To Russert, only Dems' vote against funding bill "would be seen ... as not supporting the troops"
Discussing the congressional debate over Iraq policy on the June 14 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert echoed a position uncritically reported by NBC congressional correspondent Chip Reid -- that a vote against the recently passed supplemental war spending bill was tantamount to voting to cut off funding for the troops. However, Russert did not voice the same view of Republicans who voted "no" on an earlier version of the bill. Russert said that "the Democratic leadership realizes to vote against funding for the troops would be seen in a general election as not supporting the troops." Neither Russert nor Today co-host Matt Lauer pointed out that President Bush vetoed the earlier version of the Iraq funding bill, which most Republican members of Congress voted against, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted.
Also, Lauer accused Democrats of "want[ing] to have it both ways," adding: "They send a bill to the president, a supplemental funding bill. In that bill, it talks about these reports that will come in July and September, waiting to hear if the surge is working from General Petraeus. And now they're saying, 'We're going to tell you it's not working before we ever see those reports.' " But contrary to Lauer's suggestion, there is already mounting evidence that Bush's strategy of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq is not working. According to a June 14 Washington Post article, a Defense Department report found that Bush's plan has not reduced violence in Iraq.
Lauer and Russert discussed the issue after a report by Chip Reid on a letter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent to President Bush. In the letter, Harry Reid and Pelosi wrote that "the escalation has failed to produce the intended results" and that "we intend to again send you legislation that would limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."
The June 14 Post article described the Defense Department report as "the first comprehensive statistical overview of the new U.S. military strategy in Iraq." The report stated that "[t]he overall level of violence in Iraq this quarter remained similar to the previous reporting period but shifted location." The report also included a chart showing that the average number of attacks each week on Iraqi civilians, Iraqi security forces, and coalition forces had increased slightly since the beginning of Bush's security plan.
Chip Reid noted that Bush has said that "any conclusions on whether the surge is working should wait until General David Petraeus reports back in September." Chip Reid then asked, "So why are Democrats ratcheting up on Iraq now?" He answered his own question by saying that "the tough talk comes as a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll" shows low approval for Congress, implying that the poll numbers led to the Democrats' decision.
Although Bush has said that conclusions on his decision to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should wait until September, several media reports have noted that White House press secretary Tony Snow is "play[ing] down the notion of September as a pivotal time of evaluation" and "trying to dial ... back" expectations about Petraeus' testimony.
Chip Reid later added that the actions by Harry Reid and Pelosi were "[a]n effort by Democrats to appease antiwar activists and powerful liberal bloggers." However, contrary to the notion that changing course in Iraq is favored by only "activists" and "liberal bloggers," a June 12 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 68 percent of the public wants to begin a withdrawal "right away" or "within the next year."
Responding to Lauer's accusation that the "Democrats in Congress" "want to have it both ways" because the supplemental funding bill that was signed by Bush requires reports by July 15 and on September 15, Russert agreed: "Absolutely. They are listening to the base of their party. They want the withdrawal of troops, and yet politically the Democratic leadership realizes to vote against funding for the troops would be seen in a general election as not supporting the troops."
From the June 14 broadcast of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Back in Washington, Democrats are taking aim at the troop surge in Iraq, saying it's failed already. NBC's Chip Reid has the latest on that story from Capitol Hill. Chip, good morning to you.
CHIP REID: Well, good morning, Matt. Democrats are ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iraq and setting the stage for another major battle with President Bush.
[begin video clip]
CHIP REID: After meeting with the president at the White House, top Democrats threw down the gauntlet on Iraq.
PELOSI: Any strategy for stability in the Middle East must be begun by the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq.
CHIP REID: Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid fired off a letter to the president, saying the surge "has failed to produce the intended results" and telling the president they plan to send him legislation later this month that would "begin the phased redeployment of forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."
HARRY REID: On Iraq, we're going to hold the president's feet to the fire.
CHIP REID: But the president has already promised to veto any such legislation, and says any conclusions on whether the surge is working should wait until General David Petraeus reports back in September. So why are Democrats ratcheting up on Iraq now? Well, the tough talk comes as a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows Congress' approval rating plunging to a dismal 23 percent, much of that loss of support comes from the Democratic base, according to NBC News political director Chuck Todd.
TODD: Well, I think the Democrats are seeing that their base is quite angry with them that they haven't done anything on Iraq. It's being reflected in bad poll ratings, and I think they realize they need to turn their attention back to Iraq.
CHIP REID: An effort by Democrats to appease antiwar activists and powerful liberal bloggers who are still infuriated that the Democratic-led Congress passed the president's Iraq spending bill three weeks ago.
[end video clip]
CHIP REID: So, Democrats are hoping to pass new legislation limiting the president's alternatives in Iraq sometime over the next two weeks because when they go home for the July 4th recess, they want to be able to tell those activists that they're at least trying to force the president to change course in Iraq. Matt.
LAUER: All right, Chip. Thanks very much. Chip Reid on Capitol Hill this morning. Let's get a little bit of a take on this from NBC's Tim Russert, who joins us in the studio. Hey, Tim. Good morning to you.
RUSSERT: Good morning, Matt.
LAUER: Seems to me the Democrats in Congress want to have it both ways. They send a bill to the president, a supplemental funding bill. In that bill, it talks about these reports that will come in July and September, waiting to hear if the surge is working from General Petraeus. And now they're saying, "We're going to tell you it's not working before we ever see those reports."
RUSSERT: Absolutely. They are listening to the base of their party. The base wants the war to be over. They want the withdrawal of troops, and yet politically the Democratic leadership realizes to vote against funding for the troops would be seen in a general election as not supporting the troops, and you see that being played out right now.
LAUER: Is this all about these poll numbers? I mean, they don't know about our poll numbers, but they're hearing it from their base.
Gore got it right. It's an "Assault On Reason".
Is Lauer and Russert that stupid to not know the surge isn't working. Does and month or two months from now really matter. There is civil war going on.
Lauer and Russert would rather see more soliders die in the name of helping Bush stonewall doing anyting about the Iraq War. Bush wants this to drag out until he is out of office because he wants to blame everyone but himself.
Lauer and Russert would like to see Bush blame everyone else too and they will help Bush blame others in every way they can.
Human lifes means nothing to Bush, Lauer or Russert. Winning the blame game means everything. Conservatives would rather win the blame game than spare lifes.
Bush, Lauer and Russert are the kind of people when they get caught with a Playboy magazine they'll swear they bought it for the articles and they don't look at the pictures.
The surge ain't done until you wipe! ;)
Every time I wipe bush gets a headache. It would seem a lot of people , to some extent, are drinking the bush coolaid. These guys are high profile and do their best not to agitate the right wing character assasinators by disparaging baby bush and his insane Iraq plan. Patreaus can see his career and credibility swirling around in the bowl heading for the drain. It is going to be interesting to see how much sugar Petraeus sprinkles on top of this Iraq fiasco in Sept. If baby bush Pardons libby he should also pardon C. Manson. Who is going to pardon others in 09 & 2010. I think others will be going down also.
"Bush wants this to drag out until he is out of office because he wants to blame everyone but himself."
It's not just Bush, the Neocon party which once talked up the importance of "responsibility" has now become the "party of blame". Regardless of the problem, energy prices, the war, their unpopularity with the public, you name it..... They quickly jump to blame somebody else. It's never their fault.
It's also the party of "fear and loathing" and it spreads it fears throughout the population. We are easily the most powerful and secure nation on the planet but polls show we are the most fearful (of all the developed countries).
todd: "i think the democrats are seeing that their base is quite angry with them that they haven't done anything on iraq". actually, there is nothing they can "do". bush has all the power for now. i also have to wonder if there is a certain unhappiness among the democratic base on the immigration bill. immigration is, and has been, my biggest beef with the democrats. "free trade" being the next. i think the democrats need to bring a bill to secure the border now, without all the amnesty provisions which can be argued later. enough is enough. we've been failing to do this for 20 years or more.
Or, we could stop creating economic refugees of Mexican farmers by retoolng NAFTA. We could stop subsidizing Agrigiants that flood the Mexican market with U.S. products that drive Mexicans North.
Grow a freakin' heart Mefirst. The immigration situation isn't the fault of migrants and it won't be solved by tougher enforcements. Well, it won't unless we are willing to round up people, en masse, and send them back to the crapper our market has soiled.
No, this is a nation of immigrants, We need to get smarter on immigration. Not tougher, tougher is rightwing macho bs.
I would like to retract that growing a heart statement. I posted in anger and I apologize, Mefirst.
Securing the border was part of the last bill passed on immigration. There's been a little mention of this recently. Defunding a program has a fine old tradition. The same can be easily withthis one, if it ever becomes law. Then shrub can add some signing statements to further modify it if he feels he must.
I don't think even Wonder Warthog could straighten this out.
Out for a bit, Tom Slick let me borrow the Thunderbolt Grease Slapper. Still equiped with rubber baby buggy bumpers,hot dam!
And yet, some posters (notably ROGER), will ask WHO are these "rightwing pundits" on the major "mainstream" networks? Some posters (like ROGER) continue to cling to the MYTH that there is a huge "LIBERAL MEDIA" which has to be counterbalanced by FOX NEWS.
Here are Russert and Lauer, spewing Rightwing talking points, laying out the NARRATIVE exactly as the Rightwing Spin Doctors want it constructed, and telling the American People how to "interpret" various votes in the way which SUPPORTS the GOP Administration, and portrays Democrats as traitors if they do not give the President whatever he wants.
Russert and Lauer could not be doing a better job for the Republicans if they were being PAID by the RNC. And from past stories (Armstrong Williams), they may very well BE getting paid for this rightwing propaganda.
Someone tell ROGER: Found another couple for the list. Russert and Lauer, in the tank for Bush and the Republicans. Cast-iron evidence.
...or it could be they are acurately reporting what is going on in Congress.
AA,
In Tex's view, there are only two possibilities (and we get accused of black and white thinking, go figure?).........1) Reporters who tow the liberal line 100%, repeating their rhetoric ad nauseum are fair and balanced reporters and worthy of respect...or, 2) Anyone who strays from that for a moment with a critical eye or an independent voice are rightwing propoganda parrots who get their marching orders from the RNC and are in the tank for Bush.
There is no middle ground.
It's "toe the line."
Tommy, exactly what is honorable or "independent" about critically reporting anti-troop Democrats for voting against a spending bill that does not hold the administration accountable for its mess, yet not holding Republicans to the exact same standards when they, too, voted against another spending bill for the troops?
Is it only independent if it's trashing the leftists and centrists?
What are you talking about this is a clear case of Russert treating Dems and Republicans differently for doing the same thing. Now I dont think Russert is a GOP shill, rather it is that groupthink tendency reporters often show to keep with the narrative and after having internalized that narrative not even noticing. It is STILL conservative misinformation.
I really hate to have back you up AA, but on this one, I tend to agree. Russert and Lauer's comments seemed to me to be their opinions of the public's likely perception of the dems actions, especially after considering the probable political tactics which would be employed against them. Just think back to what Bush was saying before the last supplemental.
It's easy to sit here and say "just do the right thing", but we're not really cognizant of the political danger present in bureaucratic activity like the career politicians perceive.
And that likely piblic percption is based on rightwing propaganda.
There is an alternative narrative, that congress is seeking to place checks and balances onthe authority of an over reachiing executive branch.
Somewhere between the Dems don't support the troops and the Executive is powermad is honest reporting or at leasth honest opinion making. And these guys are making opinion on these shows, they have a responsibility to offer alternatives.
It is not "reporting" to sepculate on how a vote will be perceived by the public. It is not reporting to pontificate on what the American people want without something (like a poll, imperfect as it may be) to back it up. It is not reporting to discuss the strategy and goals of either party without having a source to attribute it to. Even an anonymous source. Once again, while, in this case, Russert is ineptly reciting rightwing talking points, more importantly, he and Lauer are just being bad reporters.
You are confusing reporters with pundits/commentators/analysists. They serve different functions.
...or it could be they are acurately reporting what is going on in Congress.
I am not confusing anything. I was responding to AnotherAmerican's post quoted above.
That said, Russert and Lauer and, for that matter, Brian Williams are anchors, not analysts. As such, they are reporters, not analysts. Their ethic should reflect as much.
Another American:
Accurately reporting what is happening in Congress would require reporters to note that Republicans voted OVERWHELMINGLY to deny funding to our troops, first by voting NO on the supplimental, and then by voting NO on overriding Bush's VETO. Bush's VETO, of course, also voted AGAINST funding for our troops.
This "reporting" follows the characterizations used for framing these votes in Congress, yet it seems only the DEMS are voting to deny funding for our troops. This is NOT accurate reporting ... this is rightwing bias.
Tex,
Your spin is DNC style showroom new. Both the Republicans and the Democrats had their specific problems with the respective bills and you know that....to characterize it intentionally the way you want these "reporters" to do to favor your precious Democrats isn't fooling anyone.
Your constant accusations of rightwing bias, while offering up your own blatant leftwing bias is the height of irony, not to mention hypocritical.
And yet, those items were NOT pointed out in news analysis, even though those negatives ARE being pointed out when applied to Democratic representatives. This is where the bias lies - Republicans voted against, Democrats voted against, but the commentators are speculating that it is the Democrats who will be seen as anti-war.
I know you're smart enough to see this - why are you accusing Tex of being some off-the-wall leftist for pointing out the obvious?
- Bush's VETO, of course, also voted AGAINST funding for our troops. - tex
Whoa nelson...stating that Pres.Bush is against funding for the troops is patently ignorant of reality...but a great job of fantasy based far left spin.
This is actually very simple. The money was contained in the bill, and if Bush signs it, the troops get their funding. However, Bush vetoed it, thereby denying the troops their funding. His veto was, in essence, a vote against the funding for the troops. Or would you prefer the interpretation that he held the troops hostage in order to save face - denied funding them to get the (non-binding, by the way) deadlines out of the bill?
What kind of scumbag would do that to his country's soldiers? Good thing the dems gave troop-funding priority over political expediency, don't you think?
Nope.
Further, I don't intend to follow you and tex down that rabbit hole of lunacy...that Pres.Bush is opposed to funding the troops.
You both know the positions of the politicians on funding the war...the democrat party wants to de-fund the war and declare a date certain for defeat...the republican party chooses to fund the troops to fight and win the war in Iraq.
Debate the merits of our military and political efforts in Iraq if you choose...but don't bother with the empty blather about "who" supports funding the troops.
Because we all do, right? I just want to make sure I am understanding your point.
While the ReNAMBLAcan party wants to get as many Americans killed in Iraq as they possibly can. We all know this. At least as much as we KNOW the dishonest frame YOU put on this. Bush wants Americans to DIE every bit as much as DemocratIC Congressmen want defeat
Talk all you want about funding but dont bother about who REALLY cares about our troops in Iraq, that is their LIVES not their utility as OFU as Bush Sr is reported to have called them, that is one fodder unit
Wesley:
The president was sent a bill funding he troops. HE VETOED IT.
The Republicans voted overwhelmingly AGAINST this bill which provided funding for the troops, and they had enough votes AGAINST funding the troops to uphold Bush's VETO.
These are the FACTS: The GOP Prez and Congress voted NOT TO FUND THE TROOPS.
Once that funding bill was vetoed, there was no longer any funding for the troops on the table. The GOP defunded the troops.
Now, the issue wasn't settled by their actions, of course, but they voted NOT TO SIGN ON TO FUNDING THE TROOPS.
Rabbit holes and delusions and spin aside, this is exactly what happened.
Tex,
Wes is right, and you know it. Facts without context are worthless, and that's what you're providing. Everyone here knows the particulars of these funding bills and why the Dems wanted the attachments, and why Bush vetoed it for a cleaner bill.
So the rathole digging is really one sided, come out with your head up or you just appear foolish keeping it buried.
no, wes is not right. when bush vetoes a bill or republicans vote against a bill that contains "funding for the troops", he's not accused of defunding them. it's only when the democrats vote for or against a bill that the charge is made. that's the simple fact.
MEFIRST:
Bingo. It's the clear double standard that reveals the bias.
No he isnt right and neither are you. You guys think you have some God given right to YOUR frame and a demand IT be taken as the basis for discussion those days are over you need to get over it. BOTH were funding bills Dems voted against one based on what THEY thought was right and Reps voted against the other based on what THEY thought was right it is completely irrelevant which one you agree with it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
- 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists...it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda...
- a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran, would be a catastrophe for American national security and our safety here at home...I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there...- Joe Lieberman
Well said, Joe...and you have more power than almost anyone else to achieve victory in Iraq...switching affiliation to the republican party will neuter the anti-war leftists.
Nobody pays attention to Joe lieberman anymore. He looks as silly as Dukakis in a tank. Lieberman is a failed state himself.
Matthew 13:57 : : And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
.. you could add.. and in his own senate.
And when those prophets have been AS consistantly WRONG as you guys have been for YEARS exactly WHY would anyone honor them. I could have done better throwing darts blindfolded than the rightwing has done predicting outcomes in Iraq
According to the little tiny bit of research I did, out of all the bombings in Iraq since 2003 - as listed in wikipedia, I only count 3 attributed to "al qaeda". I'd be interested to find out where that 90% you quote comes from.
By the way, Joe - after his '06 visit to Iraq - also said:
"The country is now in reach of going from Saddam Hussein to self-government and, I'd add, self-protection, That would be a remarkable transformation ... I saw real progress there." saying at the same time that he foresaw the troops heading home near the end of the year, or early '07.
Then again, you go to war with the prophets you have, not the prophets you wish to have.
touche'
I'd put all of our prophets in the same class as Criswell, one of the stars of Plan 9 From Outer space.
His prediction that Mae West would be elected president in 1960 on a pro-space travel platform and fly to the moon with Criswell and his "friend" Liberace was as accurate as any of the soothsayers we used to plan the War in Iraq..
I think the Wikopedia source for Al Qaeda is a bit thin.
First the link was for suicide bombings. That leaves out a bunch.
Secondly, I did not find the terrorist affiliation on the list of bombings.
I did find this in the link.
A 2005 Human Rights Watch report analysed the insurgency in Iraq and highlighted, "The groups that are most responsible for the abuse, namely al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna and the Islamic Army in Iraq, have all targeted civilians for abductions and executions. The first two groups have repeatedly boasted about massive car bombs and suicide bombs in mosques, markets, bus stations and other civilian areas. Such acts are war crimes and in some cases may constitute crimes against humanity, which are defined as serious crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population."[2]
Yes, I saw the HRW report, but blew it off because it was too old, was an aggregate of 3 groups, and didn't give any statistics.
I did neglect to realize that the wiki entry was limited to suicide bombings, though. Thanks for pointing that out. I knew my research was weak, but did it primarily in the hopes of provoking a source for the 90% figure. (Hint hint, Wes...)
Baloney. Al Queda wasnt even active in Iraq until we invaded, they were afraid we would leave early and ruin their recruiting there is NO reason to believe the best educated most modern Arab nation in the middle east has any sympathy for al Quedas message. Sure they will take any help they can get to end our occupation but its time you scrapped your I Ching or your crystal ball or magic 8 ball or whatever you use to predict what is going to happen in Iraq. So far you rightwingers have been WRONG about 100% of the time when making such predications and I would have to as gullible as those who believe what Bush says to take ANY rightwingers newest prognostications about Iraq seriously, in fact the fact you have the NERVE to make further predictions when you guys have been so consistantly wrong is amazing. No one with the sense God gave the garden variety slug would greet another or your wild predictions with anything but uproars of hilarity
Speaking of Russert, I am predicting an item similar to what was on Crooks and Liars where he repeated Fox News talking points on the Democratic debate they wanted to hold.
He and Hannity should have just made out instead.
Just call him Tim-on the wrong side of history-Russert. What a common tater!
I'm sorry, if the Dems wanted to stop the war, they needed 2/3rds democrats...period.
No they only need some Republicans to wake up to reality and put their country above their party
But they don't want to stop the war. Everyone's making too much money.
COPIOUS:
Correct. To enact CHANGE from Bush's disasterous policies, the Democrats will have to increase their majorities in Congress to a veto-proof level (can't happen until 2008, and then there will be a Dem president anyway). Bush and the Republicans are intent on "surging" our soldiers to death, without any hint of improvement in conditions on the ground.
As long as the GOP can overrule the Dems, then our brave soldiers will continue to die for Bush's ego. Oh, and a few hundred billion in stolen petroleum revenues, along with tens of billions in bonanzas for Haliburton and defense contractors.
The Republicans have huge economic incentives to continue this war indefinitely. The only drawback is the wasted lives of our soldiers; Bush has decided this is a good tradeoff. After all, our soldiers all VOLUNTEERED to die for Bush, so their lives are his to do with as he pleases.
What Lauer and Russert are doing is so irresponsible, I can't even describe how it makes me feel. They are just reporters, not pundits, but they may as well be for the bias they are showing against liberals and for the truth about what is happening in congress. Reporters are supposed to report in an unbiased manner. Millions of people watch them, and many of those viewers respect them and take what they say for the truth. In that segment they didn't even have the professionalism to have another reporter/pundit/analyst to show another viewpoint. They are so arrogant and full of themselves that they probably won't even understand why Media Matters and their readers have called them on their interview. I've e-mailed NBC with my protest and I hope others do also.