Matthews falsely suggested Clinton said she wants "permanent" U.S. base in Iraq
On the March 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, in response to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's assertion that, "I think we [the Democratic Party] do agree on a war policy. We believe we ought be out [of Iraq]," host Chris Matthews said, "[Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] does not say so. She wants to keep our troops in there permanently. And she said so this week. Permanent U.S. troops in Iraq." Matthews also said, "Hillary Clinton said this weekend that she wants a permanent base over there. ... She made a very clear statement this weekend we cannot take our troops out of Iraq."
Matthews appeared to be referring to the Iraq position Clinton outlined in a lengthy March 13 interview with The New York Times in which she explained that she would, according to a March 15 Times article on the interview, "keep a reduced military force there [in Iraq] to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military" as part of her troop-withdrawal plan. Clinton did not, in the Times interview or elsewhere, say she wanted to keep U.S. troops in Iraq "permanently" or that she supported a "permanent base" in Iraq. A Media Matters for America search of the Nexis database did not turn up any instances of Clinton stating support for "permanent" U.S. troops in Iraq (search string Hillary w/2 Clinton and permanent!).
The same day Matthews made his comments, Clinton released a statement on the Iraq war anniversary in which she expressed strong support for "bringing our troops home":
It is time to change the course in Iraq so that we can start bringing our troops home. I am fighting to cap the number of troops in Iraq in order to stop the President's escalation and have proposed a phased redeployment of our troops so we can begin bringing them home. I've introduced comprehensive legislation that, if followed, would provide a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope that George Bush ends this war. But make no mistake -- if he doesn't, as President, I will.
Clinton's position is consistent with the most recent Democratic Senate resolution on troop withdrawal, which, as The New York Times reported on March 16, "would have redefined the United States mission in Iraq and set a goal of withdrawing American combat troops by March 31, 2008, except for a 'limited number' focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and protecting American and allied personnel." Clinton voted for the binding resolution on March 15, which was defeated 48-50, largely along party lines. Clinton's own withdrawal proposal, which she introduced on February 16, provides for a "limited presence" of U.S. troops, without specifying number or duration, similar to the Senate resolution.
In an exchange with Dean later in the segment, Matthews falsely claimed that if Clinton voted for the Senate resolution, as Dean said he suspected she had, then, "she has offered a codicil ... And that is, she wants to keep the troops there."
As Media Matters previously documented, Clinton co-sponsored and was one of 38 Democrats who voted in favor of a resolution by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI), introduced on June 19, 2006, calling on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.
From the March 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: You hear people say nobody expected this war to be so long and bloody. Nobody expected the Iraqis to resist our occupation. Nobody expected the Sunni to fight the Shia. Nobody expected so much of the world to condemn us. But leaders are not supposed to be nobodies. They are supposed to know things. Let's play Hardball.
Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball. Four years ago, today, the Bush administration led the country into war with Iraq, based, it said, on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Now we know there was no mushroom cloud awaiting us, and the danger posed by Saddam Hussein was regional at worst.
Over 3,000 American servicemen and women have been killed. And today we stand a nation divided by this war. In a moment, one of the earliest critics of the war, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean.
Later, we'll get a live report on today's violence in Iraq and take a look at the battles Iraq veterans have to fight when they get home.
But first, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who ran against the Iraq war in his 2004 presidential race. He is now chairman of the DNC.
Governor Dean, thank you for joining us. Why can't the Democrats agree on a war policy?
DEAN: I think we do agree on a war policy. We believe we ought be out.
MATTHEWS: Hillary Clinton doesn't say so. She wants to keep our troops in there permanently. And she said so this week. Permanent U.S. troops in Iraq. And she is the frontrunner in your race for nomination.
DEAN: The Democratic plan to leave Iraq is something we have talked about for at least a year and a half, which is, we are going to bring home the National Guard and Reserves. Then, over a period of time, we are going to send some troops to Afghanistan, leave a permanent force in the Middle East, although not in Iraq. And then leave some small number of people there to train folks, all of whom will be out by the end of 2008.
Or, you know, depending -- it could be earlier depending on some other things. It is in the Senate bill. I think you have to -- I am not familiar with what Senator Clinton says, so I'm not going to reference that.
But in general, the Senate bill and the House bill, which are very close to each other, is what the policy of the Democratic Party is. And I agree with it. I think we need to be out of Iraq. We should never have gotten in. Now that we are in, we need to leave in an orderly, thoughtful way. And I think that is what the Democrats are trying to do. And I don't think this is a nation divided anymore, 70 percent of the American people agree with us, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Hillary Clinton doesn't. Hillary Clinton said this weekend that she wants a permanent base over there. She said it's important for various reasons, including support for Israel. She made a very clear statement this weekend we cannot take our troops out of Iraq. She also -- I mean, also I hear her talking like a hawk about Iran and our need to get ready to fight them. Are you sure you speak for the whole Democratic Party, including Hillary Clinton, on this issue?
DEAN: Well, I don't think anybody speaks for any of the presidential candidates except themselves. So I'm not going to respond to anything because I haven't heard those statements, haven't seen them. But I do believe that the Democrats -- the vast majority of Democrats support the bills that are in the House and the Senate. And I would be surprised if Senator Clinton didn't vote for those bills.
MATTHEWS: So I agree with you in terms of the numbers --
DEAN: Senator Clinton --
MATTHEWS: Clearly the Democratic Party, in every poll we get here at NBC and all of the other polls we see, supports leaving from Iraq, an end to this war. That is why I was taken aback by Hillary Clinton's strong statement of keeping our troops there permanently.
Let me move to the issue.
DEAN: Well, Chris, again, let me just say, I did not hear the statement, but I suspect that Senator Clinton voted for the Senate resolution last week which gets us out of Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Well, she has offered a codicil, Governor.
DEAN: OK.
MATTHEWS: And that is, she wants to keep the troops there.
DEAN: All right.
MATTHEWS: So she is doing her own political business while the Democratic Party is doing its.
MMFA has not included Hillary's entire statement. I heard her present it. She wants to keep a military force over there indefinitely, qualified by the position that we can't police the civil war, which she views as an unworkable goal. It is to have defined borders away from the hostilities. In my view, she obviously is looking at the overall strategy of having a replacement location for the ones we gave up in Saudi Arabia. Interestingly enough, that position was predicted only the day before at one of the web sites I peruse but I can't recall at the moment which one it was. Sorry.
Whups. Wrote too fast, they did provide that information from the times. Tell me what the common sense translation of that is if not an indefifinite military presence? If Bush called for that we would be claiming he wanted a permanent presence.
dude, if you can't even read the article before posting lies, why should we give a rat's butt what questions you (or rather your masters tell you to) ask?
This is a semantics disagreement at best, not some false suggestion. Mrs. Clinton says she favors a remaining military presence in Iraq - that's about as close to permanent as a politician will ever likely say.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed. MMFA is playing the semantics game. Of course Hillary isn't going to use the word "permanent". Iraq doesn't need a reduced US force, as Hillary puts it, in Iraq to protect it, because we can't do it with the force we have now.
Don't worry. Tweety'll fill in the blanks...
Hell, she used the words "Iraq" and "troops" didn't she? Seems that's all Chris needs to create another Hillary strawman.
I wonder if Tweety's camera operators get advance notice that he'll be talking about Hillary - you know, just so they'll have extra lens wipes on hand because of the increase in spittle volume.
It's kinda ironic that Tweety's got the slobber problem - after all, in the cartoons, all the spittle came from his constant tormentor: Sylvester.
I tawt I taw a tawking point.
I just don't believe in any permanent bases, as they're all temporary until the second coming, when I'll go to my permanent base in heaven.No, wait, the other place.
Sth-h-h-ufferin sth-h-h-uckatasth!
My gawd, he hatesth that bitsth, doesthn't he?
I guess MMFA sys it is not permanent because we will all be dead anyway in 30 years because of global warming.
I think Quetzalcoatl comes back in 2012. When he does he's going to be pissed. Or so the Mayans say.
No. I think Jeebus will return to Earth by then.
Hopefully to stop Quetzacoatl at the border.We don't need any stinkin Mexican gods getting in the way of our All-American JC.
The Senator from NY does well to propose keeping U.S. Troops in the gulf region, if not actually in Iraq... as Mr Murtha does, when he speaks of an over-the-horizon contingency of U.S. Forces, Mrs. Clinton demonstrates that she understands the continued threat we face from saudi arabia, as the world's chief sponsor of terror, and as the financiers and directors of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
A continued U.S. Troop presence in the region is not only necessary, but should be placed in as strategic a position as possible, to strike at and annihilate the murderous saudi "royal" family, should they be so bold as to terror-attack the U.S. again (...and why shouldn't they, having been emboldened I'm sure, by the clemency they've received for the attacks of 9-11, from their "good friend" and business partner, George W. Bush).
The operative word that Chris Matthews conveniently avoids, in this matter of U.S. Troops remaining in the region, is 'occupation'.
Does he believe Mrs. Clinton is advocating a continued occupation of Iraq by U.S. Troops?
She is not... no more than is Mr. Murtha.
The Senator from NY calls for a continued presence of U.S. Armed Forces in the region, not an occupation of Iraq... just as Mr. Murtha does.
She is well-advised on this matter, and understands the continued threat we face from saudi terror, as her words clearly indicate.
Again, the difference between what the Senator has said, and what Chris Matthews has implied, is made clear by referencing the matter in terms of an occupation of Iraq... which is so far from what the Senator is calling for, but what Chris, it seems, would have you believe.
Too bad. I personally believe the man to be better than such hackery as this, but then again, I have no idea just how much money he is paid to say the things he does...
...and I'd probably be staggered by the sum, were I to know it.
And of course, included in whatever non-occupation U.S. Armed Forces presence we maintain in the region, is whatever Naval and U.S. Marine presence we maintain, in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.
And were they to have all weapons pointed at saudi arabia, and at the murderous "royal" family that calls that place their hide-out... in anticipation of striking those murderers, should they strike the U.S. again...
...then I'd say more than good, I'd say lock-on to all targets and take the safeties off...
Because their "good friend" and business partner, George W. Bush, won't always be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, and they will certainly not receive clemecy again.
For once George W. Bush is gone from the White House, a saudi attack on the American People will be answered with JUSTICE: Swift, Merciless, and Bloody... as it should have been after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
So you prefer we blow up Saudi civilians instead of Iraqi ones? From semi-permanent bases in Kuwait and Qatar instead? Long live the Empire, eh?
I prefer JUSTICE for the attacks of September 11, 2001... which involves confronting those who financed and directed those attacks, and to use all force necessary to capture and/or kill all those who attacked America that day... which begins with properly identifying them.
They were saudis you know... you don't know that?
You're not aware that the Joint Congressional (Intelligence Committee) Inquiry identified the financial support and direction of the 9/11 attackers as the saudi "royal" family?
You know, the president's "good friends" and business partners, for whom he then suppressed the 28 page Findings of the JCI's Report?
That's the thing about JUSTICE: If you don't identify the guilty, then how can you ever punish them?
You can't... and you end up taking out a pent-up and frustrated desire for vengeance on somebody else, anybody else... the wrong person even, who did no wrong at all.
And that's what happened in this matter, and it's because too many people prefer to ignore the offical right in your face plain as day truth: saudis attacked us on 9/11.
Me, I prefer JUSTICE.
And as far as civilians and Kuwait and Qatar and an Empire go, if you think I said anything about those things... if you think those words are even found in my comment, then you need to put your glasses on and try again.
When we established a presence in Europe and Asia in the mid 40's, was it meant to be a permanent presence? 60 years is getting pretty close to permanent, more so than many bases established in the US at the same time.
That's the Evil Empire in action....give them a base in your country and it will take a miracle to get them to go home. Work is still continuing on that massive fortress-embassy in the heart of Baghdad. Looks like we plan to stay a long, long time.
Did you notice at the end of his show on Mon or Tues night ( I forget which) he gave a Olbermannesque special comment to close his show where he generated feigned outrage over the war and demanded we get out--something along those lines. Is he sampling Olberman and try peel off some of Olbermann's success?
Media Matters is spinning for Hillary Clinton again. I don't see how you can read what she said and not believe that it implies a permanent presence in Iraq for U.S. troops, which would require a permanent base. Nevermind that this isn't our country and we have no right to do so. So Hillary wants troops to stay indefinitely, but she wants to bring the troops home. I think I understand exactly what she is trying to say. It is just more of her triangulating, disingenuous dishonesty.
Yeah, Hillary could vote to kill children and this site would defend her against all criticism....oh wait, she has!
so has every repuk in congress. Got a point yet?
Of course we'll have permanent bases in Iraq. It belongs to us now, right?