Media figures continue to present Sen. Clinton's rebuke of Rumsfeld as "pure politics"
SUMMARY: Members of the media, including Tucker Carlson, Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and George Stephanopoulos, have continued to suggest that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism of Donald Rumsfeld during a recent Senate committee hearing was motivated solely by politics.
Members of the media continued to criticize Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as overly political after her exchange with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during an August 3 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq and Afghanistan. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes, National Public Radio senior correspondent Juan Williams, and ABC's George Stephanopoulos joined others identified by Media Matters for America in characterizing Clinton's questioning of Rumsfeld as a political maneuver. On MSNBC's Tucker, Carlson called Clinton "a total phony" and "an appalling figure." On Fox News' Beltway Boys, Williams claimed Clinton's questioning was "pure politics," and co-host Barnes accused Clinton of calling for a public hearing because she "wanted to get all that on TV." And on ABC's This Week, Stephanopoulos claimed Clinton's comments were motivated by the Democratic Senate primary race in Connecticut between Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont, which has received media attention over its purported effect on the politics of the Iraq war. Stephanopoulos said Clinton has "gotten the message" and that Clinton called for Rumsfeld's resignation because "[s]he clearly saw what is happening in Connecticut and decided to get out ahead of it." Media Matters has previously noted the media's pattern of portraying Clinton as a purely political figure.
Tucker
On the August 4 edition of his MSNBC program, Carlson teased a discussion about Clinton by asking: "Is Hillary Clinton for the war in Iraq, or is she against the war in Iraq? Who knows? But that hasn't stopped her from telling Donald Rumsfeld what to do about the war in Iraq." Carlson then started his interview with Democratic strategist Rich Masters by calling Clinton "a phony" and said Clinton's questioning of Rumsfeld was a "shallow attack" and that "[s]he always agrees with most Americans. That's why she's an appalling figure." In a later segment, MSNBC political analyst and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said of Clinton, "[S]he's moving away from the hawkish position because she sees what's happening to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and the heart of her party." Buchanan called Clinton's questioning "a coldly calculated decision."
Beltway Boys
On the August 5 edition, Williams said Clinton's questioning of Rumsfeld was "[p]ure politics" because Clinton "understands that the base of the party is concerned" and "[n]ow she's starting to distance herself." Barnes then said "Well, we know why she wanted an open hearing, a public hearing, and not a closed-door hearing, because she wanted to get all that on TV."
This Week
During a discussion of the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary on the August 6 edition of This Week, Stephanopoulos said Clinton's questioning of Rumsfeld was evidence that she "has gotten the message." He then referred to Clinton's call for Rumsfeld's resignation and said: "She clearly saw what is happening in Connecticut and decided to get out ahead of it."
From the August 4 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Still to come: Is Hillary Clinton for the war in Iraq, or is she against the war in Iraq? Who knows? But that hasn't stopped her from telling Donald Rumsfeld what to do about the war in Iraq.
That story is ahead.
[...]
CARLSON: Rich, welcome. What a phony this -- what a phony this woman is. I mean, if she -- no, I'm serious. I mean, I'm much more against the war in Iraq than Hillary Clinton is, and that's my problem with her. If she, you know, had a record over the past three years of speaking out in a principled way against the war in Iraq, I would listen to what she says, but she hasn't. She's a total phony.
[...]
CARLSON: That's an -- that's an, you know, that's an interesting rhetorical response, and I respect it on that level, but that's not exactly what Mrs. Clinton is doing. She is, in fact, making almost -- almost an aesthetic critique of Donald Rumsfeld's statement.
She's saying, "Look, your predictions were wrong." She's not saying your strategy was wrong. She's saying, "You gave us a more rosy picture of Iraq than turned out to be true."
MASTERS: Which is accurate, right?
CARLSON: Therefore, you shouldn't be secretary of defense. Yeah, well, of course she's totally right, but it's an incredibly shallow attack on Donald Rumsfeld.
She doesn't say, "We needed X number more divisions, or we should have done this differently in Basra and Nasiriyah." She doesn't know anything about it. This is not a deep critique.
[...]
CARLSON: No, but that's the problem, Rich. Don't you see it that she's agreeing -- you summed it up perfectly, though perhaps unintentionally.
You said she's agreeing with most Americans. She always agrees with most Americans. That's why she's an appalling figure.
She does not have the courage, unlike [Sen.] Russ Feingold [D-WI] on the left, or many -- you know, [Sen.] Jeff Sessions [R-AL] on the right, of someone who, you know, really believes what he believes. She always is taking the perfectly crafted, perfectly poll-tested view of something, the "52 percent of Americans" view of something.
[...]
BUCHANAN: Will this work for Hillary? I think Hillary is making a coldly calculated decision. I think politically, it's the correct one, Tucker.
What she is doing, basically, is she's moving away from the hawkish position because she sees with what's happening to Lieberman in Connecticut and the heart of her party, that that is where it's at, to move increasingly away from the administration, away from Rumsfeld. It was a very, very effective performance, but it was a performance.
CARLSON: Do you think that she's the person to give that performance, though? I mean, do you think that Democrats are going to take her seriously? I mean, why listen to Hillary Clinton when you can listen to an authentic anti-war voice like Russ Feingold?
From the August 5 edition of Fox News' Beltway Boys:
WILLIAMS: Down, Donald Rumsfeld. The secretary of defense should have kept to his original stance of not testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Fred, he and his top generals got pummeled by committee Democrats on Iraq. Here's Hillary Clinton unloading on Rummy.
[begin video clip]
CLINTON: We hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios. But because of the administration's strategic blunders, and frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy. Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?
RUMSFELD: My goodness.
[end video clip]
BARNES: I agree.
WILLIAMS: "My goodness."
BARNES: "My goodness."
WILLIAMS: That's pure politics, Fred.
BARNES: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: Pure politics, because we were just talking about what's going on with Senator Lieberman in Connecticut. Now you have Senator -- Senator Clinton, likely Democratic presidential nominee, she hopes. And she understands that the base of the party is concerned, preoccupied, angry over the war. This is an opportunity for her to say, "I'm distant from the administration policy." She authorized them to go to war; she's been very supportive of them throughout the war. Now she's starting to distance herself.
And when you have General [John] Abizaid, General [Peter] Pace, saying, "You know what? You may have civil war breaking out in Iraq" -- it really gives her some cover to come out now and say, "Here I am, trying to set a different path for the Democratic Party as we go towards the midterms and towards the 2008 presidential race."
BARNES: Yeah. Well, we know now why she wanted an open hearing, a public hearing, and not a closed-door hearing, because she wanted to get all that on TV. And look, that's the way the world works in politics. No question about it.
From the August 6 edition of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And, you know, you mentioned Hillary Clinton. She has gotten the message. Interesting, interesting performance Thursday at the Senate Armed Services Committee. She forced Secretary Rumsfeld to appear. He didn't want to appear. Then when he came, this is what she said.
[begin video clip]
CLINTON: Because of the administration's strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy. Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?
RUMSFELD: My goodness.
[end video clip]
STEPHANOPOULOS: "My goodness." A few hours later, [ABC News chief congressional analyst] Cokie [Roberts], she said he has to resign. The first time she's done that. She clearly saw what is happening in Connecticut and decided to get out ahead of it.
...undercuts assertions. Nothing is pure, not in metals or syrup or rationales. Affixing "pure" to a noun reveals a mind that doesn't discern paradox and nuance.
Ooooh, absolutes drive me absolutely bonkers.
read your comments about west 1. when i made the phrase "who you were rude to for no reason", that phrase was behind lynn's name. if you read the threads, lynn was upset at west1 for attacking her for no reason. i merely agreed with that. if you want to turn that into me saying the women can't hold their own, that's your mistake.
Then I misread. My mistake. Sorry.
i don't know how you could have read those posts and concluded i was saying you three were being rude to west1. i was clearly using the three of you to back up my attack on him. hopefully lynn will read this instead of the two posts you wrote trashing me.
1. A progressive political figure/media person/popular figure will make an uncomplimentary statement about/inquiry of Bush and/or some member of his administration/policies
2. Karl Rove sends out a directive to all mainstream media outlets that said person is to be discredited by any means, particularly by:
- questioning their patriotism
- claiming they are "out of touch" with ordinary Americans
- portraying them as a hypocrite
- dimissing their motives as "pure politics"
3. Pundits in the MSM repeat step {2} throughout the news cycle
4. Opposing voices may given token shrift in the MSM to give the appearance of being "balanced", yet such voices are to be outnumbered by conservatives whenever possible, and their opinions belittled
NOTE: In accomplishing step {2}, some type of unflattering reference to Clinton {either one} should be used if at all possible, and if the person making the statement in step {1} IS a Clinton, step {2} should be delivered with particular vehemence.
Sooooo what? The reichstag has politicized patriotism, the flag, god, 9-11, stem cell research, terry schaivo, etc. etc. etc. Who are they to talk?
And to suggest she's a hypocrite because she changed her position? I forgot who here said it, but it's like quitting smoking after having smoked for years. How is realizing something is bad for you hypocritical?
Well as SINCERE as a politician can be. ;-)
But let's NOT kid ourselves, of course she was HOPING to score a few political points in going after Rumsfeld.
Her motivations weren't PURELY personal conviction or PURELY political.
But she ACCOMPLISHED what she set out to do, did it well, so good for her [and good for the rest of us that believe invading Iraq was WRONG--and it's execution botched]
Do not exist.
Even the most philanthropic act is colored by the resultant good feelings. Selfish actions can have benevolent outcomes. That's the way I view Hillary's criticism of Rumsfeld.
It comes as no surprise that gotcha guys in the media are claiming Hillary was being "purely" political. If they didn't they wouldn't have anything to gripe about. These guys must be so intuitive as to be able to know the motives of all the people they criticize. As if motives meant anything in politics. Politicians politic. It's what they do. Most of the time it's grandstanding. Oh well. What ever happened to merit? Was the criticism warranted? Yes it was. Was it high time for Hillary to change her direction regarding the Iraq war. Of course! (Oh no I am turning into Rumsfeld and answering my own questions) As soon as anyone starts saying they know what someones motives are they are only avoiding the merit of the person's claims. This mock outrage really cheeses me off!
of someone doing something for purely political reasons is it was done by a Democrat
I find it interesting how the two instances of misinformation;"pure politics" and not listing Clinton's examples of Rumsfeld's rosy predictions, go hand in hand. If the media had shown what Clinton's comments were based on, Rumsfeld's past quotes, then it would be much more difficult to play it off as "pure politics". At that point it becomes obviously weak attribution of motivation. Yes, Rumsfeld sold us on an easy war as shown by his quotes...and 2500 of our soldiers have died for it...but Clinton is just playing politics by chastising him for that? How is anyone supposed to legitimately criticize anything by that standard?
criticise Rumsfeld. I heard her criticise his policies and his job performance.
What's MMFA's point? It is reporting that the media is portraying Clinton as using the Rumsfeld rebuke for political purposes. Yet MMFA doesn't deny it. Even Bob Herbert (a progressive) editorialized in the NY Times today that Hillary rebuked Rumsfeld for political points with the left. The fact that Hillary's rebuke of Rumsfeld was well deserved and accurate doesn't mean she wasn't using it to make political points with the left. She was a supporter of the war from the start and continues to be a supporter to this day. The problem is not the military strategy (as Hillary makes it sound), it is the political strategy in Iraq, or lack thereof. We've put together government in which the Sunni's will always lose the vote, being a minority. That is not what representative democracy is about and the Sunni's know it. Until Hillary acknowledges the problems with the disfunctional government we've imposed over there, her prowar Iraq strategy is doomed to fail.
... these media figures are claiming to know what is in Clinton's heart and mind. It's kind of like me accusing you of posting your comment just to sound important. You had a legitimate question to ask, and I can't know why you asked it. But for me to claim what your motivations were, without some good evidence, would be no better than a wild guess.
"She always is taking the perfectly crafted, perfectly poll-tested view of something, the "52 percent of Americans" view of something".
Barnes then said "Well, we know why she wanted an open hearing, a public hearing, and not a closed-door hearing, because she wanted to get all that on TV."
She clearly saw what is happening in Connecticut and decided to get out ahead of it.
She is a phoney with no 'authentic' heart or mind she dare show for fear of political fallout!
Given Rumsfeld's rambling and self-Q-and-A jibberish during this session, it's unbelievable that Clinton is being portrayed as the problem.
Did anyone hear or see Rumsfeld during this session?
Someone please help me make sense of this wonderful gem that Rummy spit out during this session when addressing Senator Reed about troop readiness and equipment:
"Now, the fact of the matter is, if you begin with a standard, a requirement that is X, and then you show the beginning of the chart, and then at the end you have changed your requirement because you've decided you need different things, you've learned from the experiences of the last period of years, and you've increased your requirements to 5X, and then you compare yourself against 5X -- so if you've improved 300 percent -- you were at 100 percent to begin at 1X, and now you need 5X -- you've decided your requirement's different -- and you've improved 300 percent to get there, you're still short of that requirement. And that's what shows the deterioration."
Wow! Clear as mud, Rummy! You're a genius!!!!
Then there's the part where he babbles on and on asking himself questions and answering them one by one like he's the only person in the room:
"Are there still Taliban around? You bet. Are they occupying safe havens in Afghanistan and other places, correction in Pakistan and other places? Certainly they are. Is the violence up? Yes. Does the violence tend to be up during the summer and spring, summer, and fall months? Yes it does. And it tends to decline during the winter period. Does that represent failed policy? I don't know, I would say not. I think you've got an awful lot of very talented people engaged in this, and the decisions that are being made are being made with great care after a great deal of consideration. Are there setbacks? Yes. Are there things that people can't anticipate? Yes. Does the enemy have a brain and continue to make adjustments on the ground, requiring our forces to continue to make adjustments? You bet. Is that going to continue to be the case? I think so. Is this problem going to get solved in the near term about this violence struggle against extremism? No, I don't believe it is."
This sounds like a guy who should be on the couch in a psychiatrist's office!!!
But NOOOOOOOO!!!! Clinton's the problem here!
It's almost as if Sen. Clinton is pointing out the incompetence and/or dishonesty of Rummy for the sole purpose of influencing voters to not fall for the GOP crap again.
Why can't she just be more patriotic and support the administration?
On an unrelated topic, I watched a ballgame tonight where the pitcher was throwing pitches that were difficult to hit, fielders were catching fly balls, and batters were reaching base, all in a flagrant attempt to show that they were the superior team.
Everything they did was an attempt to influence the score and make the other team look bad. Pure politics.
"[s]he always agrees with most Americans. That's why she's an appalling figure."
GOOD! I honestly wish we had a president who always agreed with most Americans. The administration would have formed an exit strategy for Iraq a long time ago and that doomed anti-gay amendment would never have wasted the Senate's time!
But maybe Tucker would rather have a president who DOESN'T represent the feelings of the citizens of his or her country. I guess he votes for the person who reflects his beliefs the least.
Let's see....Hillary launches an attack on Rumsfeld....AND, let's stretch this out somewhat....it's done as a political ploy because it plays to the Democratic party's base....AND, let's not forget that he (Rumsfeld) did mention that (over the YEARS!! no less) while it wasn't going to be easy, that the military was going to do what's needed to get the job done.
Well, the war in Iraq has taken longer than anticipated, with lives losts & many more lives damaged & it's about time someone takes Rumsfeld, the Generals & this Administration to task over what's occurring. Tucker & the rest of these louts had better wake up & see the smoke on the horizon. They should put the onus on those being questioned but that's not going to happen...not with this media
left or right that is not doing so. I know there are a select few that truley represent the people, but she is not one of them.
she got elected by the New York people because she in fact represents them, and obviously well. Sen Clinton actually trounced the competition, the best NY GOP could muster.
....Rumsfeld were devoid of political motivation, during his responses in the hearing and in the actions and words Sen. Clinton was questioning.