O'Donnell misrepresented Democrats on Iraq withdrawal, falsely claimed no experts support them
On the November 26 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell misrepresented a Democratic proposal for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq as "essentially a pullout in four to six months." In fact, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced the proposal in June 2006 and called for a phased redeployment to begin by the end of the year, or approximately six months from that time. O'Donnell further asserted that Democrats will "wind up -- even though they were validated somewhat in the message by these elections ... looking weak on national security because ... [t]here is not one military or foreign-policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that, and second, that would be a good idea." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, numerous military and foreign-policy experts support a phased withdrawal, to begin immediately or within a time frame consistent with the Levin-Reed proposal.
Host Chris Matthews also asked his guest panel whether Democrats would "be strategic and defensive and hide behind ... that tank coming down the line," referring to the forthcoming report of the Iraq Study Group. In response, O'Donnell predicted Democrats would "stand and hide behind the report," and Time reporter Michael Duffy, NPR All Things Considered host Michele Norris and New York Times staff writer Patrick Healy all agreed.
Daily Kos blogger georgia10 flagged O'Donnell's comments in a November 26 post, and in response noted examples of military officials' support for the Democratic call to begin a phased withdrawal previously cited by Media Matters. The weblog Crooks and Liars also posted video of O'Donnell's comments.
From the November 26 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, syndicated by NBC:
O'DONNELL: The problem for the Democrats once again is that they wind up -- even though they were validated somewhat in the message by these elections -- they wind up looking weak on national security because what they're proposing is essentially a pullout in four to six months. There is not one military or foreign-policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that, and second, that would be a good idea. So why are they proposing that? And they're gonna put it forward, and they're gonna create a vote probably on the floor. And then there aren't -- even though they want to push that, they won't put the muscle behind it by saying, "We'll cut funds" behind it. So it's -- anyway it's an empty proposal.
MATTHEWS: But the other way to look at it is -- the other way to look at it is, what can we do in that country, the next six months, the next year, the next two years, is probably the limit -- out limit of how far we're going to stay there -- that'll justify the loss of life between now and then. Positively, you have to justify the war. Looking forward, you can't just say, "How quickly we can get out?"
O'DONNELL: One of the things the Democrats are going to use is use their majority for oversight. And one of the things they could do that would be helpful is look at why hasn't the training of Iraqi security forces worked. We've been working on it for three years. They can help solve that problem.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you --
NORRIS: That doesn't help them. They need to look forward, though, because if they spend all their time and all their power and oversight looking in the rearview mirror, that won't help them going into '08.
MATTHEWS: OK, how many think -- I'll go right through the list here -- think the Democrats will be strategic and defensive and hide behind the [former Secretary of State James A.] Baker [III] report -- the Baker-Hamilton report -- and simply [say], "Those are good ideas," and hide behind that tank coming down the line?
O'DONNELL: Well, it depends on what the results of that are, but I think that they'll stand and hide behind the report.
DUFFY: Totally hide behind it.
NORRIS: I think it gives them cover.
HEALY: Yeah, pivot off it.
From a moral standpoint, does this woman believe she has any obligation to present FACTUAL INFORMATION to the American people? Or does she think her OPINIONS (and what, again, is her background?) are so important, that she needs to invent support (or non-support) in order to bolster what she says?
It has become so common in the rightwing "media" to back up one's own opinion with "everybody says", or "nobody thinks" ... without ANY documentation, proof, or backup of any kind ... that it now seems natural.
I don't know where this O'Donnell woman came from, or why anyone would give her a forum to be heard by the American public, but this ONE example tells me she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Anything escaping her lips is suspect and probably WRONG. To rely on her words is utter folly.
MOST telling is that of the five people in that segment of the show, NOBODY saw fit to correct her, and tell her "That's just NOT TRUE."
The worst pitfall of television is the inherent laziness in the medium. Someone else does the thinking for you, so the brain naturally atrophies, which is why people are so easily lulled into believing that because a person is on TV they must be an expert in whatever he or she is pontificating on. Point of fact: last year, I knew more about the NHL’s new rules than most NHL play-by-play and color analysts did. My preparation? I read a small section from the Chicago Tribune listing the rule changes. It took about 5 minutes to absorb. So when I heard the San Jose Sharks TV tandem go on and on about how a play where the puck was hoisted clean over the glass from center ice should have yielded a penalty, I was compelled to castigate the screen for their utter lack of basic knowledge (for the record, it’s a penalty to hoist the puck clean over the glass only in the DEFENSIVE zone…not that anyone from the lower 48 cares). Then I heard Darren Pang (Phoenix Coyotes color analyst) make the same mistake followed by more screaming from me. Then it happened during Hockey Night in Canada. I was incensed. Not even Canada, where hockey is a way of life, bothered to brush up on the rules. I wonder how many hockey fans hover in a fog of ignorance because these so-called “experts” refused to digest the rule changes.
So in the name of improving the quality of human life, I submit that all broadcasts, especially “news” shows, should include the following disclaimer at the bottom:
Don’t believe everything these people say; most of them don’t know what they are talking about; sort the facts for yourself; you have been warned; now go read a book or play ice hockey in your backyard.
That last part is just for Canada. Don’t try and play ice hockey in your backyard in San Jose. Not only is ice a problem, it’s too warm for all that goalie equipment. And you can’t keep the pucks frozen.
How you will stand here and tear her apart but will refuse to do the same to Rosie 'O Donnel. How is what she did any different. She falsly claims that Chrisatian Fundamentalist are just as dangerous as Muslim Extemist. Despite the fact that Christian Fundamentalist have not caused death over 3000 Americans and almost 3000 soldiers.
and was presented as such. Nora pretends she's a journalist who know's what she's talking about when she obviously doesnt. And incidentally x-tian fundamentalism can be just as dangerous as islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in general is dangerous to freedom and individual liberty. Let's look at how much the two have in common. Both hate gays, both hate women, both want their religion taught in public schools, both want to legislate their brand of morality. X-tians aren't as violent perhaps. But that will change if they don't get their way. Some of them condone violence in the name of the lord. Open your eyes before you too are brain washed.
I've decided that GE has based some or all of Noron's salary on the number of strawmen she can produce in a week.
And, like most bullschit artists, she can be so convincing (to some) that what she just pulled out of her ass is indeed fact.
O'DONNELL: The problem for the Democrats once again is ...they wind up looking weak on national security because what they're proposing is essentially a pullout in four to six months. There is not one military or foreign-policy expert who thinks you could ...do that, and [that it]...would be a good idea. So why are they proposing that?
The issue of redeploying U.S. Troops from Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, a matter of National Security...
...no more than has been the invasion and occupation of Iraq ever been a matter of National Security.
And the reason that the American People turned out the Republican majority from Congress, and are so disapproving of the administration, is because they overwhelming know that simple fact:
That the invasion and occupation of Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the National Security of the U.S., and therefore the redeployment of U.S. Troop from that place also has nothing to do with the National Security of the U.S.
O'DONNELL: ...the Democrats once again ...wind up looking weak on national security because what they're proposing...
The "media" hack who says that simply demonstrates that she is ignorant of what the American People know.
O'DONNELL: So why are they proposing that?
Again, were this hack not so ignorant, she would know the answer to the question is:
Because U.S. Troops in Iraq are not serving the National Security interests of the U.S. (and the American People) in any way whatsoever.
"The issue of redeploying U.S. Troops from Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, a matter of National Security."
What a great point, and so refreshing after listening to so-called "Norah" O'Donnell's babbling.
I do think that if the US armed forces stay in Iraq until, say, the end of Bush's term, the manifest decay in readiness and the stretching of resources could be viewed as a national security issue. Put another way, the civil war in Iraq is destroying our ability to defend our interests elsewhere.
The professional liars like Rush Limbaugh keep pimping the fable that staying in Iraq somehow makes the United States safer. I have yet to hear anyone explain how this works.
Falsely claimed O'Donnels middle name?
( Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Rove ) that seem to stuck in the assertion that Iraq is not evolving into a civil war, with absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. The Iraquis have no Air Force, no Navy, No Marine Corps, no Army, no Secret Service, no natural resources to create and maintain such, nothing to protect the oil fields we get no oil from ? I am not worried about the democratic leadership and their ability to control " Bush's Mismanaged War on Terrorism ". Message was loud and clear on Nov 7, 2006.
Most Americans support a timetable. Most Americans want us out soon. Most Iraqis want us out IMMEDIATELY.
6 states were surveyed in early November to find out if they supported an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, and 5 of those are shown to support this quick withdrawal.
in Michigan: Yes 49% No 42% Undecided 9% (Nov. 2-4)
in Wisconsin: Yes 64% No 24% (Nov. 2-4)
in Pennsylvania: Yes 47% No 38% Undecided 15% (Nov. 2-4)
in Georgia: Yes 41% No 46% Undecided 8% (Nov. 2-4)
in New Jersey: Yes 52% No 38% Undecided 10% (Nov. 2-4)
in Washington Yes 68% No 20% Undecided 12% (Nov. 2-4) Undecided 13%
[link to www.strategicvision.biz]
When you selectively poll America-hating defeatocrats, rather than Americans.
They just said they can't win in Western Iraq.
Does that make them traitors who want to "cut and run"?
No, that just makes them a competent branch of the military, unlike the Bush/Cheney "heckofajob" chickenhawk, war for profit, evildoers.
Say what you want about Norah O'Donnell as a journalist - you can't deny that she is gorgeous! I look at her face and I don't even hear the words coming out of her mouth. Of course, I must admit, I can't stand that hideous laugh of hers. But, I do enjoy looking at her.
Plato
More proof that Americans are becoming stupider and more opinionated.
Wow!!...what flavor kool-aid are they drinking over there at FAKEnews??....must have an extra flavor ingredient now that the Dems are back in the saddle.
Norah(and Wallace) must be doing backflips or something for her(their) superiors to bring the public this kind of misinformed drool.
If I want to see a pretty face without an intelligent thing to say, I'll buy a copy of Playboy Magazine. At least they have interesting articles to see, I mean read!