because he said Murtha called for an "immediate withdrawal" of US troops from Iraq when in actuality Murtha said an "immediate redeployment" of US troops? If so, that is pretty weak. Here's the quote from Murtha: "I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy." The source, that notorious right-wing rag, the Washington Post ([link to www.washingtonpost.com] The article is dated November 17th, just prior to the mid-December elections in Iraq. So is the problem that 1 month is not "immediately" or that a redeployment is not a "withdrawal?" To be fair, lest I be accussed of attributing something incorrectly, I don't think he meant the troops would be gone before the December elections. That would be impossible. But please get over this Bush Derangement Syndrome. Taranto is correct. MMFA should admit it.
Redeployment and withdrawal aren't the same thing. If they were, then the right would use Murtha's actual word, "redeployment", instead of the word they'd like people to associate with the proposal, "withdrawal".
It's called spin son. I'm sure Luntz polled some people and discovered that the term "withdrawal" was associated more strongly with a dishonorable outcome than the more accurate term "redeployment".
The AP headline regarding Murtha's comments is:
"House Democrat Calls for Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq". Please pay close attention to the phrase "Immediate Withdrawal".
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Oh, wait. That's from the right wing NY Times. Nevermind.
quote him, not some headline.
"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy--immediately redeploy.
No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target. . . .
My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."
Now, what part of "immediate redeployment" do you not understand?
"Now, what part of "immediate redeployment" do you not understand?"
The part where it means withdrawal. It doesn't. Look up the definition. This is the Web, it takes about 10 seconds.
It is true that withdrawal and redeploy have different definitions, but in this case, Murtha is the one guilty of spinning his use of words to make it more palatable. The definition of “redeploy” doesn’t match the context of the November 17th statement. You redeploy troops in an effort to fight a war more effectively. He had already stated the war couldn’t be won militarily. The AP used the word withdraw because it was the correct word for the statement.
Last Thursday Murtha held a press conference, at which he advocated the following course of action:
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy--immediately redeploy.
No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target. . . .
My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
Here's how the Associated Press reported the story:
An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.
Okay, I went out to the sources to see whether MediaMatters or James Taranto was telling the truth on this issue. I'll paste the quotes from Murtha himself.
From the Washington Post, 17 Nov 2005:
"I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice: The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy.
"No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.
"My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."
From the New York Times, 17 Nov 2005:
"Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for the United States 'to immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
'With a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentified to take control,' Murtha said in remarks prepared for delivery."
This issue is really cut and dry. Murtha advocated an immediate redeployment (in military parlance, "we're pulling out). Period. Taranto is right on the facts of this case. Period. The fact that Murtha subsequently voted against a proposal to immediately pull out is immaterial. And the argument over whether we ought to pull out is a separate issue altogether. Murtha said what he said. Any arguments to the contrary are delusional, dumb, or dishonest.
Redeployment is not the same as withdrawal. See the dictionary definitions.
Here is an article titled "Full Text of Rep. John Murtha's Plan to Exit Iraq Now". It contains the full text of Murtha's speech detailing his plan. Apparently, nearly everyone who writes about the story is under the impression that he wanted to "withdraw" from or "exit" Iraq immediately.
Here are some quotes from his speech:
"I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation."
He implies that immediately redeploying our troops will "free from United States occupation".
"My plan calls:
-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. -- To create a quick reaction force in the region. -- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. -- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq "
He uses the word "immediately" again here. He also suggests that we should have a "force" "in the region", nb:
not in Iraq. He further clarifies this by using the phrase "over- the- horizon". "Over-the-horizon" implies not in Iraq.
"IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME"
That was the last line of his speech. "It is time", not, "it will soon be time", etc.
Finally, if you are still in doubt, please take note of bill "H. J. RES. 73", which he introduced. The full text can be found here:
[link to www.govtrack.us]
A quote:
"SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."
That should clarify what "redeploy" means in the context of Murtha's speeches.
There was confusion regarding this bill and Murtha's intentions. You've made a minor error. Please admit it so we can move on.