About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fineman's strawman: Dems advocate leaving Iraq "overnight"

August 27, 2007 4:55 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On Countdown, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman asserted that "[t]he problem that the Democrats have got, indeed, that all America has got, is that having gone into Iraq the way we did, there is, in the opinion of many fair-minded observers, chaos and hell to pay if we get out overnight." While Fineman did not specify which "Democrats" have advocated withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "overnight," Democrats support several plans that call for a "gradual" withdrawal or a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq, with some troops remaining in Iraq for specified missions after the withdrawal of most combat troops.

29 Comments

During the August 26 special edition of Countdown on NBC, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman asserted that "[t]he problem that the Democrats have got, indeed, that all America has got, is that having gone into Iraq the way we did, there is, in the opinion of many fair-minded observers, chaos and hell to pay if we get out overnight." While Fineman did not specify which "Democrats" have advocated withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq "overnight," Media Matters for America has documented that several plans supported by Democrats -- including at least one supported by some Republicans -- call for a "gradual" withdrawal or a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq, with some troops remaining in Iraq for specified missions after the withdrawal of most combat troops. In addition, Fineman also suggested that only the Democratic "base" favors setting a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, claiming that "[t]he Democrats want to set a deadline for withdrawal because that's what their base tells them to do." Yet according to recent polling, a majority of Americans, not just the Democratic "base," support setting a timetable or deadline for withdrawal.

Regarding Democrats' plans for withdrawal, the Senate recently debated an amendment to the defense authorization bill -- offered by Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Carl Levin (D-MI) -- that calls for a "reduction" of U.S forces in Iraq, to begin "not later than 120 days" after the amendment's enactment, but the amendment 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. The amendment specifies that the transition to this limited presence must be complete by April 30, 2008. A motion to cut off a filibuster of the Levin-Reed proposal (which needed 60 votes to succeed) garnered 52 votes on July 18, including those of Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Gordon Smith (OR), and Olympia Snowe (ME). Moreover, Iraq withdrawal plans from two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Barack Obama (IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), contain provisions that call for a "retention" and a "limited presence" of U.S. forces, respectively, for counterterrorism operations, force and infrastructure protection, and training Iraqi security forces. Obama's plan called for the redeployment of troops to occur in "a gradual manner," while Clinton's stipulated that the withdrawal should be a "phased redeployment."

Further, contrary to Fineman's suggestion that only the Democratic "base" supports setting a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, recent polling shows that a majority of Americans, a large majority of Democrats, and a large minority of Republicans favor setting a deadline. For example, when asked if Congress should "block all funding for the war in Iraq no matter what," "allow funding, but only on the condition that the U.S. sets a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops," or "allow all funding for the war without any timetable conditions," 63 percent of all respondents to a July 20-22 CBS News/New York Times poll said that Congress should fund the war with a timetable for withdrawal. Seventy-six percent of Democrats and 48 percent of Republicans polled favored funding with a timetable. In addition, a July 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of respondents support "legislation that would set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring."

From the August 26 special edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann on NBC:

OLBERMANN: But the purpose of Whac-a-Mole is, at least in Iraq, is to unify Sunni and Shia and everybody else, and then we have this Democratic congresswoman, [Jan] Schakowsky of Illinois, saying she made her first trip to Iraq this month. The deputy prime minister there told her delegation, "There's not going to be political reconciliation by this September, there's not going to be political reconciliation by next September." So is this now -- is the American political solution in Iraq a question of just holding positions until the 2008 campaign and the election?

FINEMAN: Well, my sense is -- and I've covered George Bush for a long time -- that his goal is to keep as many American troops in Iraq as long as possible until January 20, 2009, when he leaves office. That's his goal. The Democrats want to set a deadline for withdrawal because that's what their base tells them to do. But the fact is that there is going to be no political reconciliation in Iraq because that's what the National Intelligence Estimate, what the CIA and the other agencies themselves have said.

The problem that the Democrats have got, indeed, that all America has got, is that having gone into Iraq the way we did, there is, in the opinion of many fair-minded observers, chaos and hell to pay if we get out overnight. We can't do it.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bittermarv (August 27, 2007 4:57 pm ET)
         

      If the case for war and now for staying in the middle of a civil war was so solid, why do these guys have to keep lying about everything?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 27, 2007 5:03 pm ET)
         

      "having gone into Iraq the way we did"

      They keep mentioning this in passing, but nobody wants to really dig into that topic. Why is that?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by JLyons (August 27, 2007 5:08 pm ET)
         

      I wonder if Keith will name Fineman "Worst Person in the World" for this? Also why did Keith let him say this? Keith should be co worst person in the world for letting Fineman spew strawman arguments. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (August 27, 2007 5:28 pm ET)
           

        That's a good point.  Normally MMFA points out that (insert host) left the statement unchallenged.  But KO gets a free pass.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 27, 2007 5:35 pm ET)
             

          True, Bruce, Good point. Unless the end of the chat was cut off, it looks like KO let it slide.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (August 27, 2007 6:36 pm ET)
               

            I agree as well.  MMFA gets on plenty other media heads for not keeping interviewees on their toes.  I don't see any reason why Keith should be treated differently.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by johnrtorres638 (August 28, 2007 1:33 am ET)
                 

              Shocking!  MMFA has one standard for KO and another for Fox News?

               

              Honestly, you guy do know that this is MMFA's MO, right? 

              Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (August 27, 2007 6:06 pm ET)
             

          But KO gets a free pass.

          Is anyone really surprised?

          Keith is MMFA's pet.

          This omission hurts this site's credibility.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (August 27, 2007 6:14 pm ET)
               

            I don't know Jeter, you seem to be getting awfully chummy with MMFA.

            I mean you're even giving them tips on stories.

             

            But I can't argue with what you just posted. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 27, 2007 6:46 pm ET)
                 

              King, don't start making suggestions about Jeter's relationship with anybody. It gets some people "wondering" a bit too much.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (August 27, 2007 6:53 pm ET)
                 

              King,

              That's what makes this so troublesome for me. Having become an official MMFA tipster, I take these kind of mis-steps by MMFA quite personally :-/

              But seriously, I am curious as to why Keith escapes the scrutiny that other interviewers get here when they don't challenge MIS-information. I can only conclude that Keith & MMFA have worked out a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours deal that ALSO stipulates never criticizing each other.

              A tad shameful IMO.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 27, 2007 11:36 pm ET)
                   

                Opie, do you have one of them Drudge fedoras yet?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by jeter2 (August 28, 2007 11:44 am ET)
                     

                  Paw, I like to call it my Dick Tracey hat. Is that ok Paw? Is it Paw?

                  Paw, can I have a puppy?

                  Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (August 27, 2007 5:32 pm ET)
         

      Quick!  Somebody get a match....

      Crap!  Now we got Fineman dragging around a Rovian/FOX NEWS straman.

      Howie!  Listen!  Don't go near the light, buddy.  Don't go near the light!

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pick of the litter (August 27, 2007 5:47 pm ET)
         

      Congrats on KO getting a slice of NBC airtime.  Boo for letting Fineman spout that "overnight" nonsense unchallenged.  Fineman rarely adds anything that conventional DC "wisdom" doesn't already cover.  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (August 27, 2007 5:56 pm ET)
         

      Is there anyone who seriously thinks that we don't have a good enough reason to get out overnight?

      If The Great Iraq Swindle doesn't change your mind, nothing will.

      I'm going to be linking to this article every chance I get.  I suggest that anyone else who cares do the same.   As Occams Hatchet at Daily Kos said, if every one in America read this article, it would probably end the war.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (August 27, 2007 8:23 pm ET)
           

        If you're using the term "overnight" metaphorically to mean "quickly", sure.   But it can't happen in a literal 24 hours.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by smittymatt16 (August 29, 2007 9:45 am ET)
           

        Yes, and there's a simple answer to that question.  Answer: "The terrorists are not dumb."  Let me explain, if we decide to pull out overnight, how do you think we would go about doing this?  We would begin to pack things up and our soldiers would assemble to certain areas to load up and head out.  While we are congregating in these areas, do you not think the terrorists will be all over those spots and attacking?  Leaving overnight will only cause more casualties. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (August 27, 2007 6:36 pm ET)
         

      How about it Armbruster. Where's the part about KO uncritically reporting...or failing to ask...or failing to report?

      Shoddy, partisan work. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (August 27, 2007 7:48 pm ET)
         

      I don't see any problem leaving overnight.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ken Schellenberg (August 28, 2007 8:25 am ET)
           

        Exactly. We could even subject MediaMatters here to its own treatment.

        MediaMatters incorrectly states that Democrats don't want to leave Iraq overnight, ignoring Bill Richardson's call to remove troops quickly. "We have to get all of our troops out as quickly and safely as possible and leave no residual troops behind." Aug 24, 2007

        http://groups.google.com/group/soc.retirement/browse_thread/thread/72e83e092833261a/1cf3c11c46813c73 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by laughinglefty (August 27, 2007 9:55 pm ET)
         

      What gets me is the moronic false assumption by foaming wing nuts and their enabling talking heads in the Corporate Media that leaving Iraq will cause more chaos and bloodshed than there is now. It's a completely baseless assumption that ignores the fact that with the US gone from Iraq, there will be no insurgency. It's us they're fighting after all. al Qeada in Iraq represents only about 5% or less of the armed groups committing the violence that is occurring. They are practically insignificant and what there is of them, the Shiite militias will finish off. Take the US troops out of the equation and there will be less violence, not more as Iraqis concentrate on putting their country back together instead of fighting against the occupation.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by AussieBob (August 28, 2007 11:26 am ET)
           

        There's a hint of a power struggle there too (minority group losing power, members of the majority group seeing the opportunity for revenge over past conflicts): the troops leaving won't stop the bloodshed. It will reduce it.

        But then, the 'war' (Bill Hicks comment about wars needing two sides remains valid still) was lost as soon as it was begun.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by unitarianpatriot (August 28, 2007 12:51 am ET)
         

      Is everyone here brain dead?

      MMFA jumps to the conclusion that Fineman is saying Democrats are advocating getting out overnight. He's not saying that. He's saying the problem is that there will be hell to pay if we DO get out overnight, and that that's a problem for all of us who wish we were out of that mess.

      Now, the real howler from Fineman is that Democrats advocate a timetable for withdrawal BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEIR BASE WANTS. Huh? I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm a human being with a brain. And I and everyone else in my condition wants to be the heck out of Iraq because it makes no sense to stay. All sentient members of Congress, of whatever party, want to be the heck out of Iraq because it's the only course of action that makes any sense. Fineman's assumption that Democrats in Congress advocate withdrawal for political reasons is what is just ridiculous.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (August 28, 2007 10:18 am ET)
           

        He most certainly is suggesting that Dems want to get out overnight.

        "The problem that the Democrats have got, indeed, that all America has got, is that having gone into Iraq the way we did, there is, in the opinion of many fair-minded observers, chaos and hell to pay if we get out overnight. We can't do it."

        If nobody wants to get out overnight, then what is the relevance of the comment?  There would be none, the statement would be meaningless.

        Let's say you take your car in for repair and they take five days to do what should be done in two.  You ask for a discount because of the delay, and the mechanic tells you "I'm not going to work for free, buddy".  Now obviously he's saying that's what you're expecting, or else his comment doesn't make any sense, does it?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (August 28, 2007 1:04 am ET)
         

      The trouble with Fineman is the same trouble that most of the Washington/NY establishment reporters have.  They always look at everything from the political angle.  If they report on any policy, it's done with the horse race in mind.  They seem so caught up in it that they aren't aware of the dreadful situation in Iraq; just how it affects the pundits and pols in D.C.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolfbato (August 28, 2007 10:31 am ET)
         

      Tell the Secret Service about Ted Nugent's comments: [link to www.secretservice.gov]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by laplacian (August 29, 2007 12:43 pm ET)
         

      One may disagree with the superficial, horse race-based analysis, but it's a stretch to call this a "straw man argument" or conservative misinformation.  Plenty of people, mostly Democrats, are arguing for a rapid withdrawal.  There are good reasons for considering it.   A slow one with an announced schedule leaves the last ones out particularly vulnerable.  Also, the cynical political analysis that Bush wants to keep as many troops in and make it his successor's problem was not denied.

      It needs to be debated.  Hell, whatever we do now we're screwed one way or another.  Rumsfeld may not have done quagmires, but we have one now.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.