MSNBC's O'Donnell "challenge[d]" guest on appeasing terrorists by asking if leaving Iraq would "essentially hand a victory to the terrorists"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Norah O'Donnell purported to "challenge" Ron Reagan's criticism of Donald Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq war critics to Nazi-era "appeasers," asking, "[W]ould [a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq] not essentially hand a victory to the terrorists?"
Setting out to "challenge" MSNBC political analyst Ron Reagan's criticism of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq war critics to Nazi-era "appeasers" on the September 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, guest host and MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell asked: "[W]ould [a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq] not essentially hand a victory to the terrorists?" Referring to Rumsfeld's recent Los Angeles Times op-ed criticizing Iraq war opponents, Reagan asserted that Rumsfeld "said that the people who don't believe in the war in Iraq are bent on appeasing the terrorists. Who exactly is bent on appeasing terrorists? I haven't heard anybody like that." O'Donnell replied, "Ron, let me challenge you on that, on the appeasing the terrorists," then asked, "Would not leaving Iraq and leaving the security challenge there, would that not essentially hand a victory to the terrorists?
Media Matters for America has previously documented (here, here, and here) numerous instances of O'Donnell echoing Republican talking points. The Hardball exchange raises the question of whether O'Donnell would ask a comparable question to an administration official or supporter of the administration's policies, a question such as: "Would not staying in Iraq, rather than focusing our attention on capturing Osama bin Laden, essentially hand a victory to the terrorists?"
From the September 1 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
O'DONNELL: Ron Reagan, you heard some of the strong rhetoric coming from the administration this week. Secretary Rumsfeld says that critics blame -- have a blame-America-first mentality, that, essentially, they are equivalent to Nazi-era appeasers and that the media is, in part, to blame. Your reaction to his comments?
REAGAN: Well, you know, I'll tell you, Secretary Rumsfeld wrote an op-ed in the L.A. Times today and it was a catalog of misperceptions and misdirection. He said, among other things, well, that the people who question the war on terror and the war in Iraq are -- that they don't believe the defense of liberty is worth the cost. He said that the people who don't believe in the war in Iraq are bent on appeasing the terrorists. Who exactly is bent on appeasing terrorists? I haven't heard anybody like that.
This is just political rhetoric and it's not going to work. The American public is leaving this boat in droves now and you see that in the polls. But, as Terry pointed out, it's really the only thing that the Bush administration, the Republicans, have right now, because they're really off the boat on everything else.
O'DONNELL: Well, Ron, let me challenge you on that.
REAGAN: OK, go ahead, Norah.
O'DONNELL: Ron, let me challenge you on that, on the appeasing the terrorists. Would not leaving Iraq and leaving the security challenge there, would that not essentially hand a victory to the terrorists?
REAGAN: No. Actually, about five to seven percent of the fighters in Iraq, by our own military's estimate, are actually foreign Jihadis. The vast bulk of the violence is being created by sectarian militias -- Sunni, Shia, a little bit of Kurds, too -- and that's what we're right in the middle of here. And that's what the public realizes. They have disassociated Iraq from the war on terror and quite rightfully so.
Do you think it is at all possible that Nora is a Republican who is looking for a job at Fox News? If so she is doing one hell of an audition and will fit right in with that Pravda of the Republican party network.
I saw this, and at the time I thought she gave a lot worse to the conservative T.H...
I love the logic behind her questions. Although the Republicans sought out this war, implemented it, and got it all wrong, it's the Democrats who will hand the terrorists a victory by leaving. The truth of the matter is the Republicans gave the terrorists a victory the moment they started this trumped-up, mismanaged and stategically flawed military intervention.
Why the Democrats aren't shouting this to the rafters is beyond me.
Here's the deal. If your drunk uncle drives a car off into the ditch, it may take you a while to figure out how to get the car out, but the first thing you do is take the keys away from him, and DON'T GIVE HIM ANOTHER CAR!
Puddinhead George drove our military into a ditch. Take the keys away from the idiot!
How dare you create an analogy that undermines the legitimacy of anything King -er - President Bush does! the only valid analogies involve Islamofascits being like Hitler because . . . . um, well, because they kill people and hate freedom. So what if they aren't a sovereign state like Nazi germany? So what if they aren't "technically" fascits? So what if they didn't actually invade and conquer a sovereign country? So what if they haven't put anyone in concentration camps? So what if we did those things and they didn't? We're America. We're the good guys. By definition. So, people we don't like, they must be bad. And so are you.
Sorry, gotta go. Rush is about to tell me how to explain why stereotyping and marginalizing people I don't understand is OK aslong asI complain about the PC-Police.
dittodittodittodittodittodittoditto
Democrats aren't opposing the Bush war crimes....they're supporting them!!! Just follow the votes in both houses.They're not against the war crimes so they never speak out against them. And they let the fascist press sell them as "liberals" and "progressives" to the masses, even though they're just as fascist. That's why they stay silent on all this.
Why doesn't she just say how much in *LOVE* she is with the Coward-In-Chief?
What the matter MMFA --- Can't stand a tough question?
Ron Reagan Jr. swung and missed. Why didn't he answer honestly? He doesn't care if we hand a victory over to the terrorists, as long as we are out of there. If that's his strategy then he shouldn't lie about it.
Your entire argumen -- in the make believe world you have grown to love courtesy of Bush, Inc (R) -- boils down to how we fair in Iraq. I'm here to tell you that Iraq has nothing to do with the so-called 'war on terror' (C)... It never did.
Oh and by the way... there is no 'winning' in Iraq. In case you were wondering. Better yet, why don't YOU tell us what winning means? Better, better yet... why don't you tell us how that's going to happen? Better, better, better yet please sign up and help your favorite cause. We need to win, damn it!!!
---"[Reagan] doesn't care if we hand a victory over to the terrorists"---"
News for you: a victory was handed to the terrorists on the day the incompetent George W. Bush launched his misbegotten invasion of Iraq.
Leatherhelmet, by answering the question honestly do you mean you expect him to say that he is an appeaser to the terrorists? What's more logical here; liberals like RR Jr. and others opposed to the war in Iraq actually believe it's a mistake and is having the opposite effects or they just hate America? I know you like to villify and demonize those you disagree with versus actually considering a legitimate point of view. Simpleton.
Ron Reagan did a fine job answering that silly question.
I do wonder, if the Republican media elite and the cowards that run this nation had any skin in the game, any loved one's actually serving, how long ago would we have been OUT of Iraq
Of course, the GOP chicken hawk brigades/America Haters don't have anything at risk -- they don't even want to pay for the war, putting it on "American Express" for future generations.
Well, all that's alomst a moot point: Coward Bush #2's incompetence cost us any possible victory and now it's time for the adults to, once again, to solve kooky Bush's problems: Vote Democratic, America!
I heard a commentator on the radio, I forget who, making an excellent point. When Puddinhead George and his fellow criminals compare their "War on Turr" to WWII, they forget one glaring discrepency...the United States was totally mobilized for that war, and billionaires weren't getting tax cuts.
If Puddinhead were really serious about the urgency and gravity of his war, the first thing he'd do is ask his Country Club buddies to pony up and help pay for it.
But he won't, because he's not, and it's all BULLSH*T.
If he and his fellow criminals really thought we were so threatened, he'd initiate a draft. But he won't, because that would sink the Republican stranglehold on government for sure. Staying in power is all these bastards care about; all their noble posturing and hand-wringing over morality and national security is just political theater.
They are scum.
argument is that since many soldiers have died in Iraq, their deaths have to be legitimized by more deaths. Using this argument, we can never leave. And there you have the administration's true intent--to perpetually populate the permanent bases they have constructed in Iraq using taxpayer and borrowed dollars.
Despite US media reports, Iraq is in full-blown civil war. The extent of the carnage is not censored in foreign media. US troops want out of the quagmire. This neocon administration has no vision beyond aiding and abetting war profiteers.
MSNBC's O'Donnell "challenge[d]" guest on appeasing terrorists by asking if leaving Iraq would "essentially hand a victory to the terrorists" //
No; that would be the Bush Administration, and their notorious Operation Iraqi Liberation, O.I.L. .
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"It's gonna take more than the 33 percenter, ignorant white trash vote"
Well, those "ignorant white trash people", the ones you love to hate and denigrate (much like the right does with inner-city blacks), are disenfranchised too in this country. They may or may not realize it, but this administration doesn't care much about them either. We need to make those people see that and come to our side. Spitting on them only makes them stay on their side of the fence where they get screwed.
So what if leaving Iraq appeases the terrorists? Does anyone think that clashing with them is working? All we're doing is shaking the hornet's nest by occupy Iraq. Terrorism of this kind needs to be fought not by war, but through law enforcement, and fundamentally, by taking a good, hard look at our foreign policy and by combating poverty which is where religious extremism takes root.
I think the powers-that-be know this. They want perpetual war to keep the populace fearful and servile and to line their own pockets.
The party of the New Deal, and the Great Society, and that saved America's Democracy from the last Laise Faire Economics/Politics (The Great Depression) is suppose to be the party of the common man, the protecter of the weak, and helpless.
We should not wait for another Great Depression to come to terms with the truth of our original roots, the exodus west from the Great Dust Bowl.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Nora's husband is actually a Republican lobbyist. Google her and look it up. Surprise, surprise.
I take that back - Nora's husband, Geoff Tracy, is a chef (albeit with Republican ties, although according to this article Bush has not yet kept his campaign promise to patronize his restaraunt):
[link to www.hillnews.com]
Nora is swine.
It appears that each and everyday these so-called media wannbe's go to their daily RNC talking points, and dish it out on their programs. However, the position of most Democrats is to redeploy, and not exit. What is even more troubling is the assertion that those who believe in a new and postive direction are being tared with the same"Nazi" brush. How soon we forget Rummy's pic with good old Saddam, or the US supporting the Nazi regime in South Africa, or the US cozying up with Pinochet, Strossner, Noreiga. Perhaps before shoving these air heads out into the public spotlight, the Media outlets (sounds like one of factory outlest store), should teach their mouthpieces to learn history and tell the truth. The US media is fast losing its war on being honest purveyors of the news.
to a country you've invaded?
Oh wait, we're not fighting a country.
How do you surrender to a tactic? By using that tactic? By participating in the implementation of that tactic on someone elses home field?Mission accomplished.
The minute a Superpower goes to war with an underdog that provokes them, that Superpower surrenders.
"The US media is fast losing its war on being honest purveyors of the news."
They lost that war a long time ago.
A question -
Can anyone think of any American institutions or branches of government that do not suck? I can't.
I think the one thing that you hear very little of when the word progress or "benchmark" comes up is the so called largest embassy in the world being built in Iraq. I caught a journalist on c-span one day talking about the progress that had been made there water,electricity,etc. And a caller asked with thjose things being off and on schedule how was the embassy going?
I'm quite sure he said that it seemed to be coming along. So if that is the case I guess that might be the turning point. comments welcome.