CBS' Schieffer let Cheney falsely claim Reid is "adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops"
SUMMARY: On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer did not challenge Vice President Dick Cheney's false claim that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "now has said he's adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops." In fact, Reid voted for the supplemental funding bill that the Senate passed March 29.
On the April 15 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer left unchallenged Vice President Dick Cheney's false claim that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "now has said he's adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops." Cheney was apparently referring to Reid's proposal to cut off funding for the Iraq war in 2008 if President Bush vetoes the emergency supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush has vowed to do as long as it contains a timetable for withdrawal. But Schieffer did not note that Reid voted for the supplemental funding bill that the Senate passed March 29, or that Reid's proposal would continue funding for the troops until March 31, 2008.
Contrary to Cheney's claim that Reid is "adamantly opposed" to funding the troops, as Media Matters for America has noted, both Democratic-led houses of Congress have passed legislation providing funding for the troops in the field. The Senate and House are expected to reconcile the bills in conference and send a final version to the president. Regarding the separate bill offered by Reid, the Associated Press reported that "Reid's latest proposal would give the president one year to get troops out, ending funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008." Since announcing his proposal, Reid has specifically stated that "Democrats are determined to make sure the troops have the funds they need."
Later in the program, Schieffer asked about Cheney's claim in May 2005 to CNN's Larry King that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," but failed to challenge Cheney's response that this remark "was geared specifically to the fact that we'd just had an election in Iraq where some 12 million people defied the car bombers and the assassins and for the first time participated in a free election." In fact, as the weblog Think Progress noted in June 2006 -- when Cheney also claimed that his "last throes" remark was meant to refer to political progress -- Cheney told King that "the level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline." Cheney went on to mention that "lead terrorist" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been injured and suggested that this was a sign that "we're making major progress."
From the May 30, 2005, edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
KING: When do we leave?
CHENEY: We'll leave as soon as the task is over with. We haven't set a deadline or a date. It depends upon conditions. We have to achieve our objectives, complete the mission. And the two main requirements are, the Iraqis in a position to be able to govern themselves, and they're well on their way to doing that, and the other is able to defend themselves, and they're well on their way to doing that. They just announced that in the last day or two here, there've been stories about a major movement of some 40,000 Iraqi troops into Baghdad to focus specifically on the problem there.
KING: You expect it in your administration?
CHENEY: I do.
KING: To be removed. It's not going to be -- it's not going to be a 10-year event?
CHENEY: No. I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. But I think the level of activity that we see today, from a military standpoint, I think will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. We've had reporting in recent days, Larry, about Zarqawi, who's sort of the lead terrorist, outside terrorist, Al Qaeda, head of Al Qaeda for Iraq, may well have been seriously injured. We don't know. We can't confirm that. We've had reporting to that effect.
So I think we're making major progress. And, unfortunately, as I say, it does involve sending young Americans in harm's way. But America will be safer in the long run when Iraq and Afghanistan as well are no longer safe havens for terrorists or places where people can gather and plan and organize attacks against the United States.
From the April 15 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
CHENEY: Some of the leadership on the other side has suggested they won't pass any bill at all, or Harry Reid now has said he's adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops. On the other hand, [Sen.] Carl Levin [D-MI], who's chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has indicated that they definitely do want to pass funding for the troops even if they don't have the votes to override the president's veto on the limitation provisions and on the pork that's in the bill.
SCHIEFFER: I guess what struck me, though, about your speech was -- I mean, you started out by calling these congressional leaders irresponsible, and I wonder how does that stay -- set the stage for productive talks?
CHENEY: Well, I think it's important they know where we stand. And the fact of the matter is, I do believe that the positions that the Democratic leaders have taken, and to a large extent, now, are irresponsible. I mean, Harry Reid last fall said -- this is after the November elections -- that he would not support an effort to cut off funding for the troops. Then he changed that position to one in which he would support an effort to cut off funding for the troops, place limitations on the funding. And now he's to the point where he's saying he's going to support legislation that cuts the whole funding for the troops. He's done a complete 180 from where he was in five months.
I think that is irresponsible. I think you cannot make the basic, fundamental decisions that have to be made with respect to the nation's security, given everything that's at stake in the war on terror, and what we're doing in Iraq, and with the 140,000 American troops in the field in Iraq in combat every day, and call that kind of rapid changes in position anything other than irresponsible.
[...]
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you, because it leads me to this question, Mr. Vice President, you have throughout this war been optimistic about how things were going. Two years ago, you told Larry King, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
What did you base that on at that time? Because there were many people had a totally different view of what was happening and it, you know, it brings us down to where we are now. And, I mean, why should people believe you now when so many times, in the past, the statements from this administration have proved to be incorrect?
CHENEY: Well, partly we have to respond to questions from the press, and we do the best we can with what we know at the time. My statement at the time that you referenced was geared specifically to the fact that we'd just had an election in Iraq where some 12 million people defied the car bombers and the assassins and for the first time participated in a free election. And we had three elections in 2005 in Iraq. We set up a provisional government, then we had a ratification of a brand new constitution, and then elections under that constitution of the new government, a new government that's in place now. I still think, in the broad sweep of history, those will have been major turning points in the war in Iraq.
Schieffer, what a wimp. Just throwing softballs and no hardball follow up questions.
I thought the overall tone of the interview
Was weak on Schieffers part, he was trying to not offend the War Monger VP.
and his War Monger Boss
It's impressive, in a sick sort of way, how Cheney can keep repeatig the same lies over and over without anyone challenging him face to face. Just once I'd like to see a real journalist call him out for the shameless liar that he is.
Just once I'd like to see a real journalist call him out for the shameless liar that he is.
Cheney owns a gun & has been known to shoot it at someone. Cheney got his puppet-boy to start an unjust war. I don't know Nerzog, with this guy one has to proceed at their own risk ;-)
But seriously, I find it frustrating to watch commentators trying to get most politicians to give a straight answer to their questions.
They ask a direct question, and usually get a non-answer. The politician tries to change the subject or talk in circles. Spinning like a top.
The commentator asks a second, sometimes a third time and gets nowhere, and finally lets it go. They have a dozen other questions they want to ask and figure out that the fella or gal they are interviewing is gonna keep up the mumbo-jumbo, so they move on.
Not excusing Schieffer here, he should have at least made the attempt. But it's doubtful he would have gotten an answer. Just spin.
If it's "irresponsible" to schedule an end to the occupation of Iraq, then what is it called to present falsified intelligence to the Congress and the American People, to compel the invasion of Iraq?
As far as what the vice president calls "irresponsible", what is it when you have a few too many drinks and shoot your hunting buddy in the face?
Hey, that guy apologized for getting shot in the face by Dick Cheney, so it's OK.
It's also interesting to me to hear Cheney still talking about how Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, even though everyone (Bush admin included) says that he didn't.
Haven't you heard? It doesn't matter how we got into Iraq. All that matters is marching forward to vic-to-ree. The party of "personal responsibility" isn't about to take responsibility for this mess.
'Victory': Seeing your mention of that word, made me go back over the transcription of the vice president, to look for the rhetoric they lean so heavily on... and there's practically none of those words in this transcription, anyway.
'Surrender' and 'enemy' aren't found in the above transcript... no "they'll follow us home" either... 'war' is found once, at the very end of the transcription: That's the word they use, a lot, to imply National Security; an implication they can only make by way of the word 'war', but no other way... as a matter of fact, they never say 'National Security' ever, when talking about Iraq, only 'war', because it cleverly implies a thing that is not at stake in Iraq: U.S. National Security.
As far as those words 'victory' and 'surrender' etc., they'll be flying fast and furious over the next few weeks... and of course you know why, to influence Public opinion on the Defense supplemental, and the provision in it calling for a scheduled end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
But what a waste of worthless speech they make, with their words 'surrender' etc... because the American People have already heard all that noise, for a long time now, and have already registered their opinion on the matter, and are not about to bowled over by the continued echo of those worthless words.
An opinion registered and certified and legally binding in the only way such opinions can be officially registered: In an election... November 7, 2006 to be exact.
And so it bears repeating, that despite a long exposure to the words 'victory' and 'surrender' etc., on November 7 the American People did:
Re-elect every single Congressional Democrat up for re-election... the first time in U.S. History that happened!
in similar manner, the American People on that day refused to elect even a single Republican to any open seat at all that day (that includes 468 separate seats decided that day!)... another first in U.S. History, Republicans failing to pick up even one open seat that day!
Also, 6 incumbent U.S. Senators, and 22 incumbent House members, failed to get re-elected that day (got fired that day!)... ALL 28 WERE REPUBLICANS, every single one of them! a political 'shutout', 28-0.
The point: That the rhetoric of 'victory' and 'surrender' etc. did not work on the 76 million of the American People who voted November 7 (76 million People!)...
...and it's not working now, that same rhetoric on those same People.
But you're going to hear it anyway, a lot, over the next few weeks... because they don't have anything else to say.
Cheney gets away with lying consistently, persistently, continuously, because of his reputation as a "shooter". I'd probably double-check to see if his Secret Service guys were armed, before asking any tough questions, or, certainly, before verbally challenging the veracity of his statements.
Then, too, *I* don't even get paid to publish the Corporate Media lies.
In May of 2005 Cheney says:
"And the two main requirements are, the Iraqis in a position to be able to govern themselves, and they're well on their way to doing that, and the other is able to defend themselves, and they're well on their way to doing that."
Its almost two years later and if anything the Iraqis are further away from meeting those two requirements. Mission Unaccomplished.
Don't forget his comments about the insurgency being in its death throes a few years ago.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday he backed legislation that would cut off funding for the Iraq war by March 31, 2008, stepping up the pressure on the White House to adjust its Iraq policies. -The Hill, April 2nd.
It looks like to me Cheney is telling the truth about Reid. No more of this sham by Reid and leftist apologists of 'phased withdrawal'.
Can the class say, "Cut and run"?
“Announcing a surrender date to al Qaeda is a dangerous military policy, cedes the initiative to the enemy, and directly contradicts the 96 senators who just last month voted against funding cuts for troops in the field,” [Senate Minority leader, Mitch] McConnell said.
from the same article...
AA,
Nice find, but what I think Cheney and Schieffer were "discussing" (Cheney talking, Bob listening and transcribing) was the most recent proposal which fully funds the troops and sets benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi Government. If the benchmarks are not met, withdrawl could take place. The only person who would be cutting funding if the bill is not signed is Bush.
AnotherRightWingParrot,
Cheney said, "Harry Reid now has said he's adamantly opposed to any funding for the troops."
Your cut and paste says Reid is willing to provide funding for the next year. If you can't see the difference, then we can't help you.
Thanks for playing; try again.
nerzog,
There are many in Congress that are afraid to perform their duties as layed out in the the constituion. They can chose to fund or defund the war. They are afraid of actually coming out and defund the war because they know that would be politcal suicide. So they play politics.
Additionally, the constitution does not say that Congress gets to direct how the war is conducted, that is the responsibility of the Executive Branch.
It is really a simple choice if you look at the constitution say yes to the funds or no!
You've got your talking points in again.
We're familiar with your interpretations of what the Democratic Party's plan does, for example, "cut and run" and "surrender to the terrorists".
Please, let us know how the Republicans define "Victory"? How will we know it if we were ever to see it?
And also, how long will "Victory" take? How many lives are we as a nation willing to sacrifice?
Your side says that this is the "fight of our lives" and we fight the most determined enemy we've ever faced.
If so, why are there fewer than 150,000 service personnel fighting in Iraq today? Why not 500,000 like Gen. Shinshecki said would be required to stabilize Iraq after regime change?
The administration and Sen. McCain feel as if the surge (or escalation) of 20,00 troops will suffice. How long must we wait to see if this surge (or escalation) is effective? What if it isn't?
Since the inception of this war, there has been no contingency planning. It appears that we are stumbling from one failure to another.
Why is that?
1. Another year of war is "running?"
2. Al Qaeda????
Announcing a committment to the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy to mollify the warmongers whose bloodlust is insatiable would be a boon to al Queda recruiting and add to Iraqs instability. Their government will never be taken seriously by the Iraqi people as long as we are there. They will be seen as puppets and why not? They wont ask us to leave though more than 80% of the Iraqis want us gone.
vs. 'Stay and Die for no reason except to make money for corporations, and forget about Osama because he's been marginalized' ... got it!
MR. L:
Osama has been "marginalized"? He's hiding out in or near Afghanistan, operating his terrorist plots out of a cave and to be executed by "jihadists" who infiltrate other nations (including ours) to perform acts of terror.
He is, then, in EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION he was in when 9/11 was planned and carried out.
What is this "marginalization" you're talking about? Our soldiers are bogged down in a civil war in Iraq, we aren't pursuing any other "terrorist fighting" strategies, and have ruled out diplomacy and working together with other nations to form an anti-terrorist plan. We have WAR, and the alternative is weakness, appeasement, and "cut and run". This is what our Administration has told us in no uncertain terms. This is our official War on Terror stance: it's IRAQ.
So, we are NOT going after Bin Laden, and he is set up exactly as he was prior to BOTH attacks on the Twin Towers (the first not as successful as the second, and they were EIGHT YEARS APART ... these guys have patience).
So, tell me again how Bin Laden has been "marginalized". I don't see it.
Reid's statement is pressure on Bungle, who promised to veto the funding Reid is willing to provide. Of course, we have seen often in Bungle's athletic career, and in his academic career, that he thrives under pressure, so this is his moment to shine; when was yours?
Can you say "Cut and Paste?"
It's just as stupid as your post.
Its obvious the warmonger class can say lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can. There just doesnt seem to be an American death toll that will satisfy your endless bloodlust.
SOLON:
The Bush Administration's WAR PLANS are either correct, or they are horrible mistakes.
As long as our soldiers are dying, they can keep saying that we are "making progress". As long as the slaughter continues, they will not have to admit they made a mistake.
So, it's their REPUTATION and COMPETENCE that is at stake here. What's a few thousand of our brave soldier's lives, compared to the reputation and legacy of Bush and his NeoCons? Those soldiers should be PROUD to die, just so Bush doesn't have to admit he was wrong. And continue dying, ad infinitum. Each drop of blood is solely to preserve Bush's ego. Worth it? HE thinks so.
Dick Cheney shot someone in the face and got his victim to take the blame. What do you think that Cheney would do to a reporter that didn't ask snowball questions?
(If this offends, I apologize. In light of what happened yesterday, some may find this joke inappropriate, but it speaks volumes as to what the American culture has devolved into.)
Exactly how much PORK as the Democrats put in this bill? Just how far indebt are we now and who holds our IOU’s? What is the illegal alien bill going to cost? How much of our tax dollars are eaten up for those who are lazy and cannot get a high school diploma?
Not half as much money is being wated in this senseless war.
Darth Cheney is adamantly opposed to telling the truth for ANY reason.
I agree. How come you libs do not call them baby killers like you did back in the 60-70’s? No guts? You know you want to but you got your tails in trouble when you did during Viet Nam.
Yeah, I saw that movie.
Unfortunately for you, that's the only place that vets were called baby killers. It might have happened outside the movies, but actual cases were few and far between.
I'd suggest you stop listening to those on the right who push this nonsense. Most of the government and media leaders on the right were draft evaders, Chickenhawks who are happy to see someone else fight and die for their country, yet they had other priorities when they could have stepped up.
The real question is why do you moronic trolls continue to lie long after everyone KNOWS you are lying. Is it a function of your incredible ignorance or your basic lack of integrity?
Hahaha.. gotta love that argument... It works so well in every case.
Thanks for the chuckle.
The use of the word "Lib" as a perjorative is evidence of a narrow and closed mind.
The V.P. has lost his relevance and history will judge this man and president Bush as the worst, most irresponsible, ill equipped couple to lead a nation. Their lies, misstatements, blunders, and incompetence have cost this nation things that we'll never be able to replace(our young sons and daughters lost in Iraq), things that will take decades to replace/improve(our world standing/leadership role and our own economic ability to deal with our onging problems-education/healthcare/economic security), and something I don't think will ever come back-a view of our leaders as people who will maintain honesty and truthfulness in times of crisis.
Schieffer, like Cheney has no shame.
Cheney also said that the terrorist killed 3000 Americans on 9-11.
Well, even Cheney tells the truth sometimes.
But yeah, come on Cheney. I wonder if Bush would've been impeached if everybody liked his VP! This guy is either a bad man or seriously delusional to the point where he says things that are humorously out-of-touch and sometimes basically a lie, like this Reid thing. I think Bush for the most part is just ideologically misguided and a bit "principled" for his own good, but Cheney? Sheesh.
Senator Reid voted against a pork barrel bill that announced to the enemy a quitting date. Both factors are contrary to the announced strategy of the commander in chief.
Jesus prophesied that when the left wing of the boat brings no meat that the fishers should cast their nets on the right wing to get meat so much that is difficult to harvest.
John 21:3-6
I'm surprised that Duck and Cover didn't cite some media article, based upon an "unnamed White House source" to bolster his position as per usual. The "unnamed source", being himself, as per usual.
And not one question from Bob-o about Halliburton??? I would have liked to know why, for example, all of the Veep's former board maties split for Dubai before getting their Freedom Medals? What a lovely rose garden ceremony that would have been.
The assessment of Cheney by one student protester to his upcoming commencement address at BYU, as a "morally dubious man" says it best.