Echoing GOP talking point, MSNBC's Morales claimed many would call Kucinich's Iraq plan "retreat and defeat"
On the February 13 edition of MSNBC Live, during an interview with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) about his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, host Natalie Morales told Kucinich: "[M]any would say that what you're calling for is the policy of retreat and defeat." "Retreat and defeat" is a well-documented GOP talking point, often used by the Republican National Committee (RNC) to attack Democratic plans that call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. On December 9, 2005, the RNC released an Internet ad titled "Retreat and Defeat," which attacked Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for statements they had made about the Iraq war.
From the noon ET hour of MSNBC Live on February 13:
MORALES: Yeah. And let's go through some of your plan right now, because you do lay out the specifics. And as you said, you first say that the U.S. should end its occupation, close military bases, and withdraw, and you believe that that will then help to dampen the insurgency. But many would say that what you're calling for is the policy of retreat and defeat. How do you respond?
KUCINICH: Well, the war can't be won militarily. Everyone knows that our soldiers are trapped in an untenable situation. If we support the troops, let's use resources we have now to bring them home. And we can do that creating a parallel process of building an international peacekeeping force. We will not get help doing that until we say we're going to end the occupation and close the bases. So the 12-point plan that I've laid out is the next step. It takes us in the right direction of a Congress assuming its full authority. Because Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and Congress does have the power to end this war.
where do cnn, fox, msnbc, etc. come up with these vapid bubbleheads? this is serving the public interest? i think not.
that would be male and female bubbleheads, to be clear.
You are correct.
here's why we hear this type of question. senator mel martinez of florida and head of the republican national committee, on the senate floor: "we are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us on 9-11".
Man, I reeaally wish I knew why there was such steadfast allegiance to this 'administration' and their nonsense... I mean, really! Is it money? Must be. This so-called news is propaganda, plain and simple. No one supports this 'stay-the-course' rhetoric except diehard idiots and the money-makers.
12 Point Plan
His 12 point plan is the best solution offered.
And watch as the DLC-dominated, AIPAC-enslaved rest of the Dem Party refuses to endorse Kucinich's common sense plan. Israel wants US troops in Iraq forever and the Party obeys.
I still think Kucinich and the rest of the 1/3rd of the Dems who are even close to being liberal should all switch to the Green Party and leave the other 2/3rds of the Dems become the Republicans they really are.
Not a bad idea. I think the two-party system is largely obsolete anyway, what with all the different opinions within each party. Many politicians in borth parties simply have nothing but the (letter) in common with what the majority of members, leadership and voters in their party believe.
It was George Washington who warned us of the evils of putting party power over national interests. In my opinion, we should go back to the set-up in the Articles, where the people at the federal level were representatives of their State governments and subject to control from the State capitals, and not able to lord it over their States, like many Senators do today. It would put a bit more accountability into the system.
It looks like Natalie Morales is lacking in journalistic Morales.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
njguy, do you have something that auto-generates that signature, or do you type it out every time?
I have wondered the same thing.
I think it's automatic. A while back, NJguy got into it with another poster who started using "Thank You" at the end of his posts. It was pretty cool, they were both being polite, but ready to brawl about it.
I will continue to close, as always
F*CK YOU, HuntingtonBeach Lefty
Thanks!!!
My closing wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I just thought we needed a Goofus to NJGuys Gallant.
Thanks for inquiring. It's actually NOT automatic. I take the trouble to type it EVERY SINGLE TIME--that and the e-mail address. I've been using it at the end of posts since at least early 2003, maybe before. One of the original times was on a YAHOO message board, and it was just before the Iraq War, and we were discussing it there. In fact, I think it was literally 4 years ago some time this week. I actually typed "TNAK YOU" by accident one of the first times, and someone mocked that in a reply post. From then on, I took extra pains just to make sure I typed THANK YOU correctly. My post four years ago was titled "IS IRAN NEXT?" This was just before the Iraq War, and I had a feeling that Iraq was the not the only thing on the neo-conservative agenda. Unfortunately, it looks like I am right. Just now with the new format, when you space, it goes double spaced and I didn't realize it, so I actually had the e-mail address maybe four spaces down. On the original format of the Media Matters message boards, I used to press ENTER and type my e-mail address directly underneath THANK YOU, but it would always end up next to THANK YOU when my message was posted. Some of the original posters or posters who have been here a while might remember that. I actually do get e-mails once in a while believe it or not, and I strongly encourage anyone and everyone to send e-mails to me. HuntingtonBeachLefty, thanks for remembering that exchange. That person apparently followed my advice, since I haven't seen it used again by anyone else. I remember your reply to that talking about your signature. I always wondered if people noticed that. Apparently they do, and I am glad. It took four years and several message boards, but finally someone asked about it. Thanks to Valentinian and the others and to anyone else who noticed it or wondered about it. This is the end of the post. You know what's next.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
At this stage we have to decide whether we prefer "retreat & defeat" or should we continue our "lie & die" strategy.
I don't care what the talking heads call it. We should bring our troops home, as soon as possible.
The American people made themselves clear in the last election. It is time to put an end to this illegal,immoral and futile war. No more non binding resolutions. It is time to cut the funding and force Bush to bring our troops home. We cannot allow him the funds which he may use to attack Iran.
Dennis has the best plan to bring the troops home,and heal the situation that our invasion has provoked. Please read his 12 point plan,print up a copy and pass it around.
http://dk2008.us/endthewar
We owe it to the Iraqis and our own troops to support peace!
It's not retreat and defeat, it's defeat and retreat. The defeat happened some time ago. We're still waiting on the retreat.
If anyone has a better plan than "defeat and retreat", they can name it, but it must start with the words "defeat and", because that's where we are.
We were defeated as soon as Bush made his stupid "Mission Accomplished" speech.
I think we, as a nation and superpower, got beat the minute we got suckered into a BS Holy War on the ground halfway across the world.
We weren't defeated by "the enemy" or "the terrorists" or "islamofascists", but by our fellow Americans who vote scared, and our invertebrate politicians, in both parties, who cater to the scared and uninformed, and cover their own arses and protect their own interests.
I agree with all of the above except that we're still losing. Every day we lose a little more. All the talk about winning the war makes me ill. "There's no winner in a game of losers." The closest thing there is to a winner is the one that loses the least.
What I don't get is why the slogan "retreat & defeat" caught on with the MSM and the slogan "lie & die" did not. Both slogans equally denigrate the opposition.
Is "lie and die" not popular because you can't use war related slogans that refer to our soldiers being killed? What, soldiers don't get killed when you decide to go to war? Because it infers Bush lied? What, inferring that democrats are cowards is better?
It bugs me that RNC slogans are much more easily picked up and internalized by the MSM.
Even more than the parroting of the inane "retreat and defeat," rhetoric, I'm annoyed by the use of "some say" when discussing the matter with someone as substantive as Kucinich on this matter. Are there two more weasley words in the English language? Of course you can't blame Morales for it, since it's almost ubiquitous now.
Yeah, if I was interviewed and the reporter said "Some say..."I would just say "Who says that? Give me an example, or a name." and refuse to dignify it with an answer if they didn't have a specific quote from someone actually saying that - other than themselves.
What is wrong with the media throwing the kitchen sink at politicians, directly to their face? Asking them direct questions, talking points or not, is their job. Not to dance around an issue and treat them with kid gloves and ask nicey nice, softball questions where all they can do is regurgitate their own rhetoric. I admire Kucinich because he is principled and honest - let him answer. There is no misinformation here, only a pointed question with full opportunity for the Congressman to answer directly.
Yeah, I've heard that before. As I said then you would have a point if LEFTWING talking points were phrased as questions and asked on national TV to conservatives. IF these same pundits had asked Bush, some say that you lied and our soldiers died what would you say to them? Then I would agree. That never seems to happen, so it IS a form of misinformation. It is framing the debate by pushing it right. The most outrageous rightwing propaganda is just a pointed question when anything comparable from the left is deemed off the reservation. This tilts the whole discussion rightward
It never happens to get mention here from the other side, but believe me that is hardly any proof of anything. I have no problem with any politician being uncomfortable with any question being asked of him or her. If they can't answer an interviewer directly, how well equipped are they to deal with important matters that come up everyday in their elected position?
Let me clear this up for you. It muddies the debate from clear and rational thinking to base right-wing talking points and spin.
By the way, "some say" you haven't stopped beating your wife.
If Kucinich isn't up to the task of refuting obvious "talking points" from a lame interviewer, then I would have no confidence in his handling anymore than the Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn if he became president.
You missed the point again - on cable news, they only give you a few minutes to argue your policy points. It serves no purpose to spend that time deflecting propaganda and right-wing smears.
By the way, "some say" that you were a former Nazi prison camp guard. How do you respond?
"Your question is a regurgitation of a right wing talking point with no substance, please ask another question and I will be happy to answer".......let's see, that took like what, 2 seconds? Your coddling and fuzzy warmup questions directed at your politicians is cute, but I prefer they defend their positions vigorously and forthrightly.
As for your ridiculous analogy, I would answer that it is ridiculous, no sweat.
YOU are purposely missing the point it is still served up as if it were reasoned discussion to the viewers, while NOTHING similar from the left would be tolerated IF it went both ways FINE but since it doesnt the public only sees RIGHTWING propaganda as reasonable and internalizes it that way. Its subtle and insidous but its effective
It never gets mentioned here AND it never happens. If any reporter dared ask Bush such a question it would be news for a week with Hannity and O'falafel having apoplectic fits. Remember the brouhaha when Helen Thomas just asked Bush a pointed but REAL question? Not a framed leftwing propaganda question like my example just a hard one, or when Gregory asked Snow the PRESS SECRETARY a tough question about the report by Bakers group? If ANYONE had the temerity to do what I suggested the rightwing would have a collective snit that would increase Global Warming from all the hot air. It doesnt matter if YOU wouldnt mind. The fact is IT WONT HAPPEN from the left ONLY from the right and THAT skews the dialogue to the right. The way the media plays it the public sees the most neandrathal rightwing propaganda served up as reasonable dialogue and even tough questions NOT even in the ballpark of leftwing propaganda fringe rantings. Yeah its a form of misinformation
Thanks for inquiring. It's actually NOT automatic. I take the trouble to type it EVERY SINGLE TIME--that and the e-mail address. I've been using it at the end of posts since at least early 2003, maybe before. One of the original times was on a YAHOO message board, and it was just before the Iraq War, and we were discussing it there. In fact, I think it was literally 4 years ago some time this week. I actually typed "TNAK YOU" by accident one of the first times, and someone mocked that in a reply post. From then on, I took extra pains just to make sure I typed THANK YOU correctly. My post four years ago was titled "IS IRAN NEXT?" This was just before the Iraq War, and I had a feeling that Iraq was the not the only thing on the neo-conservative agenda. Unfortunately, it looks like I am right. Just now with the new format, when you space, it goes double spaced and I didn't realize it, so I actually had the e-mail address maybe four spaces down. On the original format of the Media Matters message boards, I used to press ENTER and type my e-mail address directly underneath THANK YOU, but it would always end up next to THANK YOU when my message was posted. Some of the original posters or posters who have been here a while might remember that. I actually do get e-mails once in a while believe it or not, and I strongly encourage anyone and everyone to send e-mails to me. HuntingtonBeachLefty, thanks for remembering that exchange. That person apparently followed my advice, since I haven't seen it used again by anyone else. I remember your reply to that talking about your signature. I always wondered if people noticed that. Apparently they do, and I am glad. It took four years and several message boards, but finally someone asked about it. Thanks to Valentinian and the others and to anyone else who noticed it or wondered about it. This is the end of the post. You know what's next.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I understand the urge to endlessly disparage Ms. Morales, but take a pause for a moment to give Mr. Kucinich credit where it was due. Did he stumble, fumble, stammer, and punt? No, he did not! Did he try to address the non sequitur that was tossed his way by the "many" whom Ms. Morales was channeling? No indeed!
He scored. He shut down the opposition and scored. He scored for the home team. He scored for the home team by speaking truth. He spoke truth to power.
This is a man who would be of great benefit to our nation if he were elected President.
I couldn't imagine a more accurate description of the plan.
Even so it is better than Bush's lets get as many Americans killed as possible plan.