Cavuto falsely claimed Bush has "not equat[ed]" opposing Iraq war with retreating from fight against terrorism
SUMMARY: On Your World, Neil Cavuto responded to retired Gen. Wesley Clark's assertion that President Bush describes "anybody who disagrees with him on ... his attack on Iraq as someone who is soft on terror" by falsely claiming that Bush "is not equating Iraq [to the war on terror] in that sense." In fact, Bush recently claimed that those advocating a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops are "wrong" because it "would be a defeat for the United States in a key battleground in the global war on terror."
Responding to Fox News military analyst and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's assertion, during the August 29 edition of Fox News' Your World, that President Bush describes "anybody who disagrees with him on ... his attack on Iraq as someone who is soft on terror," host Neil Cavuto falsely claimed that Bush "is not equating Iraq [to the war on terror] in that sense." In fact, Bush has recently claimed that those advocating a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq are "wrong" because it "would be a defeat for the United States in a key battleground in the global war on terror." In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney recently claimed that "[a] precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists," while Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld recently attacked Bush's Iraq war critics as "quitter[s]" who "blame America first" and "cannot stomach a good fight," adding that the war in Iraq is the "epicenter" in the fight against terrorism.
As Media Matters for America recently noted, during a speech at an August 16 fundraiser for Lynn Swann, the Republican challenger in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, Bush addressed the debate over the war in Iraq. He recycled the common Republican talking point that proposals to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq amount to a "cut and run" strategy and claimed: "The war on terror is fought in many theaters, and the central front in the war on terror now is Iraq":
BUSH: This war on terror is more than just chasing down people hiding in caves, or preventing people from getting on airplanes to blow them up. The war on terror is fought in many theaters, and the central front in the war on terror now is Iraq. I say it's the central front because that's what the enemy themselves have said -- that they want to drive us from the region; that they view it as the central front, as well. They've got objectives in Iraq. They want the United States to suffer a defeat in Iraq. They want us to retreat from Iraq. They want to create such havoc on our TV screens by killing innocent people that the American people finally say, we've had enough -- leaving Iraq before the mission is complete.
And the mission is to have a country, a free country that can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and serve as an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East. That's the mission. And they want us to leave -- they want us to cut and run. And there's some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They're not bad people when they say that, they're decent people. I just happen to believe they're wrong. And they're wrong for this reason: This would be a defeat for the United States in a key battleground in the global war on terror. It would create a -- leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom.
In an August 28 speech delivered to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Cheney asserted that American efforts in Iraq were central to the Bush administration's strategy for fighting terrorism, adding that a withdrawal from Iraq "would be a victory for the terrorists":
CHENEY: I realize, as well, that some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. But the exact opposite is true. Time and again over the last generation, the terrorists have targeted nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists, once again, that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail. They would simply draw up another set of demands, and instruct Americans to act as they direct or to face other murders. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States.
Cheney also claimed during the speech that "[s]ome in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone," but did not identify a single critic of the Iraq war who argues that withdrawing from Iraq would "get [terrorists] to leave us alone."
Rumsfeld also gave a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Conference on August 28. Rumsfeld asserted that "[t]he extremists openly call Iraq the 'epicenter' in the war on terror. And they mean it. Yet even today there are many who argue otherwise." Rumsfeld later added that "we must keep a 'Blame America first' mentality from undermining our efforts today in another long war against a determined enemy." The next day, during a speech presented to the 88th annual American Legion National Convention, Rumsfeld again asserted that Iraq is the "epicenter" in the struggle against terrorism, and after discussing those who retreat from the "war on terror" to those who appeased "the rise of fascism and Nazism," he concluded of the Iraq war: "The question is not whether we can win; it's whether we have the will to persevere to win. I'm convinced that Americans do have that determination and that we have learned the lessons of history, of the folly of trying to turn a blind eye to danger."
Earlier in the interview, Cavuto asked Clark if he thought "there are those in the Democratic Party who blame the United States for the evil that has been heaped upon it." Cavuto later noted "the constant pounding against the war, the constant pounding of the president, saying that he is an unfit commander in chief," and then asked Clark, "[W]hat message do you think that sends, when the commander in chief is bludgeoned constantly?"
From the August 29 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Well, President Bush calling Iran part of that axis of evil, as was Iraq. Today, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blasting critics of the war on terror, comparing them to those who appeased Adolf Hitler prior to World War II.
RUMSFELD [video clip]: It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies, when those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and Nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated.
CAVUTO: All right, reaction now from former presidential candidate, Fox News military analyst General Wesley Clark, author of Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire. General, what did you think of Rumsfeld's remarks?
CLARK: Well, I think they're -- they're overdrawn and misplaced. No one has ignored the threat to the United States. And, certainly, Rumsfeld hasn't been ignored. He led an invasion of a country that actually wasn't a sponsor of terrorism. The invasion's gone very poorly. It's been this administration's contention that it remains the centerpiece of the war on terror.
And what America is increasingly understanding is that the problem of Iraq is not a problem of the war on terror. It's a problem of the Bush administration's own making.
CAVUTO: All right, still, we don't know, unequivocally, whether Iraq was sponsoring terror. That's a whole 'nother point. But let me ask you about what --
CLARK: Well, we do know, Neil, that it had nothing to do with 9-11, and that they may have used terrorism as a method, but they weren't part of the gang of terrorists that Donald Rumsfeld wants us to attack, and that all Americans want to get rid of.
CAVUTO: Well, let's ask to the bigger point, because we could argue that one for a while. But, on this issue that Mr. Rumsfeld raised, General, that we -- can we truly afford a return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, is the real source of the world's troubles?
CLARK: I don't think anybody has suggested that we have that view.
CAVUTO: You don't think there -- there -- there are those in the Democratic Party --
CLARK: Absolutely not.
CAVUTO: -- who blame the United States for the evil that's been heaped upon it?
CLARK: Absolutely not. I -- that -- that's -- that's absolutely nothing but partisan attack. Look, the United States is the bastion of democracy and freedom. And every Democrat knows that. But the invasion of Iraq was a war we didn't have to fight. This administration took us to Iraq. They took us to Iraq without a real reason for doing so, under some grandiose plan to transform the Middle East and make it all democratic.
[...]
CAVUTO: Do you think, then, that, by -- by the constant pounding against the war, the constant pounding of the president, saying that he's an unfit commander in chief, that he hasn't done his job, what message does this send to our troops? And you, of course, a former esteemed general -- what message do you think that sends, when the commander in chief is bludgeoned constantly?
CLARK: I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that the commander in chief went to war, partly for political purposes. He's used the war for political purposes. And I object to anyone using our men and women in -- in uniform for political purposes.
CAVUTO: What political gain -- General, what political gain has this president gotten out of this war?
CLARK: He has gotten control of the Congress in 2002. He won the 2004 election over it. And now he's in a hole in 2006. And, so, once again, he's calling anybody who disagrees with him on his foreign policy and his attack on Iraq as someone who's soft on terror. That's not the case. Democrats are really --
CAVUTO: No, no. He's not equating --
CLARK: Democrats are really strong on -- on winning against terrorism.
CAVUTO: No, no, no. The best I can remember General he wasn't, no, no no no. General, you're a smart man. He's not equating Iraq in that sense. He's talking about the war on terror. Is it possible that your party, the reason why it keeps goofing up at the polls, is because it can't distinguish between the two?
CLARK: No. I think that my party has distinguished between the two.
When hasn't he? This is the President's and his administration's -- well, almost all Republican's -- mantra. If it is not then he and all Republicans should be impeached, resign, or tossed out of office, period. Because if it wasn't then they betrayed and then lied about betraying this country by abandoning the hunt for those that planned 9-11.
You're right, Bush equates the War on Terror with the War in Iraq every time he is questioned about Iraq. I just saw an interview with Brian Williams about two days ago where Bush did it.
[link to movies.crooksandliars.com]
Why does General Clark work for this network and subject himself to this type of debate with people who have an agenda to support and propaganize the Bush Admin?
but I'm glad he does. He made Cavuto look like a blithering idiot.
rehash KO. But since Cavuto drug Rummy into this. I think he said it best.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
My take is that people on the right have become so blinded by ideology and the notion that they must save the country from evil liberals, a notion perpetuated by FOX and others, that they turn a blind eye to any inconsistencies whatsoever among their leaders and mouthpieces. "So what if Bush said one thing and then other?" they think, "He's fighting for a greater good... saving us from terrorists and the liberal appeasers who want to take down America." The right wing, unfortunately, has been extremely effective in imbedding this message in the minds of it many adherents. It's almost like a huge cult that ignores, rationalizes and justifies the wackiness of its leader... a wackiness that is obvious to everyone but them.
CAVUTO: All right, still, we don't know, unequivocally, whether Iraq was sponsoring terror.
Neil, we don't know, unequivocally, whether YOU are sponsoring terror. Duck and cover, buddy.
...to weather the storm of talking points foisted by Cavuto. I hope Cavuto gets paid well for this... what a mindless putz.
Straight out of Rummy's most recent speech. Fred Kaplan gave it the run-down here:
[link to www.slate.com]
Personally, would have titled the piece "The four strawmen of the apocalypse". But no complaints with the content.
We don't blame America first. We blame America's leaders first.
Rumsfeld would have been fired in any other job with the kind of performance he's shown. He should be the first to go. He knew the best way to invade was with fewer troops and now it's come back to bite us all.
These people promised accountability if they were elected. They've shown us nothing but cronyism and incompetence.
I blame republicans 1st. You know, the bleating sheep with missing teeth that blindly and obediently do whatever their master tells them to do.
You hear this all the time from right wingers... about how liberals blame America first for everything. Whether spoken or implied the corollary is that liberals are anti-American... the enemy. What the right wingers fail to grasp is that what liberals want most is a country they can be proud of... one that practices the lofty ideals upon which is was founded. I can't think of anything more patriotic and honorable than that.
This Troglodyte talking point is wearing thin. It's like saying that if you point out something your child has done wrong, you hate your child. Only the simple-minded can honestly believe this nonsense.
Cavuto can't be this stupid. Therefore, he's obviously a paid liar.
Notice how the right-wing pundits attack liberals for "blaming America first", then in the next breathe, they blame 9/11 on President Clinton, blame the USS Cole bombing on Clinton, blame the bombings in Saudi Arabia of the Khobar Towers on Clinton, blame Clinton for the first WTC bombing which happened about a month into his Presidency, blame him for the embassy bombings in Africa, etc., etc.
When Republicans spew the "blame America first" sound bite, they really mean stop blaming REPUBLICANS. Blame Clinton, liberals, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the Democrats all you want, just leave the Republicans out of it.
The Children in Red still won't fess up to the fact that the country is in such a dire, untenable position because of their hollow, backwards, morally bankrupt policies and Exxon Valdes-esque negligence. No thanks to the media’s codependent behavior, the Republicans continue to dwell in the fantasy world of conservation make-believe where all the problems are from (see the above list) and everything good and right and noble in America is their doing.
I once worked for a boss like this. Blamed me for every mistake and took all the credit. So I quit. Time for America to escape the yoke of the REAL Red Menace and quit the Republican Party.
Republicans sincerely believe that the definition of "American" is "Republican." Therefore, by their own definition, if you are "anti-Republican" then you must be "anti-American."
Here's the Cliff's Notes version of it: Republican = American Everbody else = anti-American
He's an extremely intelligent and tough Democrat who has an outstanding military record. I'm sure the Fox News execs are rethinking their decision and batted down all of cavuto's talking points without even trying.
This article provides a perfect example of what Duhhbya, his puppet masters and the Rovian Ministry of Propaganda are really good at: creating a message and then denying they ever said what the message was intended to convey.
George just told NBC: "I never said Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks."
Well, DUHHH! Nobody of note (except Duhhbya and or one of his cronies) has ever said that.
It's easy to be indignant about accusations that nobody's made.
It's a bit tougher to address the truth.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
Red Herring anyone?
Speaking of GOOFING UP, how about the whole REPUBLICAN PARTY backing Bush and Cheney and Rove, etc.?
Clark and the Democrats are incorrectly letting the neocons define are military action as a War on Terror. That is like saying we are in a War on Killing. What does that mean? Nothing, and the neocons like that because it means an indefinite military conflict against an undefined enemy (basically, the neocons can do what they want). The Democrats are beating themselves against the head as long as they let neocons define the debate.
I and others have previously noted the stupidity of this phrase. Unfortunately, you are correct. Even the Democrats refer to the "War on Terror", thus conceding this point to the Republican propagandists.
If it's a war on anything, it's a war against Terrorists. But, even that is too open-ended; there will always be terrorists, so Puddinhead George gets to play "War President" and ignore the Constitution as long as he can get away with it.
Got any names, Neil?
I hate this more than anything. Not just from Neil, but from any lazy journalist.
"Is it possible that your party, the reason why it keeps goofing up at the polls, is because it can't distinguish between the two?"
Apparently the party that says Iraq is the central front against terror is able to distinguish the war on terror from the war in Iraq. And the party that says Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror can't distinguish them.
Apparently when John Kerry said "Saddam didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us," he fell in the polls because he couldn't distinguish Iraq from terrorism. So says Cavuto.
This administration has been trying to equate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from day 1. Originally, Soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan received the same medal, The Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. It wasn’t until Soldiers from both conflicts began complaining to their legislators about not receiving separate ribbons for each campaign (which had previously been the standard of the military) did Congress create separate awards for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The leaders of our nation and their minions love to drag people through the mud if they've earned medals in defense of our country. If things continue as they are, we will ignore our returning Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans and then laugh at and question their medals, just like the republicans did to Vietnam Veterans in 2004 .
I'm sure if we nominated a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor as a candidate, there would be stories out the next day trashing him, his service, and his entitlement to the CMH.
That's just how they are. Nothing is sacred to them. Their rabid desire to win far exceeds any level of respect that a person might deserve. They are simply vicious and ruthless.