Blitzer left unchallenged Mehlman's Iraq, immigration falsehoods
SUMMARY: CNN's Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's false attacks on Democrats over the Iraq war and immigration policy.
On the June 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer allowed Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman to falsely attack Democrats on the Iraq war and immigration policy.
On Iraq, Mehlman claimed that Democrats, such as Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA), support a "cut-and-run" option, a "cut-and-jog" option, or a "cut-and-walk" option -- referring to Democratic calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. According to Mehlman: "The fact is if you did any of these things, the enemy would see it as surrender, and it would make Americans less safe." Mehlman later went on to claim: "People may disagree about how we got there, they may disagree about some of the specifics, but they recognize that a strategy that the terrorists would see as surrender is the wrong strategy." But polling -- including that of Blitzer's own network -- contradicts Mehlman's suggestion about the public's view of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. According to the CNN poll, conducted June 14-15, 53 percent of respondents favored setting "a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date." A June 9-12 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 57 percent of respondents favored reducing U.S. troop levels "now that Iraq has adopted a constitution." A June 9-11 Gallup/USA Today poll (subscription required) found that 49 percent of respondents favored withdrawing U.S. forces right away or within one year. Nonetheless, Blitzer did not challenge Mehlman's statement.
On immigration, Mehlman repeated the highly misleading GOP talking point that "House Democrats overwhelmingly voted in order to make illegal immigrants felons," while Republicans "were concerned with actually making sure that we passed a law that secured all Americans from all backgrounds and all walks of life." Mehlman was referring to the House vote on an amendment proposed by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to the controversial House immigration bill -- which Sensenbrenner sponsored -- reducing the bill's classification of unlawful U.S. presence from a felony to a misdemeanor. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the amendment. But as Media Matters for America has documented, Sensenbrenner introduced the amendment not to "soften" the legislation, as many falsely claimed, but to facilitate the prosecution of illegal immigrants. Sensenbrenner said on the House floor on December 16, 2005:
SENSENBRENNER: The administration subsequently requested the penalty for these crimes be lowered to 6 months. Making the first offense a felony, as the base bill would do, would require a grand jury indictment, a trial before a district court judge and a jury trial.
Also because it is a felony, the defendant would be able to get a lawyer at public expense if the defendant could not afford the lawyer. These requirements would mean that the government would seldom if ever actually use the new penalties. By leaving these offenses as misdemeanors, more prosecutions are likely to be brought against those aliens whose cases merit criminal prosecution.
For this reason, the amendment returns the sentence for illegal entry to its current 6 months and sets the penalty for unlawful presence at the same level.
Moreover, as Media Matters pointed out, many Democrats made clear at the time that their rejection of the Sensenbrenner amendment was consistent with their opposition to subjecting illegal immigrants to any criminal penalties at all, including those that would have been imposed under Sensenbrenner's amended bill.
But rather than confronting Mehlman, Blitzer bade Mehlman goodbye and hoped he would "come back to The Situation Room."
From the June 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Our CNN poll -- recent poll -- said: "How are things going for the U.S. in Iraq?" Fourty-one percent said they're going well, 55 percent said they're going badly. This even after the president's visit there, the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the formation of a new Iraqi government. You have your work cut out for yourself.
MEHLMAN: Absolutely. But listen, what we want to do is exactly what [Democratic National Committee] chairman [Howard] Dean said, which is we want to listen to the military. And there's a debate going on within the Democratic Party. Some are saying we need to cut and run. Others are saying we need to cut and jog. And still others are saying we need to cut and walk.
BLITZER: Now, who's saying cut and run?
MEHLMAN: Well, I think if you look at what Mr. Murtha suggested, which would have been out last November, that's a cut-and-run approach. If we had followed his advice, we wouldn't have gotten Zarqawi; we wouldn't have had 40,000 Iraqi troops who would have been trained; the cooperation that exists that helped us get Zarqawi, between the Jordanians and the Iraqis, and others, that wouldn't necessarily be there. It would be the exact --
BLITZER: Because the -- because the Senate Democrats, even those who want the U.S. out by a year from now, July 1st of 2007, they're saying that's plenty of time -- three years-plus already, another year for this new Iraqi government to get its act together, to form a cohesive military and political unit, and bring the U.S. troops home.
MEHLMAN: We might want to call that one the cut-and-walk option. The fact is if you did any of these things, the enemy would see it as surrender, and it would make Americans less safe. It was very revealing, I thought, that when Jack Murtha was on Meet the Press, the two analogies he gave of what we should do were Somalia, one, and Beirut, two. There was an Osama bin Laden interview with ABC News where he said one of the reasons they continued to escalate the attacks on America was because of what they learned in Somalia, and what they learned in Beirut, by Americans pulling out after the attacks. If you think --
BLITZER: Well, you could make the argument, too, that the U.S. should've never gotten involved in Beirut, should have never gotten involved in Mogadishu.
MEHLMAN: But the notion that we're being attacked because we're in that neighborhood is entirely wrong and has been disproven again and again. The reason we were attacked is because, for a generation, we did what Jack Murtha suggested, which is when they hit us, we would back down, as opposed to recognizing that the way we win this "war on terror," the way we won World War II, the way we won the Cold War is by being on the offense, not the defense.
BLITZER: You're trying to hold on to the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. In our -- in the CBS News poll, excuse me, the approval of the way Congress is handling its job, and this is a Republican-led House and Senate, only 26 percent say they approve of the way the Congress is handling its job, 60 percent disapprove. And if you ask registered voters in our poll: Who do you prefer? Generically, 45 percent go for the Democrats, 38 percent go for the Republicans. It looks like the Democrats, if they get their act together, they have a shot at taking the majority in the Senate and the House.
MEHLMAN: Well, Wolf, I don't think that they will. I think it's going to be -- all politics is local, race versus race. You saw what happened in the California-50 [congressional] seat, when they preferred the Republican [Brian Bilbray]. And one of the reasons I think our candidates are going to win is this debate on Iraq. People may disagree about how we got there, they may disagree about some of the specifics, but they recognize that a strategy that the terrorists would see as surrender is the wrong strategy.
[...]
BLITZER: How worried are you that this will anger Latino voters? Because you, as chairman of the RNC, you've made a major push to bring in the Latino voters, and this, at least a lot of people think, is going to alienate a lot of those people.
MEHLMAN: I don't think it's going to anger Latino voters because Latino-Americans, like Anglo-Americans, like all Americans, recognize that when you're at war, if your border's not secure, then no one is safe. I will tell you this, Wolf, though. We're seeing politics played on the other side. You may remember when the House Democrats overwhelmingly voted in order to make illegal immigrants felons, House Republicans voted against that. The Democrats thought they could win an issue, we were concerned with actually making sure that we passed a law that secured all Americans from all backgrounds and all walks of life.
BLITZER: Ken Mehlman is the chairman of the Republican Party. We hope you'll come back to The Situation Room.
MEHLMAN: I look forward to it.
Want to tell us again about the "liberal media"?
GMAFB
In THIS instance I'd be more inclined to point at Wolf as an INEPT interviewer rather than a BIASED one.
Of course YOU won't AGREE, but no matter...
Now more ON TOPIC:
Ken Mehlman said:
*We might want to call that one the cut-and-walk option. The fact is if you did any of these things, the enemy would see it as surrender, and it would make Americans less safe.*
=====
Mmmmmm, I think you could easily DESCRIBE that we took the "cut-and-walk option" with Vietnam when Nixon began a gradual withdrawal of US troops in 1969...and lo & behold America was no less SAFE.
My point, as you know, is that he is not showing liberal bias, despite the constant mewling from the Rush Limbaugh clones that Republicans are still victims of a "liberal media", despite the fact that conservatives now dominate talk radio, cable tv "news", and own the government.
It's nonsense, and anyone who still believes it is an idiot.
Nerzog, I'm hoping you're a female cause I'm a guy...[I've always figured YOU were a Male] BUT either way, I'll take "Darling" over some of the OTHER things I'm occasionally called here ;-)
I've NEVER thought of Wolf as having a Liberal bias, OR a Conservative one. I just THINK he's an INCOMPETENT interviewer. Period.
As far as "the constant mewling from the Rush Limbaugh clones that Republicans are still victims of a "liberal media"...yeah well I hear/read constant Whining from Democrat/Liberals that they are Victims of a Conservative Media. MMFA only OFFERS one side here. Bias is often in the ears/eyes/minds of the beholder.
IF Conservative's DOMINATE talk radio it's SIMPLY because they have an audience. Not our fault that Liberal talk radio is by and large a bust. Did you ever consider that Radio and Cable REFLECT the views of a MAJORITY of Americans that, whether you like it or not, remain MORE Moderate & Conservative on most issues.
Conservatives own the government? Mmmmmmm well since people ELECT most government officials, it once again just REFLECTS the will of a MAJORITY of VOTERS. Yes I know YOU think 2 Presidential elections were stolen--were all the House of Representative, Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections STOLEN as well?
Hey nerzog IF you guys can WIN the elections then you'll OWN the government ;-)
conservatives who believe the ends justifies the means do indeed control the government coupled with conservative radio who have brow beaten anyone with a different view point. There is a conservative bias in that they use misinformation and talking points that are dubious at best. The Republican electorate is too lazy to actuallu research what people like Mehlman say and assume it's true. Unlike liberal talk radio which encourages actual discussion and research. Incidently liberal talk radio seems to be doing quite well, as if markets determine what's right or wrong. Especially when you consider that it is a relatively new format that requires stations to change their entire programming schedules to accomodate it. There is a market for it judged by the commercials I hear on the radio. The point being made here is that by Blitzer not questioning Mehlman and his lies he is complicit in those lies. A liberal bias, which I would welcome, would consist of point and counter point with facts. There is a sensatioalistic bias, not a liberal one.
A liberal bias, which I would welcome, would consist of point and counter point with facts. There is a sensatioalistic bias, not a liberal one.
the above statement pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? liberal bias is fine and dandy and is filled with facts galore. wow, seems to me that is contradictory, but whatever? all this whining from both sides about bias is like a bratty child, get over it all of you. jeter2 is correct, there is "bias" all over and depending on your ideology you either lap it up, or dismiss it. and when is this idiotic claim going to stop that conservatives pound information home to a bunch of ninnies, but liberals encourage debate and are fair to a fault. give us all a break on that, please!
If I call you an idiot will you go away? Look up liberal in the dictionary, forget the Bill O'Reilly definition. I don't whine I yell because I am passionate about this country and the Constitution for which it stands. Conservatism is ideologically driven. You know what you know and you don't want to know anymore, especially when it conflicts with your narrow world view. Liberalism is not. What you percieve to be a liberal bias is anything that might make Bush or other conservatives look bad. As long as the information is truthful, go ahead and call it liberally biased. If not, it aint.
for you to constantly resort to name calling only makes you look foolish without substantive points to make. for anyone to maintain that conservatism is ideologically driven but somehow liberalism is some lofty calling from above is laughable. you can believe anything you want, your opinions are your own, fine. pure liberalism is a admirable quality for those who practice and believe it. however, elite liberalism, which is where you belong, is condescending and small.
and you don't stay on topic very well, but I'm bored so I'll bite. Conservatism is ideologically driven. The idea having an open mind isn't compatable. If you object to that you are either deluded that your not ideologically driven or your not a conservative. I didn't make this up, it is what it is. As far elitism goes, it's actually humility that I come from. I grew up on green stamps but went to college and magaged to get a pretty good job. I care about the poor more than I care about corporate profits. You call people names all the time punk. I have little respect for you because your previous posts have always been disrespectful. "Waaahh, you just don't get it, wahhh." When will you post that one here? In response to this post probably. I could debate you all day long but you have never shown an inkling of desiring debate. You just fall back on the "you're just a typical liberal." As if you knew what that was.
my posts stand on their own without calling others "punk" and "idiot" as your's have. so for you to whine about my inability to debate the issues while you use inflammatory insults in nearly every one of yours, is a little childish.
Your posts stand on their own? I know, that's why I refer to you as an idiot. If you were interested in debate you'd just debate and not bring up the name calling that seems to bother you so much. I don't really care. I'm not here to be polite, esp. to the likes of you. I can't pretend to know what your motivations are coming to MMFA just to get called names but I can judge you by the content of your posts and I just don't get the impression you are interested in actual debate. There's this name calling label you cast on is liberals. So what? I'm rude, perhaps immature at times I'll admit it. What does that have to do with anything? You offer nothing but whining about name calling. So screw you punk.
as entertaining as this is watching you implode right here, it is getting a little boring, if not severly off topic and headed for deletion. remember, you first said "Right on If I call you an idiot will you go away?, so your baseless accusations of me shying away from debate are just more of your wildly scattered postings. if you find you are able to post without personal attacks, let me know. maybe then you will be taken more seriously.
actually I'm sitting in a nice air conditioned office quietly responding to your posts and others, offering my own thoughts etc. You are good at pushing my buttons for sure, I'll give you that. I have this thing about ignorance that drives me nuts, and I hate conservatism and as a result most conservatives. I try not to. All beings deserve to be free of suffering. But conservatives cause so much suffering especially when it comes to abusing our military, ignoring the poor and homeless, the mentally ill. Then they claim their Christians. So sorry, I've nothing but contempt for your ilk.
Is that the press is not doing its job. I'll say it again for the hundredth time...look at the difference between the savaging Bill Clinton received over a blowjob to the apparent indifference toward the lies which put us in Iraq, costing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Maybe incompetence is all it is, but it looks to me like the press has been bought.
by Corporate America!
>>Jeter2 is correct, there is "bias" all over
I don't think he is. See my post below. This claim that both sides are biased is lazy and anti-intellectual. MMFA did at least on study on the Sunday shows to show bias.
Besides, if you encounter liberal bias, or misinformation, then please write the outlet that is responsible. Don't simply dismiss media critics as "whiners." Otherwise, you are offering a blind, perpetual excuse for any conservative misinformation, that since there is bias on the other side, we shouldn't try to correct it.
We should take each claim on its own value. Mehlman is wrong on two counts. Do you care to address that?
my point was that there is an inherent bias from all sides, and it usually depends on your point of view. some bias is blatant, some is subtle. i say, so what? of course, you can highlight it, scream about it, write the media about it, do whatever you want. it is rampant, and probably unavoidable and very unscientific to prove either way. the best way to combat it is to go to many sources to get your information, left and right publications and media outlets as well as those that have no evidenced bias. get all sides, all points, all arguments and then decide. bias becomes all but impotent then.
and in the interest of fairplay, I will refrain from name calling. Bias though is a strange term and I think it gets misused a lot. Bias, to me anyway, implies the intent to distort, which means if we see bias we have to assume the source of said bias is doing this intentionally. We have to "know" that the media source wants to steer our view point to match theirs. Maybe it could be called unconscious bias. My point is that the true bias for most media outlets is making a buck and gaining viewership vs. reporting. What I see a lot of, from the Rush Limbaugh's of the world, is this assumption of a liberal media wanting to dupe people into believing something that's not true or a complete picture. When Rush does this he short changes himself and his listeners becuase he's stopped objectively looking at the facts and instead dismisses pertinent information.
agree. bottom line to any media outlet, is the bottom line. it trumps ideology and bias all the time. like anything else it's a business. i know of a certain local radio talk show host, who will go unnamed, that always championed libertarianism. he then went nationally syndicated and announced he was joining the republican party and is now a unabashed bush apologist - all because, in my opinion, he figured that is where his ratings gold was. sold out his "bias" for "dollars". not unique.
and not exclusively Republican or Democrat. See my apology as a new post. I get carried away some time and the anonymity of blogging removes some of the impulses to keep my trap shut and play nice.
if i was out of line, my apologies as well. i understand passionate debate sometimes get heated. call me on it if i do it, i will promise the same.
>>my point was that there is an inherent bias from all sides
Your post, as your previous one, lapses into meaningless vague generalities. Of course it matters to have a press that represents different sides of an issue. Likewise, you need a press that will give people a fair picture of the story.
Look at the 2000 election. The press decided it didn't like Gore so fabricated stories about his supposed lies. He was presented as a phony again and again. It could very well be why he lost the election. (See [link to dailyhowler.com,] which has done an excellent job of covering how irresponsible the press was during 2000.)
It also matters with every issue we face. If the press gives misinformation, then people will be ill-informed. Most people are not going to seek out many different sources. Most people are more or less going ot believe what they see on the TV news.
Now, do you care to ever be specific? Or do you want to hide behind your meaningless generalities. This thread is on Mehlman. Why don't you address this topic instead of evading with the meaningless "Oh, there is bias everywhere?"
>>MMFA only OFFERS one side here. Bias is often in the ears/eyes/minds of the beholder.
MMFA has done at least one, and I believe two or thee, studies showing how many more conservatives than liberals make it on TV shows. So in this case they did consider both sides. One of the studies (the one I am sure of) is how Sunday shows had on many more conversvative guests. The networks made no coherent defense, claiming that just because more conservative appear doens't mean the shows are biased; and stating that labels such as conservative and liberal are meaningless.
>>Did you ever consider that Radio and Cable REFLECT the views of a MAJORITY of Americans
I doubt this is true. Radio and Cable talk shows reach a relatively small but angry audience. I don't think polls would show that the views of Rush, for example, are represenative.
>>since people ELECT most government officials, it once again just REFLECTS the will of a MAJORITY of VOTERS.
Also not true. Gore won the popular vote. In addition,
[link to dailyhowler.com]
[actually, the post I refer to is from yesterday, so you will have to go to the archives.]
has a good post up, quoting from a Krugman article. Krugman asserts that the Dems have to win the popular vote by 8 to 10 percentage point to gain control of the congress because the system is stacked against them. 8 million voters in NY city can vote for a Democratic Senator, but they only get one; 1 million people in Wyoming can vote for a Democratic senator and they also get one.
The same demographics work agains the represenatives in the House, in part because of gerrymeandering, in part because republicans are over-represented in rural areas. If a Democratic district in Boston votes 70-30 percent for a Democrat, many votes are wasted.
So no, I don't think the government does reflect the will of the majority of the voters.
"MMFA only OFFERS one side here. Bias is often in the ears/eyes/minds of the beholder."
The MRC shows the other "side". Their definition of bias seems to boil down to "anything we don't agree with". It doesn't challenge much on facts, it's just anyone who points out something harmful to the right is guilty of bias. Now here it's all about actual lies and extremist comments. That's not just "eye of the beholder"...one is clearly a better measure of an unbalanced media than the other.
To the right if they don't agree with it, it must be liberal.
Americans that, whether you like it or not, remain MORE Moderate & Conservative on most issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How do you support that? I hope you're not using the outcomes of the last 2 presidential elections to support that. They were atypical, 2000 was stolen, and 2004 was such an outlier with the war that the war president started, etc. There is a book called The Two Americas it describes the current politcal climate in that there is plurality between the two ideologies with some folks in the middle that stradel the line but are likely to jump left or right under given circumstances. The authors says this is what's driving these extrmely tight races. But neither ideology is completely dominating the other right now. Just a real ugly nasty fight started by the right I might add going on. I also completely disagree with you about broadcast media. The conservatives own that. Hey you're not going to start calling us leftists are you?
And say that most people in the US are socially liberal to moderate. Not Nixon's liberal mind you but the dictionary definition of liberal.
said that Murtha's idea is that we should cut and run, jog, walk, etc. True, no misinformation there. MMFA uses polling data to somehow justify Mehlman as being wrong? Since when does popular opinion dictate how we should win a war? I think the D's are using this war to win votes, IMHO.
Jog and walk were discussed, but run was applied to Murtha's plan. In any event, it's a politically charged phrase intended to disparage any plan to withdraw without considering the costs/benefits.
Regarding you next comment, Mehlman stated "People may disagree about how we got there, they may disagree about some of the specifics, but they recognize that a strategy that the terrorists would see as surrender is the wrong strategy." Mehlman raises the issue of public opinion in that statement. Polls are completely applicable to refuting Mehlman's statement.
I think the D's are using this war to win votes, IMHO.
Yep, though not nearly as effectively as they probably could. That may well end up being too bad for them...and too bad for us. I believe we'd be much better off with a divided government.
Btw, as you may have guessed, I don't buy the assertion that using the war to win votes is wrong. It's a key issue that absolutely should be an election issue.
The Ds are using the war to win votes? Do you mean the opposition to the war to win votes? Because all the "liberal" media reports is how divided the Ds are about the war. It's been the MO of the Rs to use war to win votes. 2,500 less will be able to vote this November. But hey look at all the Iraqis that can vote now. That's swell.
The plans for troop redeployment from Iraq have one objective: To save the lives of U.S. Troops.
What is the objective for keeping U.S. Troops in Iraq, in harm's way, and being killed each day?
(21 days into June; 35 U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in June. But why cite the number of deaths to House and Senate Republicans, or to the administration; they're de-sensitized to the deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq. They're immune; they're getting what they want, $8 billion dollars per month, and they're getting it w/o paying any political price; they don't care about the deaths of U.S. Troops anymore; they never did.)
Is the objective for keeping U.S. Troops in Iraq serving the National Security interests of the U.S.?
No. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is not now, nor has it ever, served the National Security interests of the U.S.
Is the invasion and occupation of Iraq getting some kind of JUSTICE for the attacks of September 11, 2001?
No. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has not achieved JUSTICE for the attacks of 9-11 (an invasion of Saudi Arabia, and the slaughter of the murderous members of that "royal" family would have been JUSTICE for 9-11; but alas, those murderers are the president's "good friends"; alas, the president continues to suppress the conclusions of the Joint Congressional Inquiry).
Then why are House and Senate Republicans (and the administration) so intent to keep U.S. Troops getting killed in Iraq, if there is no National Security interest being served, and no JUSTICE for 9-11 being achieved?
Because to redeploy those Troops from Iraq now would be "politically ebarrassing"...
It would be an admission that they had sent those Troops to their deaths based on the lies of FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence' (and it's also why they refuse to complete an investigation into that FALSIFIED intelligence)...
It would cause the American People to ask why they were sent there in the first place (they're asking that anyway; the majority of the People are asking anyway)...
It would cause the People to ask, if not Iraq, then who? What foreign government was behind the attacks of 9-11? (It would cause the American People to demand the declasification of the JCI's conclusions)...
AND YOU KNOW WHY ELSE HOUSE AND SENATE REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ?
BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING TO A HALT THE $8 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH BEING LOOTED FROM THE U.S. TREASURY EVERY MONTH...
BY THEM AND BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS WHO PAY THEM.
Just ask Republican Randall 'Duke' Cunningham. It's why he got sent to prison...
And it's why House and Senate Republicans refuse to redeploy Troops from Iraq...
It's why they don't care about the deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq; it's why they've never cared.
$8 billion dollars per month, is what all these lies and all this death has gotten them; and they're not about to give up even one penny of that money, or admit to even one lie or one mistake, without a fight.
HOUSE AND SENATE REPUBLICANS LOVE THE DEATHS OF U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ, BECAUSE IT'S SO PROFITABLE TO THEM (and because it would be so "politically embarrassing" to redeploy those Troops now).
House and Senate Democrats love the lives of those U.S. Troops in Iraq...
It is why they are proposing they be redeployed from Iraq; it is the objective of the redeployment plans...
To save the lives of U.S. Troops in Iraq.
We can only hope that the press will grow a set and look into how much Cheney and Rumsfeld are profiting from this war. Oh, I'm sure it's carefully hidden, but I'm equally sure that it's there.
And, what about that $6 billion that disappeared in Iraq? Notice how little attention that is getting? Americans hear the word "billion" so often that they forget just how much money that is. That is SIX THOUSAND MILLION dollars of OUR MONEY that disappeared down a rathole. Where'd it go, Clueless George?
A few weeks back, the administration and Senate Republicans failed miserably in their attempt to distract the American People from the important political issues, with the ridiculous "gay marriage" thing.
It was also an attempt to rally a tiny part of their base, but who knows or cares whether it did; the vast majority of the American People didn't fall for it, to their credit.
But the tactic of distraction (and of rallying the ever-shrinking base) is back, bigger than ever.
Not as "gay marriage" though; they believe they're going to get the job done with "immigration" as that issue.
From a New York Times item today, written by party hack Hulse, titled...
House Adds Hearings on Immigration
"...House Republican leaders said Tuesday that they would hold summer hearings around the nation on the politically volatile subject..."
"The unusual decision to set a new round of hearings on legislation already passed by the House and the Senate..."
[That is, it is extraordinarily "unusual" to hold hearings on legislation that has already passed]
"The timing means that formal Congressional negotiations will not begin until September, just as Congressional campaigns are entering their crucial final weeks, when lawmakers typically shy away from difficult issues."
["just... when lawmakers typically shy away from difficult issues"? What spin! This is not confronting a "difficult issue", it's a distraction from such issues. Read that sentence in the item again, several times if necessary; it tells us the true reason why these hearings are scheduled for this summer and fall, and spins "immigration" into a "difficult issue", all in the same sentence. A spin made to order, by House Republicans.]
"The focus of the summer hearings and the schedule were uncertain Tuesday as Republicans suggested that they would be used both to explore the content of the Senate bill and to survey public opinion on the issue. But it was clear House Republicans intended to use the forums to try to expose what they saw as failings in the Senate bill and to build public opposition to that approach."
["...to survey public opinion on the issue"? Bull; to create and manipulate opinion, all while distracting from any and all other topics, that's more like it. Why would the House conduct extraordinary "travelling circus" hearings to "survey public opinion"? They could conduct a poll for that; they have already, many of them I'm sure. "...to expose ...failings ...and to build public opposition"? I don't need to interpret that for you; you're politically savvy; you do the math and the thinking about that one.]
"The hearings could also help House Republicans rally conservative supporters in advance of the election, particularly given a recent special election in Southern California in which immigration emerged as a dominant issue. But Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday that the topic's power varied from district to district. "It is not, in my view, a situation that has the same resonance in each district," Mr. Reynolds said."
["the topic's power varied from district to district", which is exactly why the circus will be a "travelling circus" this summer. And mind you, that's the Chair of the NRCC talking; you know what his goal is in this matter. While he may not be the ringmaster of this "travelling circus", he's at least the P.T. Barnum]
What was it P.T. Barnum said?
Was it "there's a sucker born every minute"?
No, that must have been someone else...
I think P.T. said "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
That's it. He'd have made a good Chair of the NRCC, P.T. would have...
Speaker of the House even; as the circus cannot travel, without the Speaker's say.
The goal was and is to protect our national security.
The current battle is to restore stability and get the goverment self-sufficient.
Hopefully we will establish a 50 year base there just like in South Korea and Germany. That is how stability through strength has worked in the past and I know you like to bring up history when it comes to imperialism so I'm sure you will love the fact we are using proven historical methods to achieve success.
but Mehlman said the enemy would consider it a surrender.
So MMFA cites surveys of the American voters!!
so MMFA thinks America is the enemy!!
See my response below. Mehlman asserts the "people" (voters, Americans) see withdrawal as a "wrong" policy. They don't.
CNN/Time Poll conducted by Yankelovich Partners. Dec. 17-18, 1998. N=1,031 adults nationwide. .
ALL Rep. Ind. Dem. % % % % "Thinking about the bombing of Iraq, do you approve or disapprove of the decision to attack Iraq?" Approve 69 67 70 73 Disapprove 21 25 24 16 Not sure 10 8 6 11 .
"Do you favor or oppose using military force now to remove Saddam Hussein from power?" Favor 76 82 71 79 Oppose 18 15 22 14 Not sure 6 3 7 7
Here's a 2001 poll:
The Gallup Poll. Feb. 19-21, 2001. N=1,016 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. .
"Now thinking back to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991: All in all, do you think the situation in the Persian Gulf region was worth going to war over or not?" 2/01 2/92 1/92 % % % Yes, worth it 63 66 59 No, not worth it 31 32 38 No opinion 6 2 3 .
"Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?" 2/01 6/93 4/92 % % % Favor 52 70 55 Oppose 42 27 40 No opinion 6 3 5
Do you still want to govern by polls?
the lengths to which you people seek to demonize those you disagree with never ceases to amaze me. You're like acrobats, you'll bend over backwards to blame liberals. This liberals hate America schtick is as old as it is hollow. Read the constitution; it's a liberal document. Go read Teddy Roosevelt when he said that is morally servile and treasonous to not question the president especially during war time. By that definition, you crack pot right wing nut jobs are indeed traitors to your country.
you mean demonizing by calling people crackpots and traitors?
He thinks he's Rush Limbaugh, trying to bullsh*t us the way Rush bullsh*ts his audience. Sorry, Helmnut, but those techniques only work on the weak-minded knuckledraggers that think Rush is actually some kind of journalist. You're wasting your time here.
are good at recognizing bullsh*t.
Maybe you can see through MMFA ridiculous linkage of a poll and Mehlman's opinion that America does not want to cut and run.
The polls change every week but somehow I don't think MMFA will print the ones in Mehlman's favor.
You state:
>>MMFA uses polling data to somehow justify Mehlman as being wrong? Since when does popular opinion dictate how we should win a war?
But here's what Mehlman said:
He stated that "People...recognize that a strategy [withdrawing from Iraq] .. is a wrong strategy."
That is not true. The majority don't see it as a wrong strategy.
if I ran a poll next week that asked "Should we cut and run from Iraq" and 51 percent said no, would you change your mind?
I didn't think so.
Trying to say that the country wants out of Iraq right now is a lie. You know the polls shift and if you took one right after AZ was killed it would shift even more. It's a silly leap that MMFA takes to tie a poll to some great grassroots movement to get out of Iraq now.
I already posted huge poll figures in 98 and 01 that said the American people wanted to remove Saddam militarily.
Citing polls is a joke and an exercise in futility.
Murtha's plan wa snot to cut and run. Murtha's plan acknowledges the military completed their part of the mission. Establishing a democracy in Iraq is not the job of the US military...never was...never should be...and never will be. The defeatist attitude being perpetuated by some on the Right that because the democracy has not been established means our troops have not done their job and won their protion of the battle shows a total lack of understanding of the mission they were sent to do. And a total lack of respect for the troops and their role in this war. They were not sent to Iraq to establish democracy they were sent their to overthrow Sadamn and remove him from power. Their job is finished on the ground lets now move on to the next stage of the plan...or didn't they think that far ahead?
The troops succeeded brilliantly in Iraq. Poor planning and a profound misunderstanding of the importance of winning hearts and minds has gotten us in the mess we're in. And nobody is doing anything about it. Including the Dems. Back in 1984 when Jesse Jackson went to Libya I think it was, I might be mistaken, but he went and rescued a downed pilot. He was running for president but still he made the effort. Kerry or Biden, hell even Hillary should just take the damn initiative and start wooing neighboring countires (to Iraq) and start mending the fences Bush and co. put up.
The war itself is over; Saddam's government was ousted. What our troops are involved in now is a POLICE ACTION. They're chasing down killers who are hiding amongst a civilian population. That is work for police, not combat troops. I recently heard a veteran on the radio echoing one of Rush Limbaugh's anti-Clinton talking points...that the military is trained to kill people and break things. Oddly enough, Limbaugh doesn't say that any more, because his president is misusing the military to do something he promised not to do...nation building.
>>They were not sent to Iraq to establish democracy they were sent their to overthrow Sadamn and remove him from power.
That's a very true statement. However, by itself it does kind of a misrepresent the war. The goals of the war (not neccessarily what the soldiers were supposed to do) was find WMDs and hence remove Saddam as a threat. Since there were no WMDs, the soldiers really couldn't accomplish that task. Another goal was to set up Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the middle east. Of course, that has proven a fool's dream and a goal that the soldiers can't accomplish.
But yes, the soldiers are only trained to fight, and that they did. They are not trained to establish democracies.
There is no evidence, or even logic, to suggest that pulling out of Iraq today will make us less safe. If you think it does, please explain how our blundering into Iraq has made us any safer at all? Do you really think that our presence there is stopping any turrist from attacking us over here? If so, how? Where is Osama? What is he doing?
This is just more Republican bullsh*t for their weak-minded base.
Republicans love their "cut-and-run" quip so much that they're doing spinoffs. "Cut-and-jog", etc. How creative. How... unhelpful. I've got one for them: "Run out the clock". Because that's what passes for a "plan" for Iraq with Republicans. Basically, Iraq is hopeless, so wait let's wait it out until Bush's term ends; let someone else fix it; let more troops die for no reason in the meantime.
The Bush plan: let the next president deal with the mess I've created.
And CNN and other members of the MSM enable the lying our troops die. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this lie and war to continue.
The 4th estate hasn't been doing it's job since Reagan let the fairness and accuracy in reporting standards lapse and allowed media oulets to gobble each other up. Like everything in our sick capitalism at all costs society, the media is about making a buck and that's it.
I've been mean spirited and cruel at your expense and I apologize. I will try to refrain from doing so in the future. I hope your still checking in to this post. Maybe I'm bipolar.
And i'm not being sarcastic. Something in me snapped and I have seen the light, so to speak. We'll keep each other honest. Keep posting. ;^}
so MMFA thinks America is the enemy!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice try. No, just the bush leaguers.
MMFA can speak for themselves.
FYI: I'm one of the Conservatives HERE that has POSTED numerous times that I was/am AGAINST the war in Iraq...AND I've COMPARED Iraq to Vietnam. But I'll tell ya, it's posters like you that make me really DISLIKE Liberals.
Gee, that really hurts. If I misunderstood your post, you have my apologies.
Now that we've dispensed with that, coming out against the Iraq War and acknowledging that undeniable quagmire-like quality it shares with Vietnam is like grudgingly admitting that water is wet. You going to tell me there's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia now?
You neglected to mention the "secretly invading Cambodia" part of Vietnamization. This comes as no surprise. Conservatives tend to leave out inconvenient facts all the time. Hey, isn't there a film with that title?
I say we SHOULD ! Sooner or later we're going to cut and run anyway--Period ! Let's stabilize them as much as possible, then get the hell out. This is Bush's war, let him suffer the inevitable defeat. In the process, we'll save lives of our soldiers and their civilians. Then, the next time there is talk of a war, maybe it will be for a coherent reason.
While Mehlman Lies
And CNN and other members of the MSM enable the lying our troops die. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this lie and war to continue.
- jlyon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've noticed that too, eh?
Did anyone catch TDS's story the other night about the republicans seceding from the Congressional Softball League? Evidently, they object to letting the Dems bat, too. They find it more difficult to win that way. Just like elections. They also want to furnish their own umps. Just like elections.
They put a gag order on talking to TDS. For softball. Just when you think they've hit bottom they manage to drain just a bit more from the pool.
I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN HE WAS DEAN AND MEHLMAN WAS GOING TO BE ON THE SHOW. HE GAVE DEAN A HARD TIME AND MEHLMAN AN EASY TIME LIKE ALWAYS WHEN IT COME TO THIS MAN!!!