Kornblut on Hardball: "Republican crowds are a little different. They still want to be supporting the troops"
During the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Washington Post staff writer Anne E. Kornblut asserted that, in contrast with Democratic crowds who applaud Democratic candidates when they say, "I'm going to start ending this war in Iraq," "Republican crowds are a little different. They still want to be supporting the troops." A Post reader flagged Kornblut's remark during an August 23 washingtonpost.com online chat, asking chat host and Post White House reporter Peter Baker: "Is this a commonly held belief amongst Washington reporters? Given that the majority of Americans favor ending the war, do you believe that they don't support the troops?" Baker defended the comment, replying that Kornblut "was saying that Republicans see the issue as supporting the troops. She wasn't saying that's her view."
In fact, during the August 21 Hardball, Kornblut said:
KORNBLUT: It [the war in Iraq] remains, especially in Democratic crowds, the number one issue. There is no applause line that gets a bigger response when you've -- when you're out with Senator Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, than when they say, "The first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to start ending this war in Iraq."
Republican crowds are a little different. They still want to be supporting the troops. I saw Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in recent weeks out in Iowa. The Republican crowd is a little different, but even there, Democrats know that there is a strong Republican majority of people who are not happy with this war. So, it's still playing out there. It's still, I would say, the number one issue on the table.
Media Matters for America has identified a tendency on the part of many in the media (here, here, here, here, and here) to characterize those who supported the Iraq invasion or oppose U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as pro-military or "supporting the troops," suggesting that those who opposed the U.S.-led invasion or now support withdrawal are somehow "anti-military" or not supportive of the troops.
From washingtonpost.com's August 23 "Post Politics Hour":
Seattle: Your colleague Anne Kornblut suggested on "Hardball" this week that ending the war in Iraq equals not supporting the troops: "There is no applause line that gets a bigger response when you're out with Sen. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, than when they say the first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to start ending this war in Iraq. Republican crowds are a little different. They still want to be supporting the troops."
Is this a commonly held belief amongst Washington reporters? Given that the majority of Americans favor ending the war, do you believe that they don't support the troops?
Peter Baker: I didn't see the program but judging by the quote you attach here, I don't think that's what she was saying at all. It seems clear to me that Anne, who's one of the most talented and fair-minded political reporters out there, was saying that Republicans see the issue as supporting the troops. She wasn't saying that's her view.
From the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MIKE BARNICLE (guest host): How's it playing out there?
KORNBLUT: It remains, especially in Democratic crowds, the number one issue. There is no applause line that gets a bigger response when you've -- when you're out with Senator Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, than when they say, "The first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to start ending this war in Iraq."
Republican crowds are a little different. They still want to be supporting the troops. I saw Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani in recent weeks out in Iowa. The Republican crowd is a little different, but even there, Democrats know that there is a strong Republican majority of people who are not happy with this war. So, it's still playing out there. It's still, I would say, the number one issue on the table.
Here we go again, just like yesterday when I was attacked as being "anti Troops" because I dared to suggest :" we have lost in Iraq". These media types are disgusting. Being a Republican does not equal support for the troops. Thisis as bad as anything Rush says. Yuck
"A Post reader flagged Kornblut's remark during an August 23 washingtonpost.com online [link to www.washingtonpost.com] title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/08/19/DI2007081901275.html">chat, asking chat host and Post White House reporter Peter Baker: 'Is this a commonly held belief amongst Washington reporters? Given that the majority of Americans favor ending the war, do you believe that they don't support the troops?'"
You remember when journalists used to ask these kinds of questions?
Both parties support the troops.
Most Americans support the troops.
Some Americans support the war.
A majority of Americans don't support the war.
I can understand why this is a little ambiguous. I think the phrase "still want to be" supporting the troops could easily be construed as what Baker is defending, that Kornblut is saying how Republicans still see the issue....however, being against the war is not being against the troops. I believe most reasonable people figured that out a long time ago.
Then the phrase "still support this war" should have been used.
WHEN EVER IS SEE HER GIVING AN OPINION I LAUGH .
This is the power of propaganda, and the inherent advantage Republicans have, since they own most of the media. The GOP Parrotheads have successfully implanted the lie that you can only support the troops if you support the war. It's bullsh*t, of course, but to the average knuckledragger in the GOP base, it makes perfect sense. The more intelligent members of the GOP know its a lie, but they take great pleasure in using it to beat Democrats over the head.
Yes it can be construed as ambigous, but I only see two explanations. Either Kornblut still does not understand the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war or she is implying that many of those republicans described do not understand the difference.
Regardless, we have good reasons to go to war or we don't. It is a moral imperitive to always support the troops but for republicans to determine war policy based on a "support the troops" theme is ridiculous.
If this was an isolated incident by Anne Kornblut, you might just chalk it up to ambiguous or ill-chosen words, or take the Washington Post's Peter Baker's words to heart that "She wasn't saying that's her view."
But if you've been reading Media Matters or Bob Sommersby's study of Kornblut's articles over at the Daily Howler the last few weeks, you'll find that much, if not all, of her recent work has been riddled with pro-Republican and anti-Democrat slants, misstatements, and her own personal conjectures passed off as objective reporting. It's become incredibly clear that Anne Kornblut is writing pro-GOP opinion columns, and belongs only on the editorial page, if she belongs in an ethical national newspaper at all.
Every national election, the Washington Post pulls this same trick. We get the same kind of reporters puffing up what Republican candidates have to say while stressing and playing games with all sorts of trivial slams against Democratic candidates, often clowning with idiotic obsessions like the Democratic candidate's haircuts and clothes.
Tell the Post enough is enough and we just won't put up with it again this next election, when the stakes for the country are so high. Write the Post and demand to know why Kornblut's work isn''t appearing on the editorial/opinion page where it belongs, or, if not, why she has a job there at all if her work is going to be so transparently slanted.
I interpret this as an attack on Republican crowds. While they 'want to' support the troops, the only way they know how to do that is to defend the policies of Mr. Bush. However, many of them are realizing that Bush's policies actually endanger the troops, as well as our citizens. This may cause confusion in certain Republicans who have a conscience (i.e. Libertarians who register as Republicans)
The fact that little fascists incapable of critical thinking would continue to applaud a colossal failure isn't really all that surprising. These are the same people that think we should not have "given up" on Vietnam. You'll never convince them otherwise.
For examples and a brief study of some of Kornblut's recent work, go here (pay particular attention to the way Kornblut covers Giuliani versus how she covers Hillary Clinton; notice also how this is placed in context of the Washington Post's previous election coverage and reporters like Ceci Connolly):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081607.shtml
and here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082207.shtml
Truth is, there are a good many anti-war protesters who don't support the troops. But we all know that they are nuts and shouldn't be taken seriously. It just sucks that they give the movement a bad name. I saw this the other day and it made me really angry. Just pure stupidity.
http://www.capveterans.com/national_veterans_memorials_protection/id90.html
A good many? Looks like a handful to me. I think it's safe to say that they do not represent the vast majority of Liberals or Democrats. It's kind of like saying that ALL Republicans are racist because David Duke is a Republican.
The pictures on the site you linked to depict anarchists not leftists. Anarchy does not recognize authority whether it be leftist, rightist or centrist.
And there are not a "good many" but a few compared to the total numbers that show up for anti-war rallies.
99% of the people who demonstrate are not into the street theater aspect of the demonstrations. Now as in the time of the Vietnam War, the few are the ones who are remembered while the many are ignored.
Also, don't forget, with them wearing the ski masks and all, it'd be hard to figure out if they are genuine anarchists or police provacateurs. Yeah, I know -- conspiracy theory/paranoid reasoning. But just google "cointelpro" and read up on past(?) abuses by the semi-secret police.
EXACTLY. I still remember cointelpro.
Yeah, support them getting blown up in that holy crusade to rid the world of the evil moslems, who threaten holy israel and keep jesus from coming back from the dead and wiping out all the atheists like a rampaging horror movie monster. Got to keep KILLING people, that's the conservative way. So support them troops til the job is done and we can declare final victory over the world! Everyone join me in a chorus of the national anthem as we wipe our majestically holy American feet on all the little nations of the world! Hurrah for racist, bigotry, and psychopathy! Be a conservative, KILL today!
Ann Kornblut, like her fellow Postie John Solomon has a long history of documented story slanting in favor of Republicans. Baker's assertion that
she is one of the most even handed and fair reporters is just a knee jerk
response without real basis in fact.
Hey Kornbutt. Tell me just how do the republicans support our troops? Is it by NOT sending them the equiptment they need. Like when Bush promised to send 3500 armored Hummers, but only sent 1500. Is it when the Bush administration cuts the veterans health benefits or, when the soldiers are told that they have to extend their tour of duty when they thought it was done. Is it by giving them as much pay as the private contractors that Halliburton, or Kellogg-Brown send to Iraq. Is it by over charging them for food that should be free. Is it by putting them in a hospital facility that is over-run by rats. I think that supporting the troops is bringing them home. What do you say KORNBUTT?