MSNBC host Jansing did not challenge GOP chairman assertion that Reid was "giving aid and comfort to the enemies"
On the April 26 edition of MSNBC Live, during a discussion with host Chris Jansing and South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Joe Erwin, South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson asked: "Which one of the Democrat [sic] contenders are going to take [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] to task about giving aid and comfort to the enemies by claiming the global war on terror is lost?" Jansing did not challenge Erwin's assertion, which amounted to an accusation that Reid has committed treason. Dawson also asserted during the segment that "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of the Democrat [sic] Party on Capitol Hill" are "gloating" over "this defeatist legislation that just passed" -- referring to the Iraq war supplemental funding bill that passed the Senate on April 26, which would require American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by October 1.
In asserting that Reid had claimed that "the global war on terror" is lost, Dawson was referring to Reid's April 19 press conference discussing Congress' stand-off with President Bush over emergency funding for the war in Iraq. In fact, Reid was referring specifically to the war in Iraq when he asserted that "this war is lost." Furthermore, during the same press conference, Reid's added that "the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically."
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the April 20 edition of MSNBC Live, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman said that Reid "is absolutely, 100 percent wrong" in suggesting that the Iraq war "is lost" and added that "[h]is statements give aid and comfort to our enemy and demoralize our troops." Media Matters also noted a similar assertion Blakeman made regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) recent meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. On the April 6 edition of MSNBC Live, Blakeman said that Pelosi "abandoned her post up on Capitol Hill" and went to Syria "to give aid and comfort to him [Assad] instead of funding our troops."
According to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Furthermore, as Media Matters has documented, numerous print and television media outlets have reported Reid's statement that the Iraq war "is lost" without noting his subsequent statements that "the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the April 26 edition of MSNBC Live:
JANSING: For those who don't know, your state is one of the reddest of the reds. It really ranks right up there. Most of the major offices held by Republicans, as we said, it hasn't gone Democratic since before 1976. But could this be the year, given the war in Iraq and the dissatisfaction with what's going on in the White House right now?
DAWSON: Chris, I don't think so. I think the Democrat strategy of running on us losing a war is going to be a fatal political strategy. I mean, today I think is a defining moment for this defeatist legislation that's just passed -- Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of the Democrat Party on Capitol Hill gloating. And the question I'd like to pose tonight is which one of the Democrat contenders are going to take Harry Reid to task about giving aid and comfort to the enemies by claiming the global war on terror is lost?
You know, I understand there's nothing pleasant about war. And we understand it's not very popular. But -- because I don't know of a war, ever, that's been popular. So I do differ with Joe in the fact that their strategy is who's going to go to the far left right now? Who's going to talk about raising taxes? And who's going to give an answer and a solution that I know South Carolinians won't buy, but I suspect the rest of the nation won't, in my opinion.
Reid is a hero
He is speaking up against this war. MSNBC should be ashamed.
Many of us in SC are mighty peeved at Katon Dawson right now anyway. He has stated he believes THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FORCE women wanting an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus. They believe (though I don't know where they get their numbers) that 75-80% of women will change their minds if they are forced to do this.
http://news.greenvilleonline.com/blogs/hyde/2007/04/smalltent_republican_dawson_le.html
So 1st off, I sure as heck hope Joe Erwin took him to task. 2nd, I also hope he was taken to task for claiming that Democrats are saying we are losing the GWOT. Iraq is not GWOT, you twit! How about taking a look at Afghanistan where the taliban is gaining strength in areas they had never had a big following in before. Remember that place? Where Osama (bush's bff) is hiding?
Tommy,
If you're out there, I want you to hear it here 1st. They should have shown more clip. It's a little misleading because I can't tell if anyone responded to that diatribe.
It's official... I am now convinced 95% of ALL mainstream media is purposely tilted to the the right, in effect just being a mouth piece for the republicant's party of degenerates and liars.... It is UNBELIEVABLE that a politician (from a party who wants to 'put partainship behind us') can say that and NOT have the *reporter* call him out on that... disgusting...
I heard Tom " i lost ' DeLay accusing Reid of treason. maybe that is where it came from. GOP byte of the week.
I am accusing Tom Delay of being, in the words of the late, great, Hunter S Thompson. A flat out knee crawling thugh with the morals of a weasel on speed.
I heard the same thing on Sean Hannity's radio pukefest. It must be the official KKKarl Rove Talking Point of the Week.
Well, since many of my friends here have backed the Libs "this is our Vietnam" talking points on this site, would suggest we re-read our Vietnam history books friends. Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, fell to the Khmer Rouge on April 17, 1975. The Pathet Lao overthrew the royalist government of Laos in December, 1975. They established the Lao People's Democratic Republic.Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese officials, particularly ARVN officers, were imprisoned in reeducation camps after the Communist takeover. Tens of thousands died and many fled the country after being released. Up to two million civilians left the country, and as many as half of these boat people perished at sea.After repeated border clashes in 1978, Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and ousted the Khmer Rouge. As many as two million died during the Khmer Rouge genocide.Is this what we really want to see repeated in Iraq? I.e. allowing radical, Iran-backed Shia, commit genocide against hundreds of thousands of Sunni or Kurds?So... we're still "surging" in Korea since that war ended, and in Japan and in Europe since WWII ended in 1945 ... why aren't we screaming to bring home troops from there? ... answer even this dumb jarhead can understand: our presence contributes ultimately (albeit not always "neatly") to security in those regions ...something we must stay the course to do in the ME.Semper think it thru, recommend not pulling out just for political gain ... headed to Al-Asad AB soon for my third deployment. Right thing to do ...Respectfully, AFJ
May I respond?
Your present day analysis is for the most part correct. I would like to point out that during WW2 Ho Chi Minh was a U.S. ally, we armed and trained his forces in exchange for the promise that we would support helping Vietnam becoming an independant country. We reneged in favor of French colonialism. All of the truths you point out could have been averted if we had just followed through on our promises.
If you see my brother in law when you return, please say hello. He is in logistics.
So... we're still "surging" in Korea since that war ended, and in Japan and in Europe since WWII ended in 1945 ... why aren't we screaming to bring home troops from there?
My sister was stationed in Korea three years ago and she loved it. And I think she'd enjoy being in Japan. Heck, I want to go to Korea and Japan. But for some reason she didn’t enjoy being stationed in Iraq a couple of years ago. It's very perplexing.
Not as clearcut as you lay it out. It is the logical fallacy known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc. A pertinent question is WOULD there have been a takeover had we not bombed Cambodia back into the stone age and the Plain of Jars in Laos, once one of the most beautiful places in the world, into a moonscape. Its disengenuous to pretend the war in SE Asia did not spill over into those two countries which it really HASNT in the case of Iraq. The Iraqis dont think we are adding to stability in Iraq, I dont see how we could be. I think it axiomatic that foriegn invaders are a DESTABALIZING influence not a stabalizing influence. I wouldnt accept them here and would be fighting them the rest of my life. I see no reason to think the Iraqis are any different. It is precious to see the argument that we need to stay there to benifit the poor Iraqi people who by a HUGE margin want us gone. Is that argument something like, well they are like children and we know better than THEY do what is best for them so we are going to help them whether they like it or not? Something about that argument I dont like.
You will appreciate this video of a military wife dissing billy kristol:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/26/kristol-military-wife/
When we hear that the troops want to succeed, I am partly guessing, partly speaking from experience that the most gung ho aren't married. That may be a whole nother argument...
Jarhead, with all due respect...how many of our soldiers have been killed in Korea this year? Japan? Let us know when you have that statistic.
Oh, and hello to Solon ...just saw you here ...enjoyed your comments during the '04 elections. Hope you are well.
AFJ
I am well thank you. As rightwing as you are I like to see your posts too. Always making a point. Always an opinion well considered. Almost alwasys one I completely disagree with. My absolutly favorite kind of post.
Media Reform Is Long Overdue
As I note this post, there is a debate for Democratic candidates being held by MSNBC. Now, I know, and from the content of most of the post on this page, know there has been a shift to the right within the media. MSNBC should of been called on their often bias content and programing and not allowed to conduct the debate. By letting them conduct the debate, we have set back the process of getting the public to believe the bias they practice.
For the most part, less then half of the public is aware of how wide and unfair this problem represents. Kieth Olbermann is the only representative for the politics of the left, and lately they have put him on a leash by limiting the "special comments" component of his show. In a subtle to moderate degree, CSPAN's Washington Journal have shifted to the right. The Washington Journal has always denied such a claim, but when you have one of their host hosting the White House Correspondent dinner, they should seriously rethink their consistent lie to be balanced and fare to the Democratic Party.
By design, this current media structure is flawed to the core. The most important element to delivering the news has been to hype the story. In doing so, the news is created, misrepresented, and often, with exclusion, not reported at all. The media's current practices is not reflecting the express will of the viewers they enjoy. In short, its time for reform.
Joseph
A FAITHFUL JARHEAD
God speed to you and all with you.
There's a pretty incredible movement of peoples about and out of Iraq already. I would that you and your friends were further away from the line of fire. Opinions I trust say there's a good decade of civil war in Iraq's future reguardless of how good you and the rest of our engaged military is or will be.
You look to have made an open eyed choice and I respect you for it. I don't feel like offerring any stupid hopes for you and all concerned. The more of you who make it back intack the better an old nam era airdale squid will feel thank you.
Thanks EWESTON ...
Saved round: Ecclesiastes 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.Unfortunately, like our war to free slaves in this country, or our fight for unconditional surrender of Axis powers who slaughtered Jews, it's Iraq's "time of war" ... and we only get to the peace part thru TOTAL victory and unconditional surrender of radical islamsists ... talking (some call it "diplomacy") has little effect on people already willing to die as suicide bombers.
It may take our Coalition 20 years, just as it took the Brits to outlast the IRA terrorists in their country ... Like the Brits and the IRA, we may not "win" in the classic sense, but we must stand firm until the insurgents in Iraq, like the IRA, cease to fight.AFJ
You are stupid, “a faithful jarhead”, to even think let alone state, twenty years and [your] “unconditional surrender of radical [I]slamists. You have twisted history to conform to your illegitimate views of the civil war’s original purpose [individual state’s rights vs. the federal government’s] and your egregious association regarding America’s involvement in WWII, with the plight of European Jews. Such a patently offensive screed’s insipid ideology cannot comprehend what happened to the Russians as they conflagrated a similar Pyrrhic [victory] in Afghanistan. Please tell us what did it get them? And don’t even think for a moment that you know better… because you, sir, do not. You presume to wave The Flag about as if by that very act, all will be well…as you say? And your quoting from Ecclesiastes, from a portion used in marriages, truly illumes your subtext for the despicable abomination you actually warrant.
Furthermore, Marine…
Your orders are you to perform them out to the best of your ability, as a Marine. And that you get your ass back to stateside! For in doing so, you will have protected your buddies’ and your fellow Marines’ as well as your fellow combatants’ fighting there.
God Bless You Marine
THAT was a misrepresentation. The IRA and Brits and IRA negotitated an agreement that allowed for Irish rule of ALL of Ireland. That is to, if elections went that way leave British control behind. ALWAYS the aim of the IRA. So they didnt wait OUT the IRA, they negotiated an agreement. They aknowleged the reality that Ireland wasnt going to remain British under force of arms. The aims of the IRA might never happen but there is now a political way they can which was always the IRA demand. That isnt much like the situation in Iraq. If the Iraqis held a referendum tomorrow on whether the coalition forces should stay or leave how do YOU think it would come out?
Unfortunately, like our war to free slaves in this country, or our fight for unconditional surrender of Axis powers who slaughtered Jews, it's Iraq's "time of war" ... and we only get to the peace part thru TOTAL victory and unconditional surrender of radical islamsists.
A Faithful Jarhead
Now, I don't know where you got the idea we must repeat our history because it has a "like" quality to something in our early history. Add to that notion, the complete farce we must defend ourselves against some radical faction we cannot define from day to day.
Speaking of logic, let’s do this: You are a police officer who has just received a report I have illegal weapons in my basement. You can even add I have a previous conviction of having illegal weapons in my possession. You come to my house but could not find any weapons, but you learn from your dispatch the complaining party has made false claims before. Do you:
1. Shoot me, continue to look for weapons but now decide to tear up my property to find the weapons.
2. Apologizes, discontinue the search and pay for any destruction you did while searching my home.
3. Imprison me, tear up my house, then sit and construct a sting to catch all those involved in illegal weapon sells.
My point in this: There is an obvious flow to what should happen in a case like this. I formed this exercise to model the questions we should have asked when we found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. By the way if you get it wrong, don't feel bad because you are in good company. To date, the whole country has either supported or generated the wrong answer, and that is why we have the quagmire in Iraq.
Joseph
Native, your personal attack leads me to not care less about your comments, sorry ...
Loonz, yes those are nice places - been to one of them. But do you think Korea was that nice just after the cease fire? Or Japan, in 1945. There was violence in both places.
Solon, your thoughts on a referendum ...that always seems to be issue with libs sometimes - take a vote. Well, in theory, nice, but how do you think a referendum on interracial marriage, or any other civil right for African Americans, would have turned out in our nation in, say ... 1948? No, it took people and leaders acting on "believed principals" to effect change. And it took decades ... decades!
Joseph, great thoughts ... I know no one seems to remember, but the Pres did discuss more than a goose chase for WMDs in several speeches in early '03. One is here, [link to www.whitehouse.gov] I think our leaders on both sides of the aisle believed faulty intelligence, but Bush did often talk of the benefits of a free Iraq, of helping it rebuild, assurance of no more chem bio as was used on the Kurds, and of desire to un-screw the Oil for Food program that was keeping food away from Iraqis. I do wish the administration could have made those desires more clear and let public opinion have its appropriate sway ... easy to say "WMD" hidin' in the woodshed and get emotions stirred Now, that being said, I have many friends in Iraq who helped locate and destroy chem munitions .,.. some from Desert Storm era, some MUCH newer.
I don't understand your and the left's use of "quagmire" either ... do we have a "quagmire" in the "War on Drugs" or a "quagmire" in the "War on Poverty" both of which we've been fighting for years, yet have yet to really make progress, according to the left.
Best wishes all ... I have served in the Arabian Gulf and in Kuwait and only briefly in Iraqi territory ... next Feb will be my first extended (7-14 month) tour in a couple years ... should be at Al-Asad Air Base in Al Anbar, NW of Baghdad and about halfway to Syria.
Will be interesting to continue this chat when I get there. I could be wrong on a lot since I haven't been face-to-face in a while, but I will keep my eyes and ears open and chat with you as I can.
Semper Free (and tactful) speech to all ... AFJ
The difference is obvious. One persons rights cannot be taken by another. Are you claiming it is a RIGHT for foriegn nationals to have US military protection? Meanwhile if your ARGUMENT is that we are staying there FOR THEIR BENIFIT. I do believe the fact they dont want us there is relevant. Your continued denial of its relevance makes me think you are actually agreeing with my characterization that you DONT CARE what they think, that we are just going to HELP them whether they like it or not since they are children and have no say in what is best for them. I am not sure what democracy means to you but having no say in something as basic as whether or not your country is going to be occupied by foriegn troops really doesnt fit into any definition that makes sense to me.
P.s. Sorry the link seems to not work (ok, fair game on the jabs) ...
Here's the text, abridged ... again, hindsight is 20/20 for us all, and I wish WMDs hadn't been the media-highlighted "battle flag" as there were other issues outlined in the build-up to OIF-1.
I think too the comment on "putting teeth" into UN resolutions has some merit, however am sure the world would say we pick and choose which ones ... true, due to domestics politics and finite US resources to play world cop.
AFJ
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary February 26, 2003
President Discusses the Future of Iraq Washington Hilton Hotel Washington, D.C.
7:22 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm proud to be with the scholars, and the friends, and the supporters of the American Enterprise Institute....
... The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and . Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)
... If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry.
We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating under the Oil For Food program, are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF, to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.
We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people. (Applause.) ...
.... There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)
The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.) ...
... Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. (Applause.) The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. (Applause.) ...
END 7:50 P.M. EST
Well I dont see that much security from those who would settle old scores nor that the Iraqis are all that happy with out occupation, they are occupied which is like the opposite of liberated. They will have been liberated when WE LEAVE. Saddam is gone that is a good thing. They will most likely appreciate it more when we are GONE.
There is NO parallel to WW2. Japan attacked us. Germany was currently invading our allies and they declared war on us. Saddam was a butcher, a mid level butcher the worst year in Iraq was like a bad month in Columbia and I wont even mention the Congo or Sudan. Its all spin and I dont think Bush did it very well. I am pretty sure I could take the posted material apart paragraph by paragraph but I frankly dont have the stomach for it.
Solon, as to ... Meanwhile if your ARGUMENT is that we are staying there FOR THEIR BENIFIT. ... I would say predominantly NO ...it's more to our Nation's (and other western nations) to have a democracy in the middle east, ultimately it would lead to more stable trade in the region ... if we help Iraqi's restore what Saddam took away from them, those are second and third order benefits ... throughout history, nations go to war for what benefits them when diplomacy fails (in this case it was repeated failure of UN led diplomacy) ... I guess I misunderstood your comment on a referendum ... i was trying to relate in my inept way what was relayed to us in the 18th century by de Tocqueville on the tyranny of the majority ... ok, sure, so the bulk of the Shia would love for us to leave, and would vote same ... so where would that leave the Sunni minority? .. to be slaughtered. Finally, and this may surprise you, I believe our other enemy is obviously Saudi Arabia, the source of the funding of the madrassa's (sp?) that teach the hate that fuels radical Islam ... that's another chapter ... bonne nuit.
OK. So then its the PNAC political wetdream we are fighting a war for in Iraq. I doubt the efficacy of bringing democracy to a country by invading it. I do not see the moral justification to do so without being asked to and against the will of the people of that country. What you are saying is we are making THEM pay the cost of our experiment to see if we can build up a democracy there. Besides the moral question and the practical question I also think that first if THAT was the reason to go into Iraq then THAT should have been the reason we were told. Let the discussion be about that and see if the American people would support that as a reason to go to war. Or are we ALSO children who dont know what is best for us and need to just let OUR goverment lie to us about motives and shut up, act like a bewildered herd and let our betters lie to us and make decisions in the dark without even PRETENDING to tell us what is really going on? Also if this were the point then the way to go about it would have been after we took control of the country to build the democracy the only effective way. From the bottom up. Town hall meetings, respect for their culture. Completely free media, not shutting down newspapers saying things we dont like. Allowing all parties to take part IN the elections not cancelling the municipal elections because we didnt like the way we thought they would go. Those actions showed we didnt care about their democracy unless it came in a form that suited us. So to recap your summation of motives here is morally unjustifyable, I mean there is a word for invading countries to benifit OUR purposes, imperialism. IF that was the point we did it badly, and it is questionable at BEST that we can accomplish this at all. Our military is the best in the world. Most likely the most effective in the history of the world. Taking over a country is one thing. Setting up a blueprint and telling them THIS is how your society needs to progress is quite another kettle of fish.
It is impossible to bring democracy to another country at the point of a gun.
Faithful Jarhead sounds like the Boy Scout who is determined to help the lady across the street, even though she had no intention of crossing the street in the first place.
A personal attack? On the contrary Jar, your non-sequiturs were faulty in their premise. To utilize that makes for an untenable position later on. I realise I may have misspoke and for that, I apologize. Quantifying one’s position only festoons a straw man. Rather, the specific qualifying of one’s premise cements the supposition. BeWell & safe Marine [applause], all benefit with your safe return. GBY
The area of Secaucus, NJ where MSNBC has its headquarters used to be a landfill. It looks like all that garbage that was dumped there years ago is now leeching out over MSNBC.
Well they are broadcasting it on Al Kazer...and Osama was seen with a tee shirt that read "Harry Understands Us"not to mention his home town newspaper is calling him Bozo the Clown...Iran says Harry gets it right...
Please maintain a minimum level of coherence when posting. You read like you are CHANELLING Bozo the Clown
Guess what, guys;
The surge is working.
"We're achieving a deliberate, systematic disruption in the al-Qaida in Iraq network," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, said in the statement.