Broder's history of "wildly off target" claims and faulty predictions
On April 26, The Washington Post published a baseless attack on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) by columnist David Broder --- with the headline "The Democrats' Gonzales" -- in which Broder characterized Reid as an "embarrassment" for recently stating that the war in Iraq "is lost." The column inspired Media Matters for America to review Broder's recent columns and offer examples of Broder's unfounded attacks on Democrats, glaring misstatements of fact, unwarranted praise of President Bush and congressional Republicans, off-the-mark political predictions, and in at least one case, what was, by his own admission, a cringe-worthy embarrassment:
- Bush "comeback." In his February 16 column, Broder argued that President Bush could be "poised for a political comeback" and falsely claimed that Bush, during a February 14 press conference, "endors[ed] the good motives of" the critics of his Iraq troop increase by "rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy." In fact, when asked at the press conference if he "believe[d] that a vote of disapproval of your [Iraq] policy emboldens the enemy," Bush specifically refused to "reject[] the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy," as Broder put it. At the press conference, Bush said: "As to whether or not this particular resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that." Also, despite Broder's prognostications, Bush's job approval ratings since February 16 have been stalled in the mid- to low 30s, and even went as low as 29 percent in a February 23-27 CBS News/New York Times poll, and 28 percent in an April 20-23 Harris poll. As the weblog Think Progress noted, Broder claimed in a March 30 online discussion on washingtonpost.com that he would "revisit and revise" his prediction, but has yet to do so.
- Democrats and the military. In his February 6 column, Broder wrote that retired Gen. Wesley Clark was "[o]ne of the losers" among the potential Democratic presidential candidates who spoke before the Democratic National Committee on February 2 because he forgot "that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military." Broder offered no support for this claim, which reflected the assumption -- expressed frequently among the media and documented by Media Matters for America -- that Iraq war supporters are "pro-military," and conversely that those opposed to the Iraq war must be anti-military.
- Detainee legislation. In his September 21, 2006, column, Broder heaped praise on Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC), and John Warner (R-VA) for their "revolt ... against President Bush's insistence on a free hand in treating terrorist detainees." According to Broder: "These are not ordinary men. McCain, from Arizona, is probably the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination. Graham, from South Carolina, is the star among the younger Republican senators. Warner, from Virginia, embodies the essence of traditional Reagan conservatism: patriotism, support for the military, civility." That same day, however, these senators and the White House reached a "compromise" on terror-detainee legislation characterized by Border's Post colleague Dan Froomkin as a situation in which "[t]he Republican senators essentially agreed to look the other way." Froomkin explained: "On the central issue of whether the CIA should continue using interrogation methods on suspected terrorists that many say constitute torture, the White House got its way, winning agreement from the 'maverick' Republican senators who had refused to go along with an overt undoing of the Geneva Conventions." As Media Matters noted, the Post reported on September 29, 2006, that the compromise was reached largely on administration terms: "Written largely, but not completely, on the administration's terms, with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections, the bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are 'the tools' needed to handle terrorism suspects U.S. officials hope to capture." Broder has yet to address this "compromise" on terror detainee treatment.
- Hurricane Katrina. In his September 4, 2005, column, Broder wrote: "We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public." Broder himself later acknowledged that this column was "wildly off target." He wrote in his December 29, 2005, column:
On Sept. 4, I published a column so wildly off target that it could have gotten me indicted by a special prosecutor. It was written in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as President Bush was flying back from vacation to organize the federal response to that catastrophe.
Without waiting for him to actually do anything, I saluted his performance, leading off with the assertion that "it took almost no time for President Bush to put his stamp on the national response to the tragedy that has befallen New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."
And then this howler: "Because the commander in chief is also the communicator in chief, when a crisis emerges the nation's eyes turn to him as to no other official. We cannot yet calculate the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and its devastating human and economic consequences, but one thing seems certain: It makes the previous signs of political weakness for Bush, measured in record-low job approval ratings, instantly irrelevant and opens new opportunities for him to regain his standing with the public."
What it opened, of course, was an abyss of doubts about the president's awareness of what was happening and about the competence of his administration. He's still paying for that episode.
But if Bush were as vindictive toward the press as is sometimes reported, he could well turn to me and say: "You're doing a heck of a job, too, Davey."
- The case for war. During a March 25, 2003, online discussion on washingtonpost.com, Broder wrote that he was "unaware of any efforts by the administration to link Iraq to 9/11." In fact, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated several times the now-discredited claim that 9-11 ringleader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in 2001. On March 21, 2003, Bush sent a letter to the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate saying that "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Baseless attack? Are you kidding? It was an insightful and revealing piece about Reid, complete with many examples of Reid's verbal stumblings. He is an embarassment.
Nice assessment Broder, well done.
Sorry Tommy, I disagree. The article was a smear against Senator Reid and more attempts to discredit the Majority Leader based on his position of this illegal war and his opposition to the War Criminals Bush and Cheney.
Doris,
We disagree then. It was not a smear at all, Broder gave plenty of examples of things Reid has said - if you don't find them embarassing, we disagree.
What is disgraceful is instead of refuting any of what Broder says in his article, MMFA labels it a "baseless attack", and then dredges up old opinion articles by Broder - now that's an irrelevant smear.
Oh, sorry - they say this article "inspired" them to go after Broder. How inspirational.
maybe your opinion is influenced by the fact that you were one of the kool aid drinkers on this war?
Speaking of baseless attacks, instead of engaging in some of your own, why don't you pony up and give us an example of where I was a "kool-aid" supporter of this war?
okey dokey. this is from the 12-16-05 "gibson on meaning of election day in iraq" thread. a poster named "irked" wrote "three months from now when americans and iraqis are still dying..." to which you replied: "goods news from iraq? dammit we can't have that. continue with your head in the sand and deny what's really happening." do you like grape or lemon-lime?
no preference, i guess.
And once again, Tommy has fled the building.
When the truth doesn't fit his reality, it's time to check out. But he'll be back tomorrow with Gonzheimer's disease, wondering how you dare to question his authoritah.
Nice work MF.
I am still here, waiting for my "kool aid support" of the war.
Keep trying, though.
find a night school with classes for reading comprehension...
you missed my post at 336? in the words of your hero, "mission accomplished".
Who is my hero? And until you start backing up your insideous accusations instead of leveling them out of desperation because you're losing an argument, try them on someone else.
it's with a heavy heart, but if you insist. from the same post above: "i realize many of you and your hatred of anything bush has you gnashing your teeth and pounding your fists at the mere thought of anything positive coming out of iraq." first of all, i love that imagery. second, who was right, you and bush, or the people who said this election was not going to make a difference? and tone down the gnashing will you.
Because I don't level slurs at Bush, he is my hero? How pitiful on your part.
If you have any intellectual honesty left you will see dozens of my posts criticizing Bush and his policies. For you to intimate he is my "hero" is ridiculous.
Don't annoy me with any more of your off topic irrelevancies.
i know you criticize him now, i've seen the posts. but it's sort of a where were you then thing. the fact , and i've provided the quotes to prove it, is that you went after a poster who turned out to be absolutely right in the end. well after his three months time limit, we are mired in an even worse situation. a situation which you were blue skying at the time. my original contention was that you were a kool aid drinker on this war. others can decide who has the credibility.
This is funny. I remember Tommy laying into people opposed to the war too. And at a time when anyone who had the gall to question our great leaders was being denounced as traitorous. Tommy, in a lot of cases you did put yourself belly-up to the punch bowl. The problem with all the chicken hawks though is their kool-aid has killed many thousands of innocent people. I spent many hours and way too much of my good wiskey sitting around with my neighbor at the beginning of Bush's war arguing with him that we were going to get stuck in an endless and fruitless struggle. No matter how civil and friendly we were as neighbors he couldn't help echoing FOX, Limbaugh etc. and questioning my love of my country. I should have thrown him out of my house for that but since Limbaughism is a social disease I kept pouring the bourbon and plying him with reason. Now, years later he doesn't seem to remember that he was wrong about absolutely EVERYTHING along with his heoroes. He still gloats and enjoys a high level of cognitive dissonance and pretends to be a master of reason. Tommy totally reminds me of that guy. I know you're trying dude, but you've definitely been part of the problem.
we don't know each other, but i know the same kind of guys who supported this war.
I'm afraid they are the hallmark of our time. The 'mainstream' media has given FOX and their ilk way too free of a pass when they lie and distort. Instead they've followed them toward the loony right in search of ratings and helped create a class of hopelessly ignorant and arrogant fools.
I disagree, MMFA is showing where Broder is coming from. He is talking the GOP Cheney line. What Reid said was not embarassing, what is embarassing is how this administration continues to believe we can win in Iraq.
Well, we* ARE winning in Iraq! With each day that passes, we* get one day closer to transferring this whole mess over to the Dems, and regaining the opportunity to obstruct, delay, deny, and lie!
*we: Darth and me /(Bungle)
Reid is a huge embarrassment. I can't believe the Democrats made this wimp their majority leader. He's the worst majority leader since Robert "KKK" Byrd.
(spoken by a true believer in the Democratic Party)
Yes, he is such an embarassment that he shares most Americans views that we cannot possibly win the Iraq war. (See today's Washington Post poll).
Sen. Reid doesn't need anybody to "smear" him. He does a great job on his own.
I saw this column on RealClearPolitics this morning and figured it migt show up on here. There was another one written by Independent Democrat Lieberman savaging the "surrender" crowd that I figure will be on here later. (MMFA, if you get that from me don't forget the hat tip).
...Independent Democrat Lieberman savaging the "surrender" crowd..."- bruce1ace
1. Who is this "surrender crowd" I keep hearing so much about?
2. Who are they surrendering to?
3. What are they surrendering?
4. Does "savaging", as a verb, refer to what Dr. Weiner does for a living?
Answers:
1) Those in favor of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
2) Evildoers
3) Victory
4) Yes
ah, then it is just a case of you not knowing what words mean.
I think Bruce is being somewhat sarcastic. There should be an HTML tag for that...
Who are the evildoers? the sunni? the shia? the majority of Iraqis that according to polls by the State Department itself want us out as soon as possible? Who?
An "evildoer" is any non-American who is killing or plotting to kill Americans or innocent civilians.
To some liberals, no such thing. They prefer "misunderstood".
Boy was that a load of crap. I'm surprised at you Tommy... you usually stop short of just parroting vulgarities.
Oh Val, Don't be so naive. I said "some". Do you deny there are posters on here who believe that terrorism is not some purely evil entity, but we are the cause of it through our imperialism, among other things, and that those that fight us are "misunderstood"?
I stand by what I said.
"Pure evil?" Sweet Jesus, man, where do you live, the Shire?
Did your really say 'evildoers'??? My god you guys are really embarrasing. There was a good article in Harpers recently about how we are becoming a nation of perpetual children. The Bushies, the FOX consumers and indeed W himself prove this point painfully well.
on the other hand broder did not even get what chuck schumer was saying, that trying to mediate this civil war in iraq is lost. but the war against terrorism in not lost.
I agree. You put Gonzales next to him and you can't tell the two apart, except that Reid seems to not be suffering from Alzheimer's and still has shreds of credibility and compentence.
Tommy, Broder was actually trying to make the point that Reid was an embrassment to Democrats. Since you don't consinder yourself a Democrat and no Democrats on their board or in office have stated that are embarassed with him where is the proof of your an Broder's assertion that he is? Contrast this with several Republicans who have publicly expressed embarrassment of Gonzales. Apples and Oranges.
In Broder's assessment and mine, Reid is an embarassment. I would doubt that any of his minions in the Senate would say so, but if you think that is proof of anything, fine.
Read the article.
Broder specifically calls Reid an "embarrassment" to the Democrats, and says there is a "long list" of Senators who feel the same way about him as they do about Gonzales. Broder offers not one example of anyone on the supposed "long list."
Hence, baseless. Certainly, Broder's opinion is not at issue, it's his unsupported assertion that it is shared - and widely shared - beyond the confines of his own comfortable worldview.
It's certainly not Broder's fault that Democrat Senators don't have enough sense to be embarrassed by Reid. Actually, Broder's piece is insulting to Gonzales. To be compared to Reid - how low can these columnists go?
I guess you are entitled to your opinion. I wasnt embarassed by Reid he made himself clear, he was right.
Too bad the ReNAMBLAcan Senators gave Gonzales cover instead of calling him on his misleading statements. I guess ReNAMBLAcans just think lying is a God give right for the GOP. Bush has done so much of it for so long.
David Broder is a tool.
Bush's letter to Congress from 4 years ago is excerpted below...
If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. Bush was divorced from reality back then, and looking at it today makes it seem incredibly shortsighted and misguided. None of his statements hold water.
On March 18, 2003, I made (a) determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will (not) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq... {In fact what we now know is that only further diplomatic efforts would have protected the USA. There was no "continuing threat" from Iraq. Now there is a threat from Iraq, but that threat is there because we invaded!}
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. {Restore peace and security? Iraq was not a threat to the area in 2003!} I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, {Iraq had no terrorists in the part of the nation that Saddam controlled} including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. {Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Bush knew that in 2003.}
These military operations have been carefully planned {another lie - these operations were not carefully planned to do that. In fact, they were grossly ill-equipped to handle the ongoing efforts} to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully. {Hmmm. Is that why you claimed Misison Accomplished 4 yrs ago? Or why Cheney said Last Throes almost 2 years ago?}
As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation. {How's that working out for ya, Bush?}
I can only assume that Tommy is being sarcastic. Otherwise he would have a job in this administration that wants to destroy the Constitution and inaugurate a period of absolutist leadership.
I don't think that Broder really understands that he has become enmeshed in the groupthink that began under Reagan and has excused any and all excesses of the rethug party. When he speaks of civility his vision is obscured by rose colored lenses when looking at the rethugs. After all, one wouldn't want to upset that fine vp by reminding him of what he said to Sen. Leahy, a lowly Democratic Senator, on the Senate floor. The swiftboating of Kerry was just fine because it was again only against another lowly Democrat.
The inept testimony of Abu gonzo must certainly be balanced by some (any) perceived missteps by a prominent Democrat. As his buddies in the rethug party purely objectively are always saying something about Harry Reid, Broder thought that would be a good place to start. Nothing that Reid has said is really a lie or twisting of the truth because all he has to do is quote the rethug. Broder knows that his buddies (who have no ax to grind) think that Reid says bad things so Broder thinks so too.
I once saw that he said that writing a column was a good job because he could observe and be irrevernt toward the powerful. I wonder when he will start with the irrevernt part of his job.
Broder is a classic example of one of the reasons why this country is in the mess it is in today.
Bill Moyer's 'Buying the War' shows clip after clip of various members of this administration linking Iraq to 9/11.
What should shock all of us is that all the pundits had nothing but blind faith in every word this administration said. All we got out of the pens from these pundits was a testimony of their blind faith in this administration and not one penned a skeptical thinking.
In times like this we can do without a Broder. What we need in times like this is a Mark Twain.
ann coulter says she's the new mark twain. 'scuse me while i barf.
"ann coulter says she's the new mark twain"
-----
She'll have to bleach her mustache first...
whose is bigger, hers or mark's? moustache, i mean. ok cheap shot. i love twain, i've read his nonfiction stuff like roughing it and life on the mississippi.
The Iraq war is indeed lost IF we continue to fight it ONLY militarily. A "diplomatic-political strategy" is needed. In the end it may still be lost [another words no one will actually raise a white flag] but we can leave Iraq in a somewhat more stable condition.
Then perhaps we can refocus on fighting terrorism rather than the Iraq Civil War.
J,
I don't disagree with what you are saying - Bush's plan for this war has been abyssmal, and look where we are now because of it? A mess, indeed.
But for the Democratic leader in the Senate to publicly declare the war is "lost" is unconscionable, in my opinion. Privately, I would encourage him to speak his mind and use any language he sees fit, and declare this war in any fashion that would help with our success there. But Reid chose to grandstand and active purely out of a political motivation......his words can't help but have a demoralizing affect on anyone who is in the throws of combat, fighting a war he maintains is "lost". How would anyone feel after hearing that?
Tommy,
No doubt Reid was doing some political grandstanding here, and perhaps he should have chosen his words more carefully or expanded on what point he intended to convey...this has been made glaringly obvious now that the Democrats are backpedaling a bit and trying to *clarify* what he actually meant.
None of this changes that what he said is true. The War, as it's being executed now, is lost.
J,
I just believe in thoughtful discretion by politicians and words carefully chosen when it comes to foreign policy and wars that are currently being fought.
But your comments are as always well said.
like wearing a cod-piece and a flight-suit to fly 2 miles to a carrier right off-shore that was ordered to turn so it looked like it was at sea for the photo-op with the infamous 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' banner that dumbaya tried to lie about until he was caught, again? yes, such decorum there...
This is what Reid actually said:
Can you tell me how that differs from what Jeter said?
Val, Read what I have written again and again.
I read again and again that Reid's comments were "unconscionable," but that Jeter's were "well said." I don't see any light between them, but maybe you could point out what I am missing.
Reid is the Democratic leader of the Senate speaking publicly. Jeter is a poster on this board. If you can't appreciate the distinction between the two and the vastly different impact of their statements on American men and women in combat, then never mind.
is what bush is doing "unconscionable"?
I have trailed you off topic enough, find someone else to play with.
you can't answer?
Look, as I said, if you can't defend Reid's statement with any intellectual discourse, don't try and change the subject to Bush........or at least do so with someone else. It's off topic, for the last time.
Think whatever you want about my non-answer.
i think your non answer says you're unwilling to criticize bush. and you get awful strict about what's "off topic" when the heat gets turned up.
You give yourself way too much credit.....heat?
I would say your constant veering threads off topic to my feelings about Bush can only mean either you have nothing intelligent to contribute to the topic thread, or you have nothing to contribute, period.
Either one is irrelevant to me.
Have a wonderful evening.
and when did all this happen? my "constant veering of threads off topic to your feelings about bush"?
unless you mean on this one particular thread, by which i mean the whole thing. anyway, we could save a lot of time if you would just answer.
Your response is a non-sequitur. Of course I recognise the difference between blog posts and public statements by political leaders, Tommy. I know you have been getting a lot of heat in this thread, but I for one have engaged you patiently and respectfully, and I don't appreciate the condescension.
I literally do not understand the kernel of your argument. It seems to revolve around the word "lost." Would I be correct to say that if Reid had chosen different terms - like, "our chances of victory would be enhanced if.." or something of that nature, you would be OK with it?
Val,
I absolutely would feel differently if Reid had said what you said......the term "lost" is a powerful one when discussing war. Your phrase is perfectly acceptable, Reid's is defeatist.
Well fine, at least we know where we disagree.
For the record, I think that Reid erred by even accepting the won/lost frame. How does one "lose' an occupation? Bush has made it clear: leaving is losing. Therefore, we will have endless occupation, endless destruction... until one of two things occurs. Either the Iraqis all lift their hearts in song as one to praise the American liberators, or we are forced to leave from utter exhaustion of our military forces and/or national treasury.
I see no other outcomes.
Defeatist? Reid was fairly utopian...
Val,
I have no problem with any of what you've said......but my point, the topic of Broder's article, and where I do have a problem is with the Democratic leader of the Senate publicly declaring this war is "lost", in any context. I believe it was purely political for reasons I have already expressed. Words from elected officials have consequences, especially in a war, about that war.
I don't necessarily disagree with what Reid said, it's that he said it so publicly and politically, instead of privately and more thoughtfully.......I can't make it anymore clear than that.
I understand your point. I don't see it the way you do, but that's the wonderful thing about opinions...
We agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughtful posts, as always. I enjoy our discussions.
Outta here, have a good evening.
Tommy, don't you think those guys know what's going on? If the war is "lost' it has nothing to do with the people fighting the war and everything to do with the administration that decided to start the war against the advice of it's military commanders.
Did you ever think that some of them might actually welcome a high ranking Senator admitting what the administration isn't willing to admit.
There are a lot of people serving in Iraq who just want this thing to end.
Worrier,
You and many others are missing the point......I don't disagree with what you are saying either, but the Senate leader needs to be more careful with the words he uses when it comes to wars we are currently fighting. This isn't a domestic dispute or some legislation over gay marriage they are battling over. Reid's motivation is purely political, for as I have said;
Any elected leader that maintains in such a public fashion as Reid did, that the war is lost, is derelict in his duty and should resign if he does not move to bring the troops home immediately and legislatively move to stop funding the "lost" war NOW. How can he live with himself if he lets men and women die for something that is "lost"? How can he live with himself if he sends anymore of our money to a war that is "lost"?
Tommy, as Jeter does, Reid believes the war is lost IF we don't do something different. As a national leader, he would be derelict in his duty if he believed that and didn't take some action to change the course of the war, as he has done.
They were demoralized long ago. Reid is just laying the groundwork for abandoning Bush's bad idea.
"demoralizing affect on anyone who is in the throws of combat"
Tommy, what Reid said was "his opinion" and he is entitled. Where was your disgust when Bush said, while men and women were still in combat "bring it on".
What I find demoralizing, lying and down right bullsh** is May 31, 2005 when Vice President Cheney says " we are in the last throes of this insurgency and the war will end long before the Bush Administration ends". Since the "last throes" we have lost 1,667 US Soldiers. I would imagine that for those still in combat they would find Cheney's statement much more demoralizing. They have been waiting for the "last throes" for 2 years
Which is pretty much what Reid said.
I would like to point out that in my earlier post I do not wish for the statment 'blind faith' to be used as an exuse for the pundits to run with. The pundits do not have an excuse for not being professionals in a time when we are going to toss our men and women into a meat grinder.
Had the pundits been professionals the administrations outlandish and ludicrous claims would have been exposed and we would have been armed with this knowledge long before Bush's announcement of war.
The pundits sentenced our men and women into an unnecessary death in the name of Blind Faith and lack of professionalism.
Tommy,
No one is demoralizing the troops.
All you are doing is regurtitating the Cheney line with this demoralizing the troops mantra. You should be ashamed of yourself using this tactic it's old and used up.
For those of you whom don't know the tactic it works like this. If you have a bill that won't make it you bully others into going along by saying, 'if you don't support this bill you don't support the children.' It's a cheap shot tactic but then again to the ones that want to see that they get their way any tactic is fair game.
If the only way you can defend what Reid is saying is by telling me I am using the "Cheney" line, then go for it. I have no interest in Dick Cheney.
Address why declaring a war "lost" is somehow a pep talk to the troops?
I, AMONG OTHERS HAVE TRIED TO GET THIS POINT ACROSS TO YOU BEFORE, BUT WE CONTINUE TO FAIL.
WHY DOES THE FIRST HALF OF REID'S STATEMENT STILL ELUDE YOU?
"As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost."
You have repeatedly chosen to ingore the entirety of his statement.
THIS IS NOT A DEFEATIST STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS NOT DECLARING THE WAR LOST. THIS IS CRITICISM OF OUR PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY!!!!!! THIS IS WHY IT IS NOT AN EMBARASSMENT.
WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO GRASP????
Just a quick note in response to this statement by Tommy earlier on:
"What is disgraceful is instead of refuting any of what Broder says in his article, MMFA labels it a "baseless attack", and then dredges up old opinion articles by Broder - now that's an irrelevant smear."
I believe they actually did attempt to refute Broder's article here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704260009
Tommy, Reid was expressing an opinion. Isn't that how you justify every lie told by the Right wingers? The only difference is (if you read the whole statement, and not just what the right-wing liars try to excerpt and make you believe it is complete), Reid said the war is "lost" if we keep following Bush's disasterous plan. He still believes the "War on Terror" is winnable. The only lie evident in Reid's comments is that Bush doesn't have a plan, disasterous or not.
But, if it's "only an opinion," as you are wont to say when you are applying your lips to the backsides of Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk, why is it so terrible for a Democrat to have an opinion, especially when it is correct?
Because Reid is an elected official, not some pundit. He speaks for many as the Democratic leader of the Senate. I hold them to far different standards than private citizens expressing their opinions. He proposes legislation and makes laws, he is far more accountable for his words and opinions than a stupid talk show host.
If you can't see the distinction, I can't help you.
Yet you have repeatedly declared there is no distinction between the insults leveled by, for example, Ann Coulter and the insults that are leveled by posters in this forum against her.
So it doesn't matter what a pundit says, but it does matter what an elected official says, and it does matter what an anonymous poster says.
Welcome to Tommy's wacky world of double standards.
Did you not read the distinction? It is very clear. An elected official is involved in shaping and promoting public policy, in their capacity they speak for many - therefore, I hold them and their words to far different standards than private citizens, whether they be pundits or posters on this board.
There is no double standard.
Does that apply as well to presidential candidates, like the one who just told his supporters that voting for dems would insure our death and destruction? Would THAT be a statement from a national leader (wannabe) that is demoralizng?
You may want to go to that thread and read my comments.
You know Easy;
What you're saying about Reid is just plainly not true. I watched and heard the clip. He said "This war....is lost." (Quote from memory, might have been "The war...") But there was nothing in the context about if we continue...etc. He added that on the Senate floor after one of his aides or someone woke him up to the disaster of his previous words.
Reid is playing politics with the lives of American troops. He is worse than an embarrassment, he is disgusting.
Too bad you come to this discussion with preconceived ideas, rather than with an open mind.
The facts are that Reid did exactly that. His comment, in full, was....
"And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course - and we must change course."
If all you heard was "the war is lost", then you were listening to someone who was parroting the right wing spin of his comments.
The fact that someone tells you that Reid was misquoted by those on the right, people who left off important, relevant words that came directly before "the war is lost", and you dismiss that poster who was trying to educate you, and you accuse them of misrepresenting the truth, only exposes you as a person who is disrespectful of the truth.
Ah, Mr Burns (Broder) is back.
Haven't seen him, or his misinformation, in a while.
As long as our troops are dying and being maimed, Bush does not have to admit this war was a terrible mistake. As long as the myth that America can WIN (or LOSE) a Civil War in another nation is kept as an acheivable goal, Bush intends to "STAY THE COURSE".
If our troops can just keep dying for two more years, Bush can leave office with out having to admit his bloody incompetence. He will simply hand off HIS war to somebody else (Hillary Clinton). Then SHE will be blamed for "losing the war" when she pulls the troops out of that quagmire.
Alternatively, if the Congress steps up and does the hard and courageous work of reining in a FAILED Commander in Chief, and END our participation in this particular Civil War by cutting off the funding, then Bush hopes THEY can be blamed for "losing" this unwinnable (and internationally ILLEGAL) war he started (based on LIES).
The bottom line is, BUSH is willing for the blood and carnage to continue to flow, needlessly and uselessly, as long as he can keep periodically saying "We're making progress." ... with ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
It's all about preserving Bush's "reputation" and "legacy". How many of our brave young soldiers' lives is it worth to America for Bush not to have to admit his war was a huge and bloody mistake? So far, it's taken over 3000 dead and more than 20,000 disabled for life ... to preserve Bush's precious "image".
Tex,
Great logic there, Tex. So, Bush will keep his legacy intact and be successful only if troops continue to die as he leaves office? So when he looks back on his term he can say that the bloodshed and death continued right up until Hillary pulled everyone out, and Bush prevailed?
Where do you come up with these lunatic scenarios of yours? I know you never get challenged to back up any of your senseless, ludicrous claims - but maybe just once, you will do so - just to humor me? Please.
Thanks big guy!
what is unrealistic about anything he said? bush will not set a timetable, the iraqi government will not restore order if our troops keep dying to do the job they should be doing. looks like maybe you are still drinking the kool aid.
TOMMY:
Always happy to explain the obvious to you.
You say, "Great logic there, Tex."
RESPONSE: Thanks very much.
You continue, "So, Bush will keep his legacy intact and be successful only if troops continue to die as he leaves office?"
RESPONSE: Not exactly. Bush keeps his legacy intact as long as he doesn't have to ADMIT the war was a mistake, and as long as it CONTINUES, and the DYING continues. See, as long as it goes ON, say for a HUNDRED YEARS, he can always say we are ALMOST READY to win. If we just STAY THE COURSE, then he will not have to admit defeat. All it costs is thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
You continues, "So when he looks back on his term he can say that the bloodshed and death continued right up until Hillary pulled everyone out, and Bush prevailed?"
RESPONSE: He can say HE wished to win, but by pulling our troops out, SOMEBODY ELSE surrendered, cut and ran, and accepted defeat. If he can just BLAME SOMEONE ELSE, then his own PRESS FOREVER FOR VICTORY stance will be intact in his mind, and thus preserve that legacy. He can say HE DIDN'T LOSE the war. Somebody else did.
You say, "Where do you come up with these lunatic scenarios of yours?"
RESPONSE: It's called "REALITY", and is supported by every statement and action coming out of the White House. You should TRY this thing "reality" some time. It's scary, but ultimately better for you if you accept the truth instead of falling for rightwing partisan propaganda.
You say, "I know you never get challenged to back up any of your senseless, ludicrous claims - but maybe just once, you will do so - just to humor me? Please."
RESPONSE: Happy to have complied.
You say, "Thanks big guy!"
RESPONSE: You're welcome.
Thank you Tex, for your explanation. But I can't agree or understand your logic.
You say that Bush will never have to admit the war's a mistake as long as people keep dying and we are still there. Well, need I remind you that as long as that continues to happen, Bush can also not admit to any victory. It's a quagmire then, isn't it? That is what Bush has on his hands..........not refusing to admit defeat or a mistake or a victory or anything, just a mess.
You can't agree?
That's not a surprise. You'd have to stop being a rightwing apologist if you did agree. Please don't even try to dispute that you are.
You can't understand Tex's logic?
That's not a surprise either. Too often, people who don't use their brains for an extended period of time find themselves having difficulty with similar tasks.
tommy / Thursday April 26, 2007 06:49:01 PM EST
"It's a quagmire then, isn't it? That is what Bush has on his hands..........not refusing to admit defeat or a mistake or a victory or anything, just a mess."
Hope, and faith will sustain him until he is rescued by his Dad or a benefactor- people have been cleaning up his messes all his life.
That's OK, Tommy. I can only explain it to you. I can't "understand" it FOR you.
TOMMY SAYS: "Well, need I remind you that as long as that continues to happen, Bush can also not admit to any victory."
Hmmm. I seem to remember a time when a victorious Bush landed on an aircraft carrier decked out in a borrowed flight suit, with his "package" strapped into a codpiece. While Chris Matthews swooned, Bush spoke under a banner that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".
So, Bush has ALREADY claimed VICTORY. He's done his endzone dance. Game over, man! We WON!!!
All this "clean up" dying and suffering, that's just footnote stuff.
"In fact, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated several times the now-discredited claim that 9-11 ringleader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in 2001."
MMFA is lying. Reports of Mohammad Atta meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague has not been discredited. Here is what the 9/11 Commission Report said:
"These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip). The FBI and CIA have uncovered no evidence that Atta held any fraudulent passports."
cheney said "it's been pretty well confirmed". it was nowhere near that. there's no proof.
Jesus Mary and Joseph, dude... way to cherry-pick! Why didn't you post any of the previous paragraphs, or Staff Statement 16 which clearly states:
How does that not discredit what Cheney alleged?
No YOU are lying. The FBI said the evidence THEY have shows he was travelling in the US at the time. Now it is within the realm of possibility that this evidence isnt completely conclusive. While it is in the realm of possibility that he used a false passport. All evidence points to this meeting NEVER happening. The single eyewitness sighting isnt that credible. The Prague government doesnt believe it, the CIA and FBI dont believe it. The 9/11 commission dont believe it. That is the very definition of discredited. Not absolutly proven false but definitly discredited, there is no reason to believe it other than you WISH it were true since it would be useful to you for propaganda purposes.
Ani asked his superiors to approach the Czech government about refuting the allegation. He also denies knowing of any other Iraqi official having contact with Atta.
KSM and Binalshibh both deny that an Atta-Ani meeting occurred.There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk t would pose to the operation.
Ah, context
LEST WE FORGET:
Reid said of the Iraq War under Bush's leadership and "plans": "It is lost."
On the "War on Terror", George W. Bush said (Sept 2, 2004), "I don't think you can win it."
Thus, Reid only CONFIRMS what the President said THREE YEARS AGO.
And how about the wonderful PREDICTION Dick Cheney made about making choices and the danger it might pose?
Cheney said, "It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
America INDEED made the "wrong choice" in the 2000 election, letting the Supreme Court overrule the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and install Bush in the Oval Office. Cheney was correct. We got hit in 1993 by terrorists in the Twin Towers, and eight months after BUSH, THE WRONG CHOICE, was installed in office, Sept 11, 2001 happened.
Tex;
Here's an opinion for you. The Iraq invasion was a brilliant military tactic that has changed the Middle East forever. Iran is more isolated in her lunacy than ever, we still have the cooperation of other moderate muslim states, and there are now two democracies in the region.
Islamic terrorism is steadily losing ground, material support and prestige in the eyes of the average Muslim. It's been a slow painful struggle, but American troops on the ground are solidifying their position. Freedom and dignity are powerful attractions.
While the Democratic 'line' seems to be "All is lost," the fact of the matter is that Iraq has put terror 'on the run.' Listen to the troops, not Reid/Clinton and the other political opportunists.
i hope you're kidding.
To quote one of my heroes,
"That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard."
- Julius Henry Marx
Cool, man, I too am a Groucho-Marxist.
Could tell by your posts Val that you were a "fellow traveler". Long live Marxism!
I wouldnt call that an opinion. I would call it a delusional fantasy.
The attack by Cheney Harry Reid is such a smoke screen. No one has been more wrong about Iraq than Cheney. The VP needs to retire to his undisclosed location and consider how he has misled the American people. Yet he has the nerve to accuse Harry Reid of being uninformedThe man hasn’t been right yet!! "We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan. We will stand up a new government under an Iraqi-drafted constitution. We will defeat that insurgency, and, in fact, it will be an enormous success story." – June 25, 2005, CNN Interview (The Taliban are becoming stronger again.) "I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time," Cheney said. "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." – May 30, 2005, Larry King Live (Insurgency continued and continues to grow.) "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." – January 22, 2004 (To my knowledge this has yet to be proven.) "When you think about what we've accomplished in terms of taking Afghanistan—we had a total of 30 killed in action in Afghanistan—taking down the Taliban and destroying the capacity of al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base to attack the United States, launching an attack into Iraq, destroying the Iraqi armed forces, taking down the government of Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, capturing 42 out of the 55 top leaders, and beginning what I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again, the price that we've had to pay is not out of line, and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." – September 14, 2003 (He was wrong then and now three and a half years later it is easier to try and blame the Democrats than admit that this was the wrong war, at the wrong time and in the wrong place.) "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." – March 16, 2003 (There is no reply to this ludicrous belief. We were never liberators nor will we ever be looked at as liberators only invaders.) "We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – March 16, 2003 (Not true then and was never proven after we invaded.) "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." – August 26, 2002 (Just a few months before the invasion and the Neo-cons had to make sure that the intelligence fit the plan.) "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." - March 24, 2002 (The big lie to sway public opinion, and get the Congress to agree to the invasion.)
Are you taking medication? That was a serious question.
Have you heard of "pandora's box"?
ED ROSS:
Thanks for sharing that 'opinion'. And be sure to thank Karl Rove for supplying it to you. He sure has a flair for fiction.
This person BRODER is just another 'white man' who is afraid of what is about to happen in America. Women and other minorities (your term) are about to come front and center. Your love for Bush is embarrassing and you need to retire and go to the house and join the other ilk of your era. Your time has come and gone (hopefully). I cannot tell you how sick and tired of you guys who are such biggoted, evil and racist humans (your term) you are. We are here and hopefully you can't hurt us any longer. You need to stop endorsing this war. You are just as responsible for the way our young men and women are dying in Iraq as anyother Racist Republican and Other war mongers are for endorsing this autrocity.
Senator Reid embarasses only the Bush administration and its cheerleaders. All they can do is fling more b.s. I voted for Senator Reid, am glad I did, and will do so again. Give 'em hell, Harry!
An "evildoer" is any non-American who is killing or plotting to kill Americans or innocent civilians.
So there's nothing evil about Americans killing other Americans?
Yeah, that kind of jumped out at me, too.
Maybe Bruce thinks they're just "misunderstood..."
Get off it folks this all about money and power and you snakes at Media Matters are in the forefront of propagandizing for the ludicrous left wing loon puppets of people like George Soros and others who are trying to seize political power for their own fun and profit. Idiots on the left and right fall for this game and go along like sheep to the slaughter. You all make me sick!
Read what Paul Begala says about Broder (the Gasbag) and Senator Reid.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/david-broder-is-a-gasbag_b_46923.html