Roll Call reported GOP attacks on Clyburn, but not his actual remarks or any response from him to the attacks
In an August 2 Roll Call article, staff writer Susan Davis reported that Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said "a positive report by [Gen. David] Petraeus [commander of U.S. forces in Iraq] could be politically difficult for Democrats." The article then reported Rep. Adam Putnam's (R-FL) description of Clyburn's comments as "unconscionable" and noted that the "remarks have prompted lengthy responses on conservative blogs and talk radio." But Roll Call did not quote Clyburn directly, nor did Davis give any indication in the article that she attempted to contact Clyburn regarding Putnam's attacks. What Clyburn, in fact, said is that a report by Petraeus that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it" would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats, as Davis suggested through her paraphrase, but, rather, that a recommendation from Petraeus against withdrawal would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."
Clyburn's comments came during a "PostTalk" interview with Washington Post reporters Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza (video available on the Post's website). Following is the exchange regarding Petraeus' report:
BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
So I think we, by and large, would do wise -- be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We're as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I've got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I'm certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Petraeus who can be trusted to give us good information.
From Davis' Roll Call article:
Republican leadership offices have orchestrated a coordinated effort this week to highlight positive comments by freshman Democrats who recently returned from Iraq, and to attack comments reported by Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) that a positive report by Petraeus could be politically difficult for Democrats.
Putnam called the comments "unconscionable," and Clyburn's remarks have prompted lengthy responses on conservative blogs and talk radio.
Additionally, though Roll Call reported Putnam's claim that Clyburn's comments were "unconscionable," Davis gave no indication that she made any effort to contact Clyburn for a response to Putnam's attack. Nor did the article anywhere note that immediately following his assertion about the potential effect of a recommendation against withdrawal, Clyburn asserted, "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that." Balz and Cillizza's July 30 Post article on the interview similarly failed to note those comments by Clyburn, though it did offer more context for Clyburn's remarks:
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
More blatant GOP propaganda
Why is it that Democrats seem to be embroiled in this type of controversy on what they did or didn't say? Their statements can never seem to stand on their own without some qualifier or explanation necessary, or taken this way or that way depending on your point of view.
There wouldn't be this ambiguity or misinterpretation if they were more clear and precise in their wordings or what they really want.
Who can blame the media sometimes?
Right, it's Clyburn's fault for not tailoring his speech for those with a split-second attention span and a 2nd grade reading level. What he said was clear and not at all ambiguous.
I see no ambiguity in what Rep. Clyburn said.
But I do see ambiguity in the paraphrasing done by the staff writer for Roll Call. She did not quote what was said, she interpreted what was said, very poorly too, I might add.
He should have said that the Democrats, of course, hope for a good report - and he could have shown us his political motivation after that........but he chose his initial concerns right off the bat, that's pretty obvious.
Its not up to you what he should have said and Dems are not obligated to make sure every little thing they say cannot be misparaphrased in this dishonest way
Of course it's not up to me what he said......but his initial comments indicated where his priorities lie, and those are political.
Had he added those comments later in the interview, or not said them at all, all of you wouldn't be whining now to his defense. He showed what's really important to him and his fellow Democrats, and he got tabbed as a result.
Too bad.
He was ASKED what the Democrats would do! The question IS political. First you accuse of him of being vague and ambiguous, and then when that clearly wasn't going to stick, you change your argument to accuse him of playing politics. He answered a question--about politics--clearly and unambiguously. Democrats shouldn't have to preface every statement about Iraq with some disclaimer that says, "First let me say that we all want things to go very, very well."
Poor tommy such a lack of reading comprehension. Take some adult education classes. He was misparaphrased. I am not whining I have no problem with what he said. YOU are clinging on to a DISHONEST paraprhase and interpretation of what he said as IF it had relevance. He is a politician responsible to his constituency who was asked about this and answered honestly. YOU are as dishonest as this sniper who spun what he said. That is only a problem by those taken IN by such dishonesty, dumb people like YOU. I have no problem whatsoever with what he said because what you HEARD on Planet WINGNUT isnt relevant. I live in the reality based universe you 0ught to visit it some day.
After wading through calling me dumb, dishonest and a host of other insults, you still didn't address what I said about Clyburn's priority in answering - that he is more concerned with a positive report being a big problem for Democrats above all else.
But you can''t or won't address it, so you stoop to namecalling. Never mind, your answer doesn't interest me.
Hey did you accuse me of whining? Then stop snivelling that I am treating YOU the way you are treating me. Either leave off throwing YOUR mud or put your visor on, you KNOW me by now. And yes I DID address it. AGAIN you are keeping to the dishonest FRAME. He answered the QUESTION ASKED honestly, that in no way says anything about what his overall priorities are concerning Iraq. It was the SPIN not his answer that you are hanging YOUR dishonest framing on
"AGAIN you are keeping to the dishonest FRAME."
This is a major problem with the Democrats in Congress. They accept these absurd frames spewed by the far right and try to argue or debate within them. If someone says you’re a spokesperson for Al Qaeda and you accept the frame and try to explain why you’re not their spokesperson, you’ve lost the debate no matter what you say. The Democrats should either call it a BS frame by the far right or try to change the frame. If they're stuck debating within the BS frame, they've essentially given it credibility.
What exactly is this BS frame? The Post reporter very specifically asked Clyburn what the Democrats would do if Patreaus' report comes back positively? What is so dishonest about that?
The Congressman answered it saying it would be a big problem for the Democrats, obviously this is his primary concern if the report does come back with positive news regarding the surge.
"What exactly is this BS frame? The Post reporter very specifically asked Clyburn what the Democrats would do if Patreaus' report comes back positively? What is so dishonest about that?"
I'm talking about the BS republican spin on his comments that was in the article. They should have just quoted him directly. There was no need to mention the republican spin.
"The Congressman answered it saying it would be a big problem for the Democrats, obviously this is his primary concern if the report does come back with positive news regarding the surge."
I have no problem with this. I have a problem with the BS republican spin.
THAT is the BS frame accepting the BS spin as if that were what he said. Clearly he is talking about the question that was ASKED in its context, that is Dems want what about 2/3rds of Americans want us to stop engaging this pointless war. It is clear in what he said, in its entirity that he was talking about those problems not the overall picture in Iraq because that WAS the subtext of the question. I mean Dems are not in charge of the war Bush is, what was being asked unless the right is being intentionally obtuse is what will you do toward the goals of the huge majority of Americans that is ending our involvement in the war and he answered honestly he COULD easily have dodged the question, given a pat political answer, we all want a victory in Iraq, I think we have to wait for the specifics of the report to see what we as Americans are going to do next, but that really wouldnt be answering the REAL question that was being asked. He is honest and gets bushwhacked for being honest.
What difference should it make what the NEW appointed Generals report is going to say? He's only there because Bush had to dump the others before him who were not on board.
I suppose we should just trust the penatgon, this time, eh? Based on their previous stellar record? Give me a break....this General has the job he has because he's going to say what the Republicans want him to say. Look to the Senate where most members in the GOP are saying they can't do anything until they get this report...but all the while, we hear whispers that GOPers are admitted we've failed in Iraq.
The rest of us know what the report oni Iraq is...its the most dismal failure our govt has had in maybe 100 years. The "reports" coming from Iraq have been dishonest from the first day we went in when the pentagon reported that Husssein was using WMDs against us, i.e. SCUD missiles (LIE).
Our soldiers are dying in Iraq for THEOCRATS...and Republicans, of course, back home. THe war is politicized all right...has been from day one.
There was a great article on that subject lately regarding how the generals have failed us in Iraq with their weak leadership and inability to tell political leaders the truth.
I wish I could remember where I saw it. Maybe you were drawing from it as you hit on the main point quite well.
It was clear enough what he was saying at least to me. Which is why he wasnt QUOTED but misparaphrased. When Bush said our enemies will never stop trying to hurt America and neither will we. Everyone knew what he meant and no one wrote a story or trumpeted the fact that Bush said he will never stop trying to hurt America. Why is it the man cant speak and he needs so many qualifiers and explanations of what HE says but they arent treated the same as this kind of ambiguous, if you are really squinting and trying Dem statement?
TOMMY HAS QUESTIONS:
"Why is it that Democrats seem to be embroiled in this type of controversy on what they did or didn't say?"
RESPONSE: Because the Rightwing Mainstream Media along with Rightwing politicians are invested in a "gotcha" strategy of misquoting, misrepresenting, and taking out of context ANYTHING said by a Democrat in order to portray the Dems in as bad a light as possible. With the Media's help, the rightwing managed to convince many people that Al Gore said he INVENTED the internet, and that John Kerry did not earn any of his medals from VietNam.
In other words, the GOP lies and dissembles, and the Media act as an echo chamber for those deceptions.
TOMMY notes, "Their (the Dems') statements can never seem to stand on their own without some qualifier or explanation necessary, or taken this way or that way depending on your point of view."
RESPONSE: When the Media takes things said completely out of context, do not supply the ENTIRE statement made, and distort the meaning of a few words ... there is no choice but to attempt to correct the record. Of course, keeping Dems "on the defensive" and explaining themselves is the big part of the strategy ... otherwise Dems might be passing legislation to help Americans, or commenting on the dismal failure that characterizes the Bush Administration. It's better to keep the enemy on the defensive, and the Media is there to oblige the Rightwing strategists.
Tommy continues, "There wouldn't be this ambiguity or misinterpretation if they were more clear and precise in their wordings or what they really want."
RESPONSE: Only the very naive would believe this further distortion. Anything ever said by anybody can be distorted into a straw man and that straw man attacked. All that's required is a dishonest and complicit MEDIA, and that's exactly what the GOP enjoys today. That's why MMFA is never at a loss for MISINFORMATION to point out and correct.
TOMMY concludes, "Who can blame the media sometimes?"
RESPONSE: We ALL should blame the Media, ALL the time, that they purposefully carry the GOP's water and do their smearmongering bidding. It is an insult to all Americans, and the abandonment of all the ethics of journalism.
In short, it is PROPAGANDA, and it is almost universally in the service of the Rightwing's goals and agenda. And it won't stop until we Americans demand it stop.
TEX; It's the media's fault, always, us poor Democrats don't stand a chance. They are mean.
RESPONSE; (yawn) Same ole' tune again......
TOMMY: Yes, it's the Media's fault. And YES, there are specific "victims" of this blatantly biased Media "coverage" ... it's the Democrats. And YES, the Democrats, along with MMFA, are fighting back against this onslaught of media disinformation, because TRUTH is important.
It's too bad the Rightwing wasn't as dismissive of Bush when he was whining about how mean that Saddam Hussein was ... you could have told him to just "get over it", Tommy, and then we wouldn't have lost 3500+ brave Americans so far, with another 30,000 maimed for life.
Thank you for at least admitting the victims are the poor Democrats, the common thread running through every one of your posts. But let me ask you Tex, if that is the case then why did the Dems crush the Reps in the last election?
If they did so in spite of the media, then why are you so worried now?
Tommy says, "Thank you for at least admitting the victims are the poor Democrats, the common thread running through every one of your posts."
RESPONSE: When there is a shooting, the VICTIM is the one who got shot. When a woman is raped, it is the woman who is the victim. Really, are you always so clueless as to how to identify a victim? The victim is the one who is unjustly HARMED. And YES, it is the Democrats who are eternally the targets and victims of the Rightwing and their pet Media. Was there ever any doubt?
Tommy continues: "But let me ask you Tex, if that is the case then why did the Dems crush the Reps in the last election?"
RESPONSE: It's all about product satisfaction, Tommy. It's true that Advertising can sell a product to a great many people, in the short term. If lots of money and effort is expended introducing the new soft drink, RepublicanCola, a lot of folks will buy it. When it turns out to taste like crap, the interest dies off no matter HOW MUCH the product is promoted. The GOP utilized their biased media tactics, smears, and propaganda to gain the GOP both houses of Congress and the White House. Then the public had an opportunity to experience the product in full glory ... and the public has REJECTED the product.
The "crushing" of the GOP has only just begun. We can only speculate how bad the crushing would be if not for the compliant and subservient media spinning everything to the GOP's advantage, even now.
Tommy says, "If they did so in spite of the media, then why are you so worried now?"
RESPONSE: A good team can beat a lousy team, even with biased and unfair officiating. After the game, ask the good team why they would complain about officials who did everything they could think of to try to get a win for the lousy team ... after all, they WON the game, so why complain??
The answer would not surprise you: A good team wants FAIR rulings, unbiased and even-handed.
Tex, To clarify - there are legitimate victims who have been victimized by circumstances beyond their control - they are not the ones I am referring to, obviously.
Then there are those that celebrate and wallow in their victimhood because it alleviates them from taking responsibility for their own predicaments or situations.
The Democrats are a strong and formidable political party in this country who control both houses of Congress and are not a victim of anything. Despite your incessant whining to try and convince us, or me, otherwise.
So it's impossible to do wrong to a major political party, as long as it doesn't throw them out of power?
No, I never said that. However, their resiliency, power and strength does not entitle them to victim status, sorry.
So why is it a few months ago Dems were "wronged"? Were they not strong and resilient then, as it was well after the midterms?
What's the difference between "wronged" and "victim" here, exactly?
"However, their resiliency, power and strength does not entitle them to victim status, sorry."--tommy
Well there goes your anti-affirmative action/reverse discrimination argument.
Oops!
According to your logic as well, Christians in America can never be victims either. I could go on and on. I don't think you have thought out your position too well there tommy.
It looks as if in trying to justify your irrational spite for victims in general, your inane parsing of the matter has left you worse off than when you started.
Not to worry, I would expect you to view anyone who points out classic liberal victimhood as irrational - you just can't make sense of it, I completely understand.
But hey, ya tried.....good for you.
You understandably can't offer a rational argument to this contradiction you've created. So, you resort to a personal attack. Sad.
And what contradiction would that be? That Christians can't be seen as victims? Considering I have never called them victims, but rather slurred by some here all the time, which is a fact, that doesn't make them victims by any means. If they call themselves that, then I disagree.
As for your chiding me on personal attacks, look around.
Just put down the shovel and come out of the hole, tommy.
; )
TOMMY:
Maybe you can help us understand who are proper "victims".
The Rightwing for decades has given us a list of those who VICTIMIZE the poor conservative, unfairly bullying and degrading those on the Right.
That list of VICTIMIZERS includes, but is not limited to, Unions, Academics, people of color, women, feminists, homosexuals, trial lawyers, the ACLU, the EPA, OSHA, socialists, liberals, progressives, and environmentalists, the poor, the ill, the elderly.
We have been told that each of these groups or organizations HARM the rightwing, unfairly, and the rightwing is virtually powerless to defend against the outrages. These groups and organizations, pundits like Limbaugh tell us, are out to "destroy America" and "punish the achievers" in the practice of "class warfare."
In every case, it is the poor Rightwinger who is harmed: the Unions harm the owners and shareholders, the Academics harm the children of conservatives, people of color harm real American white workers, women harm real men who believe in traditional roles with women in their place, feminists harm the notion of Paternalistic White Affluent Powerstructure, homosexuals harm hetrosexual marriages, trial lawyers harm the wealthy by advocating for the disadvantabed, the ACLU harms the Unitary Executive by insisting on following the Constitution, the EPA harms businesses by protecting endangered species, OSHA harms profit margins by insisting on workplace safety practices ... on and on and on, the Rightwing have whined VICTIM status at the hands of these nefarious groups of "Liberal" Americans.
So, Tommy, does your formula apply in these instances? Is the Rightwing the VICTIM of a "Liberal Press"? Do the Rightwingers claiming VICTIMHOOD in these instances have a case, or are they just WHINING without the proper standing?
TEX,
This is one of the best posts on this site I have read in years. Tommy, give it up. Tex is en fuego and you got no chance. Game, set, match.
Tex,
Let me make this real simple for you. Those that do not accept responsibility for their own choices, or their own mistakes - yet look to blame someone or something else as an excuse, are victims of their own making.
This includes rightwingers, leftwingers, allwingers.
If you have trouble with that or disagree with it, fine.
So everytime you make excuses for your hypocrisy and inconsistency, instead of owning up to your behavior, you are a victim of your own making.
The culture of victimhood claims yet another victim. Damn liberals!
I own up to every one of my posts, and have apologized if warranted.
Gee, sorry if your cries of hypocrisy or inconsistency on my part don't have me rushing to apologize. And gee whiz, you are free to opine on it whenever you'd like, be my guest. (meh.... yawn)
Oh, then all the times you tried to brush off such posts with calling people liars or sockpuppets, or accusing them of being obsessed with you, or talking about "cut-and-paste lessons", or said "if it doesn't make sense to you, whatever", or saying "I wasn't talking to you", or "that's off-topic", or "we disagree", or any other lame cop-out you've passed off, all of those must have been figments of my imagination.
Let's look on this very thread, shall we? When open_mind points out a flaw in your reasoning, all you do is basically say "you don't get it", in a condescending manner, without actually addressing anything. When I point out an inconsistency on your part, you ignore it. The post I'm replying to is itself a lame brush-off, pretending as if you never tried to blame people for pointing out your BS. But you always own up to your comments, right.
As for "warranted", that relies on your definition, which when taking into account your self-serving, disingenuous and hypocritical nature means less than nothing. Let's not forget that by your standard, if I jump into the middle of a conversation to make a point, you're free to lob whatever insults you see fit, without any obligation to apologize. Yes, you are clearly the arbiter of what constitutes "warranted apologies" and responsible posting.
You might be able to pass that crap off on someone new, but not anyone who's even vaguely familiar with your posts. Thanks for the laugh!
All that inane bandwidth to tell me what a jerk I am or how much crap I spew? Do yourself a favor, if it all upsets you so, just skip over my posts. Then you won't come across so hysterical in your responses.
Oh, I forgot (meh.....yawn) - indifference.
Have a great weekend, and chill out, will ya?
;)
And yet another lame, disingenuous brush-off. Here's a newsflash for you:"ignore me" is not a legitimate backup for "I own up to what I say". Thanks for the reminder though, that's one excuse I left off the list.
Tommy sez: "Let me make this real simple for you."
RESPONSE: That would be welcomed.
Tommy sez: "Those that do not accept responsibility for their own choices, or their own mistakes - yet look to blame someone or something else as an excuse, are victims of their own making."
RESPONSE: OK. This would be the entire Bush Administration, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of Rightwing punditry, and every whining rightwinger who MAKES THE CHOICE to remain in America, yet whines about taxation and social policy and regulations and ad infinitum. Got it: Rightwingers VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN MAKING.
Now, where would that leave the children of a woman whose husband died, leaving no pension or savings? Hmmm, a tough one. The children cannot be "Victims of their own making", because they have not created the world into which they were born. And wouldn't the creation of UNIONS be the ultimate act of taking responsibility for one's own fate? And when a black person is denied a home loan, because it's a "closed neighborhood", is that a problem of the black person's own making? When ENRON was screwing the residents of California out of BILLIONS, did that make them a "victim of their own making" for not taking responsibility for hiring a crooked energy company, or were they actual VICTIMS?
You said you'd make your answer "simple", but instead offer a simplistic bromide, which is really meaningless to address real world problems. I expected no more
Tommy sez: "This includes rightwingers, leftwingers, allwingers."
RESPONSE: Then each instance of "victimhood" needs to be examined individually in order to determine who is a "REAL" victim, and who is just a whiner. Suits me. An examination of the "choices people make" is the heart and soul of policy politics, and Democrats are on the correct side of every issue. Bring it on.
Tommy concludes: "If you have trouble with that or disagree with it, fine."
RESPONSE: I understand that the Rightwing defines all human conditions ... poverty, illness, race, job skills or lack thereof ... as being entirely the result of an individual's "own choices or mistakes". This "belief" drives the Social Darwinism of the rightwing, which seeks to blame the poor for poverty, the sick for illness, and the disadvantaged for foolishly not having obtained power.
This, in turn, absolves the rightwinger of any social responsibility, because everything bad that befalls others is their own damn fault.
I reject this notion totally. So we will disagree, totally. And that's fine.
Why did you ask why Democrats are so much better and more ethical than Repuclicans? Why do you think the media doesnt matter in any possible way?
SHE DIDNT QUOTE HIM. She spun him. How in the world ISNT this the medias fault? If I twisted YOUR words half as much you mean YOU wouldnt complain if the media twisted President Gumps words like this the rightwing snivelling and screaming would knock the Earth off its axis
Why is it that Democrats seem to be embroiled in this type of controversy on what they did or didn't say? Their statements can never seem to stand on their own without some qualifier or explanation necessary, or taken this way or that way depending on your point of view.
How is party affiliation relevant? Are you implying this is a problem unique to or more frequent for Democrats?
Don't try to explain it by noting the Clyburn is a Democrat. He's also black. I.e., try substituting his race for his party in your question to see my point.
What Clyburn, in fact, said is that a report by Petraeus that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it" would cause "those 47 [link to www.house.gov] color="#0000ff">Blue Dogs
... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us."Roll Call [link to www.rollcall.com] color="#0000ff">article, staff writer Susan Davis reported that Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said "a positive report by [Gen. David] Petraeus [commander of U.S. forces in Iraq] could be politically difficult for Democrats."
Tommy, what he said and what was actually reported was incorrect. You want to blame the Dems for that?
Tommy,
You've got it all wrong. You can't blame someone for how they are paraphrased. If the words were indeed "unconscionable", they should be posted on their own without all of the interpretation that was apparently needed to prove the point in a dishonest way.
"Why is it that Democrats seem to be embroiled in this type of controversy on what they did or didn't say?"
Because that's all the Republicans have left.
It's Clyburn's fault for directly answering a question about the possibility of Patreaus' report being a positive one, by saying it would be a big problem for Democrats.
Obviously the politics of the report are priority #1 for him, otherwise that wouldn't have the been the first words out of his mouth.
Maybe you havent been keeping up with current events the American people want us out of Iraq. Dems are not talking to the warmonger set they are the base for the other guys. He does need to address to those of us that want Americans home what the report may mean to that agenda. It was one of the things the people elected Dems to do.
Apparently Tommy's forgotten that he was clamoring for Reid to pull our troops out of Iraq immediately.
What a ridiculous irrelevancy that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
Is it? You don't recognize that the desire that you expressed, to get out of Iraq, is the one held by most Americans?
Clearly, a positive report would make it more difficult for Dems to get us out. It would make it more difficult to comply with the desires that many people, including you, have expressed. That's what makes it a political problem.
And because you understand that view, the efforts of people to deny your will by contorting a comment you should understand full well should make you upset. Yet, you blame the speaker. Funny, that.
Clyburn blew a golden opportunity to demand what the definition of "very, very well" would be. It's the kind of vague question that best suits proponents of Iraq policy.
Does it mean fewer dead people? Does it more dead people? Does "very, very well" mean the insurgents are in their last throes, if you will? It's just vague and he should have demanded a more precise question.
Clyburn seems as straight forward as he could be given his unfortunate acceptance of the right-wing framing of the question. He represents a group of Democrats who want to end military engagement in Iraq. If some obscure notion of success is fed to people and they believe it, because really, we all want to believe things are going well for our soldiers, then yes that's a problem for those of us who see the horrific truth of Iraq.
Rightwing framing of the question? So now it's the questioner's fault for asking a fair and clear question?
Blame, blame somebody else, why I am not surprised at that pathetic defense?
No. I think I clearly blamed Clyburn for not getting it right.
What was the fair and clear q? What on earth is "very, very well"? A crispy t-bone steak?
That wasn't the point of the question being asked. It was about what the Democrats do if the report is a positive one. You're stressing the "very, very" portion, which are not the operative words in the question.
What is positive then? There is no positive end result of occupation. Especially this one: 3600 dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civillians, 190,000 missing weapons, 8 million dollars vanished, no bid war profiteers, privatized military force loyal to their paycheck; not their country or Constitution.
That's the horrific truth and no amount of happy talk is going to change it. So some vague notion 'well' or 'positive' or whatever is just cheerleading for disaster.
Clyburn missed the chance to point that out, he missed the chance point out that he was being baited.
If the situation in Iraq - and not just the report - is truly positive, we'll all take a boat ride.
To one of the moons of Saturn
Tommy asks: "Rightwing framing of the question? So now it's the questioner's fault for asking a fair and clear question?"
RESPONSE: Indeed, there is nothing FAIR in a hypothetical; that is asking the person being interviewed to accept a PREMISE that is pure fantasy. Any answer would then be prefaced with a huge "IF" ... and that's not a fair answer to scrutinize.
Further, there is nothing CLEAR about a "very, very" good outcome. Why not just "VERY" good? That's not good enough? How is "very, very" good different from just "very" good? To answer such a hypothetical speculation is to be kind to the interviewer, but should be a huge red flag that a trap has been set.
The question was neither FAIR nor CLEAR, and yet the answer was clear enough, if taken in its entirety. The problem is, and was, that there was never any intention of being FAIR or CLEAR about portraying the answer. It was destined to be fodder for propaganda.
Tex,
You have taken whining to an art form. Surely the Congressman is capable of answering the interviewer by directly laying out what you just did, if he indeed did feel unfairly questioned, isn't he?
Because if not, then he isn't in any position to represent anyone.
TOMMY:
The Rightwing will continue to try their propaganda, and MMFA and others interested in the TRUTH will continue to correct the record.
The MEDIA will continue to misinform and dissemble and attempt to FOOL the American public by promoting Rightwing propaganda as "news", and you need to continue to do YOUR part ... by insisting that correcting an injustice is akin to "whining".
The language of the bully never changes. In the schoolyard, you'd say, "So, we took your widdle words out of context, so squirt me some tears, you widdle baby Congressman!" Then it is customary to push your victim to the ground.
If not viewed as schoolyard bullying, it is journalistic malpractice ... of which you obviously approve.
What is hysterical is the way you blame every ill befallen a Democrat on somebody else or some other influence......classic victimization.
Schoolyard bullies, oh well, if you can't play with the big boys in politics better stay inside during recess then. Sorry, I don't coddle victims for they thrive in their victimhood, then they don't have to take responsibility for anything, and they like that just fine.
Make that I don't coddle victims OF THEIR OWN MAKING........which is what you are describing in the form of Democrats, in your mind.
TOMMY:
The bully ALWAYS blames their victim, for being too weak to "play with the big boys". Thank you for the admission of your mindset.
As it happens, I learned the fate of a couple of the bullies at our High School. They ended up in prison, because their "world view" is poisonous, and they never give, but only TAKE.
And the IRONY ... they and all their fellows behind bars all consider themselves VICTIMS ... VICTIMS of "the system". How fitting.
What a doofus. The REPORTER screwed up.
I would love to steal all Tommy's money, because he wouldn't seek justice against me. He'd soberly correct the holes in his security and tell himself to be more careful in the future.
So in other words its fine to misrepresent what someone says like this and if they complain its them whining. Why then when Bush said he doesnt think much about Ben Laden anymore didnt the media trumpet that he said Osama was free to go and we werent going to look for him anymore. That Bush was giving Osama a pardon? Of course IF that had happened you would have been snivelling so long and hard I would need to sanatize my computer just reading it. So what you REALLY mean is you approve of this kind of dishonest reporting about DEMS. What you are saying is ANY dishonest tactic is ok when attacking Dems
And you have taken stupidity to an artform. The guy DID answer the question honestly, his only actual mistake as he should have know an unscrupulous rightwing hack like this would twist his words as DID happen
I would believe nothing from this General
Bush and his war criminals want to have the appearance of good news so more of our kids and Iraqis can be killed. Sick
Doris,
I am not totally convinced of Patraeus' report either, I have my mixed emotions about him as well.......but that isn't the topic of the question posed to Clyburn, nor his response.
What Clyburn, in fact, said is that a report by Petraeus that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it" would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." -MMFA
Notice the bold above. No one disputed the fact that militarily we can break into the homes of Iraqis at 3 am in the morning without a problem. Militarily we will always have the upper hand. What the problem is that the war supporters are focused on the military angle while at the same time have their heads buried in the sand about the actual war, which is the propaganda war.
The propaganda war is the war we lost and this is the main war. The Sunnis has walked out on the parilament which is to say they are staging a boycott. The Shias are threating to leave parliament as well if Malaki doesn't tell the United States to get lost and go home. What this means is the puppet government Bush set up is collapsing. No amount of military effort is going to restore a collaspsing government nor will it prevent a civil war.
The factions in Iraq made up their minds. They have an their goals made up and no amount of military effort can change that.
What Clyburn is saying is that the Republicans will be to stay the course based solely on the report of the military efforts and ignore entirely the fact that we have lost the war on the propaganda front we have lost hearts and minds we have lost the ability to convert the nation of Iraq into a unifed country under the banner of nationalism. We lost.
This is what the media will prevent the public from discovering, which means there is no point in our being there.
Clyburn told the truth. The Democratic agenda is to be able to legislatively force some sort of withdrawal, redeployment or troop reduction in Iraq. In order to do that they need to be able to over ride a presidential veto. To do that they need the votes of members of the party who are on the fence and some Republicans as well. A positive report from Petraeus, regardless of its credibility, will make getting those votes impossible.
This does not mean that the Dems want the war to be going badly for some nefarious political conspiracy. It means that they believe that the war is going badly and that they hope that Petraeus report proves them right so that they can begin carrying out the will of the majority of the country that we begin to remove our forces from Iraq.
We already won the war. What we aren't winning is the occupation, because an occupation can't be won or lost, it can only be survived or given up.
Adam Putnam is the "Howdy Doody looking nimrod".