On Chris Matthews Show, Borger falsely suggested Democratic Iraq proposals involve "withdraw[ing]" all troops "overnight"
On the July 29 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, U.S. News & World Report columnist Gloria Borger falsely suggested that Democratic proposals for troop withdrawal from Iraq involve "withdraw[ing] overnight. "While discussing what NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell described as the "enormous costs of getting out" of Iraq, Borger asserted that "this is such a problem right now for the Democrats ... [b]ecause privately, many of them will say ... that you can't withdraw overnight ... that it would be dangerous for us to do that." O'Donnell agreed, saying, "Mechanically, you can't do it." But Borger offered no examples of a leading Democrat who wants to immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq. To the contrary, the withdrawal proposal recently supported by Senate Democrats would have reduced troop levels in Iraq over the next nine months and would have retained residual forces in Iraq to conduct limited operations.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the recently debated amendment to the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) -- calls for a "reduction" of U.S. forces in Iraq but also stipulates that the United States maintain a "limited" troop presence there to protect U.S. and coalition infrastructure, train Iraqi security forces, and conduct counterterrorism operations. 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." The Levin-Reed 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 legislation by April 30, 2008. Republicans ultimately blocked an up-or-down vote on the amendment.
From the July 29 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
O'DONNELL: There are enormous costs of getting out.
MATTHEWS: So, we are here for the duration of this presidency?
O'DONNELL: Oh, without a doubt.
BORGER: And can I say that this is such a problem right now for the Democrats, as we see them not only debate in Congress, but also in all of their presidential debates. Because privately, many of them will say -- and [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE] has even said it publicly -- that you can't withdraw overnight --
O'DONNELL: No.
BORGER: -- that it would be dangerous for us to do that.
O'DONNELL: Mechanically, you can't do it.
You could if you found the magic vehicles that sent the WMD's to Syria!
More straw! MORE STRAW!
Quick! Borger needs to build more straw men!
Then, she can pontificate about how idiotic an idea it is to "withdraw overnight."
An idea, by the way, which no one of any consequence has advocated.
And don't ever count on Tweety to call her on it. He's heard it over and over on his shows and he's always acted as though it's what everyone but Duhhbya's dogmaniacs want.
Yes, your average cultic pundit thinks in anti-concepts and will never fairly represent what critics and opponents say. It's always a strawman argument and here Borger is just being hamhanded and actually stating what has been implied all along by the Bush Administration, allies and subsitiaries....that any withdrawl or reconfiguring of our troops is unconditional surrender to terrorists and a great shame for our nation...another loss at the hand of the leftist fifth column.
I think I would fall over in my chair if a journalist or news program host ever said something like "overnight?...that is a bit of a strawman isn't it?"
Or in the case of some of these wackos if the host would say..."you were wrong about everything when it came to the Iraq war so far...why should we take anything you say seriously"
I think I'd have a heart attack out of sheer hope for the future.
Gloria Borger is a fool.
She has the Democratic conundrum exactly BACKWARDS.
The 'problem for Democrats' is not that they'll have us withdraw from Iraq too quickly, but that they'll leave us there far too long. The Congressional elctions of 06' were a referendum on the Occupation, & the American people plainly expressed their desire that we get the hell out of Iraq AS QUICKLY AS IS PRACTICAL! The MSM, by & large, have proven themselves exceptionally obtuse on this point, clinging instead to the discredited Washington Establishment meme that the American voters merely indicated that we would like a minor tactical adjustment be performed... such as the Administration's clearly failing escalation gambit.
This demonstrates just how deeply out of touch these so-called pundits are with the reality of the national mindset. They continue to show themselves constitutionally incapable of divorcing themselves from the Rovian & neocon concepts of achieving American security through military aggression & corporate hegemony on an international scale. They are far more loyal to imperialism & unilateralism than they are to even the most basic tenets of democracy.
I sort of think she's outlining the same problem you're talking about. Or, that she's at least attempting to do so.
Anything short of simply cutting off all funding is ineffectual, because as long as Bush has "funding for the troops", he will "stay the course" forever.
Sensible timetables and rational withdrawal schedules are characterized as "giving the enemy our plans" which will cause them to simply "hunker down and wait it out until the U.S. troops are gone." Thus even planning or talking about getting out is seen as TREASONOUS, to the Bush people.
An arbitrary date has been agreed to: September 15. The significance of that date is, if Bush cannot show victorious progress in all 18 "benchmarks" of success, then Congressional Democrats will have the green light to cut off all funding. And they WILL. And Bush will squeal like a stuck pig that Democrats are abandoning and undermining troops in the field, and the rightwing pundits will scream that the "DEFEATOCRATS" are pursuing "cut and run" and a policy of "SURRENDER". It will be high drama.
The only question will be, will Bush leave the troops in harm's way without funding, hoping to blame the consequences on Democrats, or will Bush face reality and end this war that has no support?
My guess, since Bush cares NOTHING about the troops, and only cares about having his way ... he will go for the propaganda blitz of shame, and hope to get the Dems to back down and vote emergency funding. If they DO, then we are back where we started, with Bush able to continue getting American soldiers killed forever.
It's ALREADY a clear case of blackmail, where the ruthless egotist with an agenda is able to get what he wants by threatening that which is held dear by another party. "Give me a million dollars or you'll never see your loved one again" is the EXACT SAME line shared by Bush and any lowlife extortionist. Can the Democrats hold firm, with EVERY Media outlet taking the Rightwing spin? With every talking head and correspondent characterizing events exactly as the White House wants them spun?
It will be the true test of whether we have lost our nation.
The Dems have to face this choice...Politics or Americans Lives....Simple
Technically, she's not suggesting or necessarily implying any leading Democrats propose getting out overnight. She's suggesting they wouldn't mind if Democratic primary voters and doners considered it a possibility that a withdrawl could and should happen much quicker than is perhaps feasible or responsible. I'm not suggesting that she's offering examples. I'm simply saying she'd not making the claim MMFA is suggesting.
Read. The. Transcript.
- AND/OR -
Watch. The. Tape.
I did. Point to a place in my post that suggests I haven't. I just don't necessarily agree with the conclusions drawn.
she says that "privately" many of them say you can't withdraw overnight. she is misrepresenting their positions because no one is saying to withdraw overnight. what do you fail to understand?
Thank you, but I don't think I fail to understand much. Alas, lucidity seems to be my cross to bare.
She does indeed seem to imply that they hold at least somewhat conflicting points of view privately vs publicly. I don't at all disagree with that point. I simply disagree with the notion that she's speaking about specific proposals. The question is, to what else she could be referring. I assert that she could very easily be speaking not to proposals (which the candidates themselves understand most of the public will never read) but instead to what I think most would agree is an overwhelming public perception that the Democrats are the anti-war party and the Republicans are the stay the course party. I think most would agree that it's a flawed perception, but one that favors the Democrats (and is, in fact, of their own creation). I furthermore argue that the implication Borger may have been making is that many Democrats may see this as a fragile perception that could easily be hurt as more and more Democratic leaders (not simply those running for the presidency) are forced to admit publicly and repeatedly that they're of the belief that our troops should remain in Iraq longer than some previous estimates, and certainly longer than much of the base would prefer, and damaging that perception could be a problem for Democrats hoping to gain greater control of the congress (not to mention the presidency) in 2008.
ok you agree that she seems to imply that they hold different views in private and public. the article points out they don't. so i don't see your problem.
Well, to be precise, MMFA is arguing about a reference they believe Ms. Borger is making with regard to Democratic proposals. Therefore, the only evidence they need give to support this claim is that proposals exist that are supported by Democratic candidates. If one is to suggest that simple fact rebukes the initial quote, I'd have to humbly disagree.
As I've already said, there's a difference between public perception (of which the Democrats are entirely aware) and what a politician says in public. So perhaps I should have said she certainly seems to be drawing a distinction between what they say in private and what they like to say in public. Plus, phrases like 'seems to' would help MMFA make more cogent arguments. And not look so disingenuous.
Because privately, many of them will say -- and [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE] has even said it publicly -- that you can't withdraw overnight --
The point is, she took a comment and made it sound like Democrats were calling for an overnight withdrawal...by saying that Sen. Biden and others were talking "privately" about NOT doing it. That suggests that Democrats have been talking about it, as in: Shhhh, don't want to let any of the other Democrats know that we are not on board with the overnight withdrawall plan.
Here is a Clinton comment about overnight withdrawall, and in no way does Senator Clinton suggest in her statement, that anyone had suggested this. See the difference???
From the NYSun May 24th 2007
"......Mrs. Clinton yesterday sent a letter to the defense secretary,Robert Gates, seeking assurances that military leaders had drawn up "contingency" plans so that American troops could pull out of Iraq without "unnecessary danger." She cited recent reports that Iraqi military officials are making their own preparations in the event of a rapid American exit.
"In light of growing violence and insecurity in Iraq, the continued lack of political progress by Prime Minister al-Maliki, the Iraqi defense ministry's level of contingency planning, and the will of the American Congress to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, it is imperative that the Department of Defense prepare plans for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces," Mrs. Clinton wrote.
............[ ].................
"Withdrawal is very complicated. It doesn't happen overnight," Mrs. Clinton told reporters yesterday, saying she has heard that there has been "no, or very limited, planning" for a pullout. "If they're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way."..............
I don' t know... I tend to think that's simply a way it could be read. Technically she didn't say any Democrats were planning anything other than a phased withdrawl. She seemed to imply a genuine debate on the merits of withdrawl (one that actually sought a resolution and not political posturing) could actually hurt Democrats more than it could help them because it would force the Democrats into a position of, in a way, supporting a longer stay than much of the base wants. And the point of the primaries is to appease the base. I'm not saying she backed this up with anything. I'm just saying there's more than one plausible inferrence from the transcript. Perhaps a more accurate one than is being framed by MMFA.
"Technically she didn't say any Democrats were planning anything other than a phased withdrawl" --BB
Thechnically, Rush Limbaugh never said that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clinton's. What he said was; "Could it be the Clinton's had Vince Foster murdered?" Anyone can lead an audience to a conclusion without actually stating the implication.
As a journalist, she needs to be more responsible. After all, if we can't get the truth without a right or left slant, how can we make informed decisions? This type of conversation is exactly why Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly listeners are so ill informed.
<!-- new -->
Thechnically, Rush Limbaugh never said that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clinton's. What he said was; "Could it be the Clinton's had Vince Foster murdered?" Anyone can lead an audience to a conclusion without actually stating the implication.
Um, I think your reach is exceeding your grasp with that comparison. The two statements (the one by Borger here and the one you quote) are so different in so many ways that it's difficult to find a place to begin to show how inapt it is. It's such a bad comparison, that I'm going to give you the opportunity to revise before I dismantle that portion of your last post. Would you like to pick a different example? Or are you happy with the one you've given me?
As for whether someone can say one thing and mean another. Whether they can imply something more than they're saying, of course that's true. But I think the fault here is not necessarily with the implication but with the inference.
As to your point regarding the difficulty of making informed decisions without unbiased reporting, I must confess that such an argument feels a little ironic considering the domain name at the top of this talkback. <!-- new -->
in other words, you got nada.
Care to elaborate on what portion of what I've been saying amounts to nada? Or are we just being glib?
"Care to elaborate on what portion of what I've been saying amounts to nada? Or are we just being glib?"--BB
We?
I was using the empirical we. Meaning him.
Funny, I didn't think HE was being glib!
"Would you like to pick a different example?" --BreakerBaker
No, I like this one just fine. True as it is, yet certainly an exaggeration compared to Borger's implication, it proves my point to which you acknowledged by saying; "As for whether someone can say one thing and mean another. Whether they can imply something more than they're saying, of course that's true."
"But I think the fault here is not necessarily with the implication but with the inference." --BB
The inference in this case is a direct result of the misleading implication. All I said was that as a journalist it is important to be accurate, to not speak/write in a way that audience's could draw a different conclusion. I fail to see how that is too much to ask.
"As to your point regarding the difficulty of making informed decisions without unbiased reporting, I must confess that such an argument feels a little ironic considering the domain name. . ."--BB
I assume by reading this that your trying to say that MMFA is a biased web site, however, I'm not certain, because the way you wrote it could lead to different conclusions. : )
I fail to see where we have any disagreement due to the fact that you basically said that I was correct on each point stated. So, I'll simply say thank you, and good night.
Rick
True as it is, yet certainly an exaggeration compared to Borger's implication, it proves my point to which you acknowledged by saying;
Sorry dude, the differences are far more substantial. One is a rhetorical question with a desired affirmative response, while the other is a description of a scenario. You can't answer Borger's statement because it's not a question. It's actually saying something. It's saying there's a political problem for Democrats relating to an honest public debate with regard to how long we stay in Iraq. Had she said, Do Democrats want to withdraw overnight, then there would at least be a structural similarity between that and the absurd example you've given. But she didn't say that, so your example is silly.
The inference in this case is a direct result of the misleading implication. All I said was that as a journalist it is important to be accurate, to not speak/write in a way that audience's could draw a different conclusion. I fail to see how that is too much to ask.
There's a contradiction in this paragraph. You state that it was Borger making an implication that drew you to the inference. Theoretically, you're saying that you're inferring exactly what she's implying. Then you seem to imply that it wasn't her implication but the fact that she was too unclear as to ensure an accurate understanding of what she means. Which is it?
I assume by reading this that your trying to say that MMFA is a biased web site,...
While it's true that MMFA is a biased site, the bias alone isn't what bothers me. It's the unequivocal nature with which they present the so-called 'misinformation' that is the subject of their mission statement. It's actually a very easy argument to make--and a very difficult one to refute--that MMFA while claiming to stand against misinformation is actually spreading it.
Hopefully, this will go to clear up for you how we disagree, and why you're clearly wrong.
"Sorry dude,..."--BB
You can call me Rick, or TheRick. Thanks.
"... the differences are far more substantial. One is a rhetorical question with a desired affirmative response, while the other is a description of a scenario. You can't answer Borger's statement because it's not a question." --BB
If Limbaugh's question was rhetorical (which draws a fine line between a question and a statement) then it was't meant to be answered either, but that doesn't mean that the audience was not misled any less by either.
Borger said;"...Because privately, many of them will say -- and [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE] has even said it publicly -- that you can't withdraw overnight --" This implies that Democrats are saying that the troops SHOULD be withdrawn overnight, even though no one is saying that. Although the two statements are very different, they are both misleading.
Let's say John Smith hit 2 doubles and 3 singles in 5 at bats, and the sports reporter wrote; "John Smith goes another day without a home run." Although this is true, it is misleading the audience to believe John Smith stunk up the ballpark. Then another reporter asks; "How many more days before John Smith hits a home run?" Again making him appear to be a goat.
"...MMFA while claiming to stand against misinformation is actually spreading it."--BB
You've failed to prove that, I hope this clears up for you why you're clearly wrong. You also failed to address why a journalist should not be held to a standard which I know first hand is taught in journalism schools--report and write clearly so that what is said/wrote isn't taken to mean something unintended. Perhaps it was not unintended.
By the way: You quoted me accurately; "The inference in this case is a direct result of the misleading implication. All I said was that as a journalist it is important to be accurate, to not speak/write in a way that audience's could draw a different conclusion. I fail to see how that is too much to ask."
Then responded: "There's a contradiction in this paragraph. You state that it was Borger making an implication that drew you to the inference. Theoretically, you're saying that you're inferring exactly what she's implying. Then you seem to imply that it wasn't her implication but the fact that she was too unclear as to ensure an accurate understanding of what she means. Which is it?"
Duh? I inferred what she implied. Whether she knew that she was making this implication is anyones guess. If she knew, then she intentionally misled those listening, if she misled unintentionally, then she should apoligize to those offended, and retract the statement. Either way, we all lose when this sort of thing happens. And, it happens frequently.
Breakbaker....Borger only said the paragraph (at bottom) and a short reply, and that is what this article is about. How do you read everything you said below in this statement by Borger?
Breakbaker: "Technically, she's not suggesting or necessarily implying any leading Democrats propose getting out overnight. She's suggesting they wouldn't mind if Democratic primary voters and doners considered it a possibility that a withdrawl could and should happen much quicker than is perhaps feasible or responsible. I'm not suggesting that she's offering examples. I'm simply saying she'd not making the claim MMFA is suggesting. "
BORGER: And can I say that this is such a problem right now for the Democrats, as we see them not only debate in Congress, but also in all of their presidential debates. Because privately, many of them will say -- and [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE] has even said it publicly -- that you can't withdraw overnight --
Oops...sorry, BreakERbaker
On Chris Matthews Show, Borger falsely suggested Democratic Iraq proposals involve "withdraw[ing]" all troops "overnight"
That's the header to this posting. What I'm saying is there's easily more than one rational inference to her intent. Seeing as she didn't mention a single proposal, one could easily infer that she wasn't necessarily speaking about proposals at all, yet MMFA automatically takes the ball and runs with it. Notice how the header lacks any equivocation. To them, there's only one possible rational understanding of Borger's intent. I argue that theirs is at best an inaccurate argument, and at worst, a disingenuous one. A better assertion would be that she 'seems to be making the false assertion that...', but that's simply not sensationalistic enough. Especially since making that clarification would leave room for other inferences, and MMFA is not in the business of asking its readers to think for themselves.
I offered what I deem to be at the very least an equally plausible inference that I've elaborated on more elsewhere. However, as I reread my comment, I suppose in that I'm also guilty of not stating the existance of other rational inferences. I should have said that 'To me, she seems to be suggesting...' and at the end, I should probably have said that she was 'not necessarily' making the claim MMFA was asserting.
Consider that my corrections page. Let me know if MMFA ever makes any substantive corrections in their corrections page. Or is that page reserved only for misspellings and poor citations?
"residual forces to conduct limited operations"....again, the Democrats ADMIT they will NOT remove the troops from Iraq, only some of them, and leave a brutal and hated occupation in place, with US forces acting as thugs for a puppet government and the oil companies. Dems prove once again that they are fascist imperialists, too. The Demo-cons ride on!
And the President of the United States has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet still, a lot of people believe they did. I'm not talking about what they're saying. I don't think Berger is either. I'm talking about the tight rope they have to walk in terms of appearing to be the party that would end this war now ('we're 15 votes or a presidential signature away from ending this war today') and the more realistic and complicated position each of them have to take.
It doesn't help Democrats with an anti-war base for them to say we have to stay longer in any context.
And of course there are people out there who think we should leave now. Thankfully, none of them are going to be elected president. But many of them will be voting.
This was actually written in response to NOMOBUSH's comment below. My apologies.
You're going to have to do a better job of making sense if you expect me to reply to this post which supposedly is a reply to me.
If this wasn't clear enough, feel free to respond to the one I posted below. Or don't. It's entirely up to you.
I have heard this a bunch recently.
Removing troops immediately is not possible.
Keeping them there forever is also an unworkable solution.
Therefore, the timeframe has to be somewhere between as soon as we can get them out of there (probably 6-9 months for combat troops and 2-3 for support troops and equipment) to several years down the road.
No one thinks that troops can or should be removed immediately. Saying that something should happen immediately doesn't mean that all the troops should get removed immediately. It means that the process should start immediately.
Any reporter who doesn't understand that concept is too stupid to handle the job requirements.
or maybe the reporters are "numbskulls"?
Your point?
I said that if the reporters don't understand that there is no possibility of an immediate withdrawl, and that no politician has suggested that as an option, then they're stupid. Your comment was "or maybe they're numbskulls?", but I don't understand how that's a different choice that what I had already said.
Do you have a point? If so, you're going to have to describe it better than you did above.
Are you saying that they're numbskulls because they know they're wrong but they're pushing a rightwing talking point? Is that what makes them numbskulls to you?
My point is they are numbskulls. I wish you would be more candid , the way you used to be.
No one has ever accused me of not being candid, so I have no idea what you're talking about....seems like nonsense to me. Did you start drinking early today or something, because so far you've made no sense. I said that reporters are stupid, and then you wondered if I'd call them numbskulls for some unknown reason. Now you're saying that I need to be more candid when I'm candid all the time.
It's quite obvious that the administration never planned this to be the quick liberation of the Iraqi people, and corporations and private contractors have an enormous financial stake in this.
Here are some fun facts from a July 29th, 2007 New York Times article by Bill Marsh. He lists 5 questions the administration will have to answer in order to exit Iraq. (The full article is at the nytimes.com site)
"......................
What to Take? What to Leave? What to Destroy?
After more than four years of buildup, the American footprint in Iraq is enormous. There are more than 75 major bases: Some have their own retail stores, with products from magazines to luxury goods like large-screen televisions for purchase by soldiers. There are grocers, fitness clubs and fast-food outlets, in addition to the usual military infrastructure. Besides bases, there are hundreds of smaller sites for storage, ammunition and fuel.
The time required to salvage these multibillion-dollar installations and their contents could stretch the patience of Americans who want to see the war end soon. (In a July 20 New York Times poll, 66 percent of respondents wanted some or all of the troops out.)
But a quick exit has its own costs.
“The faster you move out, the more you have to leave behind or destroy,” said Mr. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There’s no ideal.”
Voters and political candidates, he says, are looking for a quick-exit “fantasy.”
“If you blow everything up, take the critical vehicles and get the people out, you can do it in a month. But why?”
With individual missiles costing $100,000 or more and armored Humvees about $380,000, the staggering value of materiél demands a longer, more complete withdrawal, Mr. Cordesman said. “You can leave an awful lot of things behind. But that borders on the insane.”
.............."
While our troops sit in their air-conditioned bases eating KFC and pizza, drinking beer after each patrol, Iraqis are starving on the streets and in the refugee camps. The contrasts between the comfort of the invader and the misery of the invaded is the essential symbol of the immorality of this war crime.
You seem to be inferring that there are two choices: either they're reporting the situation disingenuously or they're too dumb to understand the situation.
All I'm suggesting here is that there exists today an perception that the Democrats are the anti-war party, and the Republicans are the stay the course party. Of course there are problems with both of these crude classifications, but I would still argue that such a perception exists and that it's one that helps the Democrats and hurts the Republicans.
I'm inferring from this piece that her intention was to pin-point a particular political problem the Democrats face with regard to pointing out why a perception that helps them is inaccurate. Democrats like the perception that they're anti-war. They like the perception that they're the only party trying to get us out. They'd like to run that perception all the way through November 2008. But anytime they have to openly and audibly say why it's neither feasible nor responsible to leave too quickly, they understand that the clear choice between anti-war and stay the course is damaged. And their public persona as the party of change is damaged.
It's not altogether unlike the perception much of the public still has that Iraq was involved in 9/11 regardless of the times the administration has said otherwise. While the administration had to own up to it not being the case, they like that perception because it strengthens their theoretical purpose for fighting this war in the first place.
They can be removed in less than a month. All we have to do is start packing them up and heading for the borders. Our military is fully mechanized, they can drive out of Iraq within a few days.