On CNN, Lou Dobbs mischaracterized Iraq exit plans as "full withdrawal"
On the July 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week, discussing Iraq withdrawal plans being offered "on the [presidential] campaign trail" and "on Capitol Hill," host Lou Dobbs asserted that "it's as if there are only two options before our policymakers, either full withdrawal or full 'stay the course.' " The Senate, however, recently debated an amendment to the defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) -- that calls for a "reduction" of U.S forces in Iraq but also stipulates that the United States maintain a "limited presence" of troops there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations. Moreover, Iraq withdrawal plans from two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), contain provisions that call for a "limited presence" and a "retention" of U.S. forces, respectively, for counterterrorism operations, force and infrastructure protection, and training Iraqi security forces.
CNN chief national correspondent John King replied to Dobbs, "And, yet, Lou if you ask a foreign-policy expert in either party, they will tell you that no matter what happens over the next several months, there will be 50 to 75,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future." But King did not note that proposals offered by Democratic members of Congress and presidential candidates provide for the retention of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Last week, the Senate debated the Levin-Reed amendment, on which Republicans blocked an up-or-down vote. Under the amendment, the reduction in U.S. forces would "be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq." However, the measure calls for "a limited presence" of troops to remain in Iraq to protect "United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure," to"[t]rain[], equip[], and provid[e] logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF]," and engage in "targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations." The amendment further stipulates that "[t]he Secretary of Defense shall complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described" in the amendment by April 30, 2008.
Moreover, Obama introduced legislation in January requiring the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin "not later than May 1, 2007." The bill stated that the redeployment "shall occur in a gradual manner and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group." According to Obama's bill, redeployment of U.S. forces is "subject to the exceptions for retention of forces for force protection, counter-terrorism operations, training of Iraqi forces, and other purposes."
In addition, Clinton's Iraq redeployment legislation, introduced in the Senate in February, would cap the number of troops in Iraq at January 2007 levels and provide for de-authorizing the war unless the president certifies that "a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun ... including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of -- (A) training Iraqi security forces; (B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces; (C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and (D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities."
From the July 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week:
DOBBS: And what next [in Iraq after withdrawal]? John King, that isn't being really debated in the Senate or the House or Congress. You know, we're -- as we're watching this unfold, whether it's on the campaign trail or whether it's on Capitol Hill, it's as if there are only two options before our policymakers, either full withdrawal or full "stay the course."
KING: And, yet, Lou if you ask a foreign-policy expert in either party, they will tell you that no matter what happens over the next several months, there will be 50 to 75,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
Either/or?
Lou, "there are only two options before our policymakers" in your own narrow mind.
Your own very, very narrow mind.
"It's AS IF........." Clearly Dobbs is questioning how the debate is being framed, not mischaracterizing it.
Framed by who? The framing seems to be Lou's. Since there's actually alot of in between, it's false.
We read it differently then, I read as he is saying the way it's being framed on the campaign trail or on Capitol Hill, they seem to being saying an "all or nothing" withdrawal, when in actuality that is not the case........hence the "as if".
You may be right, but who is he suggesting is doing the framing? The words "campaign trail" stand out to me here. If he's talking about Dems framing the debate that way, then it's mischaracterizing. If he's talking about the media portraying it that way, then I'm not sure how the "campain trail" applies here.
I hear ya. I read it a couple times and it could be viewed either way.
So much for my "clearly" statement earlier, it's not. Poor choice of words, my bad
No, that was just your initial interpretation. Nothing wrong with that.
In case BreakerBaker is still around, this is a decent example of something "ambiguous". We don't fully understand what he's trying to say, because he's not giving us quite enough information from which to make a clear interpretation.
I meant to add, the poor choice of words could just be on Dobbs' part.
I went to the CNN transcripts (hello, Monday a.m. no life), to read the exchange between King and Dobbs, either before or after, and it's not there. Perhaps they are not complete yet.
Ambiguous is a good word, all the way around in this instance.
So much for my "clearly" statement earlier, it's not.
Heh...no prob. Actually, I can see how you could interpret it that way considering that some politicians are framing it that way; e.g., Bush comes immediately to mind. Lou, however, was so vague as to seem to be generalizing this framing to everyone.
I agree with you both its ambiguous. As a commentator its Lou's JOB to clearly communicate what he is saying so clearly he is doing his job poorly here.
The lack of debate is on how to change the course. Just changing the number of people participating in a course of action is not changing that course of action.
The "as if" pertains to the same perception of them that I am getting, that they seem to either plan on continuing to do the same things they have been doing while juggling different numbers of personnel or they plan to stop doing anything at all except for observing which amounts to a withdrawal.
A plan B to actually bring change seems to be totally lacking.
Yep...too many, including both Clinton and Obama, seem to be saying that only the manager is the problem. It's the policy, stupid!
Just what we need, lou dobbs' input on the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" Amendment.
We need more 'pundits' like lou dobbs... we need our 'pundits' to wear more make-up, and have better styled hair, like lou dobbs...
What next from 'pundit' lou dobbs... the "Reduction and Transition of U.S. Forces in Iraq" Amendment is:
Amnesty For Terrorists?
Now you've done it...
I was gonna use something like your "amnesty for terrorists" line, but I didn't want to give Lou any ideas.
I think part of what is going on here is an attempt to avoid the stark reality of what Numbnuts Bush has done. By embarking on this optional, ill-advised war, he has directly caused the deaths of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people. He has severely damaged our credibility on the world stage, and actually increased anti-American sentiment in the Muslim World. If he can keep our troops bogged down there, thus prolonging our current state of crisis, he probably thinks he can avoid taking responsibility for his monumental f*ckup. It's sort of like a drunk who runs over and kills a pedestrian, then hits a tree, wrecking his car and injuring himself. As long as the drunk is in the hospital, he doesn't have to face the legal consequences of his actions.
Bush is a drunk driver postponing his accountability by prolonging the crisis.
Postponing the inevitable does seem to be the tap dance dance both parties are all doing to a tune they choose not to let us hear.
That's the reason for the tap dance done by ALL politicians. Reality is that because of Juniors war it will take years and I mean years to bring some stability back to the region. He has created what amounts to a volcanic explosion and there is no "cap" to cut off the flow. THAT'S what no one wants to tell the American people. If we leave completely Iran will invade to help the Shiites, Turkey will invade on the Kurds in north (already have about 140,000 troops on the border) and Sunni friendly nations will send help as well. We leave, a possible explosion, we stay and Americans will continue to die each and every day.
Reality is Junior created a Middle East far far worse than when he took office.
So does this mean that the Geneva Conventions in effect call for and demand unending human sacrifices in what turns out to be a hopelessly irreconcilable situation?
If that is the case then perhaps they need changed. Sometimes that which is done best is that which is done quickly to minimize deaths even if there is not the ideal in the end that was desired.
We hear so much from Bush & Co. about how vital this war is to the security of our nation and how “cutting and running”will plunge the Middle East into violence of unspeakable levels and somehow give terrorists a means to attack the homeland that doesn’t exist so long as our soldiers keep dying in Iraq. It’s frustrating that the only other antithesis we get is “stay the course” because it really flies in the face of Bush’s portrayal of how important the war is.
We’re trying to occupy and stabilize a country of 27 million people that’s essentially landlocked by porous borders with nations populated by people long instilled with anti-American sentiment. Why don’t Bush’s actions reflect not just his urgency, but the scope of the operation? The “surge”? This is no surge, it’s a trickle.
In my opinion, the only way we’re going to gain control and impose will on a country this size is to absolutely overwhelm it with force. Why isn’t there a draft to mount and maintain the force that we need? If Bush really listens to Generals, why were Shinseki’s recommendations brushed aside?
Why aren’t citizens being asked to contribute in some way to this supposedly noble and crucial endeavor? Why aren’t we being asked to make sacrifices for the war effort beyond the tired, yellow-ribbon “support our troops” line that is both vague and subject to vitriolic debate?
Whether or not this war is important to our national security reallyisn't debatable (like Global Warming). Withdrawl from the region without securing democracy and a strong Iraq will leave the country ripe for domination by Iran and its terrorist friends. With the entire region in control of the bad guys they will have the freedom to plan, rehears and carry out their next attacks on America. Reality is that they WANT to kill Americans. They've wanted to do this long before 9/11. Bush went in to establish a central region of peace with the hop that it would spread. It didn't work, partially because they don't want to help themselves.
The surge is working, even though it was just completed a couple of weeks ago. There are dozens of success stories coming out of Iraq, but the press refuses to report on them. They only report on American deaths, they rarely if ever report success stories that might make the public believe that our troops are making PROGRESS.
Same ole BS...if we leave the terrorists will take over and attack us here...would've worked if those damned Iraqi's really wanted freedom...things are going great if the MSM would only report all the good news, etc...Somehow I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing two years from now.
Cannonball hit a bellyflop in the pool, and has apparently gone home. His post sounds like the cartoon version of the Rush Limbaugh program (which is cartoonish enough!)
The replies are right on; people with ears to hear, let them hear.
" There are dozens of success stories coming out of Iraq, but the press refuses to report on them."
BULL****. There is no conspiracy on the part of the press to bury success stories. The press is not provided the necessary security escorts to visit success stories because the military does not want to turn these success stories into insurgent targets. If they can't visit them, they can't report on them.
There are no journalists who would rather sit inside their sandbagged hotels in the green zone waiting to be escorted to the next gruesome bombing scene. Outside the green zone is absolute mayhem, so every move a journalist makes is dictated by whether or not security can be procured.
To bad the 26 per centers can't see through the sick, perverted and sick man Bush is to use fear for political gain.
Note the following two statements.
"Security is an important element of human life, and free people do not give up their security. Unlike what Bush says - that we hate freedom - let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden for example" - Osama bin Laden 2003
" I guess while I was there [in Iraq] the general attitude was a dead Iraqi was just another dead Iraqi. You know so what?" - Jeff Englehart, former Specialist, Third Brigade, First Infrantry Diviison, United States Army.
The first statment puts to lie the mantra, "they hate us because of our freedom"
The second puts to lie they we are in Iraq because it's good for them.
Bush is no FDR.
Bush is a sick perverted and cynical man who is killing in a manner we often attribute to psycho killers.
Cannonball,
I'm afraid that your entire premise is incorrect. The only thing not debatable about the war in Iraq is that it isn't tied to our National Security. You've got it completely backwards.
SKEPTICAL,
In the overall scheme of the war, of course Iraq is tied to our national security. Losing in Iraq increases Al Qaeda recruitment, makes our buds in the EU and in moderate Muslim states nervous about not joining the jihad, and weakens our own will at home.
Cheez! Think long term.
Actually FIGHTING in Iraq has ALREADY increased al Queda recruiting. Al Queda itself was afraid we would leave Iraq early. THINK for goodness sake
More delusionary rightwing talking points that cant withstand a seconds rational scrutiny. Somehow though they want to kill Americans they cant because we are in Iraq. Only a logic bereft brainwashed rightwinger could take such an argument seriously. When is the last time Iran invaded a foriegn nation? The Achemeniad Dynasty? Its the same Vietnam BS. We have to fight them here or we will be fighting them in Miami. It didnt convince anyone then but hey lets try it again. Sure it stupid but its all they have. There is CERTAINLY a large question whether Iraq has anything to do with our national security I doubt it seriously. Everything good we could ever have done in Iraq is done. Saddam is gone, they have elected a government at this point their problems are internal. Make an agreement that will allow us to attack any terrorist camps in their territory and come home. I know it will break the heart of warmongers everywhere but how is that a bad thing?
Uh...Cannonballs...please educate us...what is stopping them from using Iran as a training ground now? Do they need more square miles? Is Iran not big enough? Is Iran not zoned for "terrorist training camps"?
Actually, a more convincing argument has been made that our continued presence in Iraq has provided Iran and its "terrorist friends" a convenient training ground for their Jihadists, not to mention recruiting incentive. With our troops there, they can test their tactics against the best military in the world, improve their explosives, learn to bypass our detection devices...we have made them more formidable by being there.
Thanks, President Numbnuts!
The surge isn't working. There are no success stories from Iraq. You are a liar.
Withdrawl from the region without securing democracy and a strong Iraq will leave the country ripe for domination by Iran and its terrorist friends. With the entire region in control of the bad guys they will have the freedom to plan, rehears and carry out their next attacks on America Cannon
Bad news, the “bad guys” already control the region and every day that we occupy this Arab country we allow the recruitment of another terrorist.
Bush went in to establish a central region of peace with the hop that it would spread. It didn't work, partially because they don't want to help themselves.
If Junior had ask the American public to give their sons and daughters lives to establish a “central region of peace” we would have never been in this war. If Junior wanted to establish a “central region of peace” he should have stared with the conflict that has been going on for years and years (Israel/Palestine) instead of creating another explosive problem in the region.
The surge is working, even though it was just completed a couple of weeks ago. There are dozens of success stories coming out of Iraq, but the press refuses to report on them. They only report on American deaths, they rarely if ever report success stories that might make the public believe that our troops are making PROGRESS.
Good things happening in Iraq but the press won’t report it. You cannot believe that. How about maybe the press “refuses” to report cause they will either be killed by an IED on the way to the “good news” story or kidnapped by insurgents and then killed.
Please tell me what’s the “good news“. It can’t be that the Sunni’s are taking up arms against Al Qaeda. The Shiite controlled government is non to happy to have the US provide guns and money to the Sunnis. American people would be non to happy to find out that the military is providing guns and money to some of the same people who have already killed American service people. Could the good news be all those building that are being built. Building that are falling down as quickly as they go up. That good old “surge” that has cost 634 service members their lives in just the first 6 months of the year. “Good news” that the heavily fortified “green zone” receives more fire today that is did in the early days of war.
Please tell us what the “good news” that the press refuses to report.
Interesting. This article actually points out that the leading Democrats want to KEEP US forces in Iraq and continue the occupation. Guess that makes them imperialist bastards, too.
Perhaps not, but don't let me stop your imaginings.
The majority of you folks on this thread appear to be convinced that Iraq is a failure. Yet, the congressional Democrats haven’t seen fit to cut our losses and get out - at least not yet. Could it be that too many congressional Democrats are thinking that getting out now in the face of good news might not play too well in ’08?
I’m still waiting for some one of you to step up and give me the odds that the house and senate will pull the funding plug and un-declare the war before the November 2008 elections. Do that and we can see about setting up a bet.
Clarification: I mean odds on the event that congress will pass such into law, over a presidential veto in needed.
There WAS no declaration of war. What the dems will or wont do has as much to do with politics as with prinicple. Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE and they DONT have override votes. The Iraq war IS a failure and morally unjustifyable. It was started with lies and deceptive distortions which would not have been necessary had Bush believed his ACTUAL reasons would sell to the American people.