Ignoring polling, The Note blamed Reid for ensuring "the return of polarized Iraq politics"
SUMMARY: ABC News' The Note claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in favoring legislation calling for troop withdrawal timelines, "virtually ensured the return of polarized Iraq politics -- and is giving the left the showdown (take two) it craves." But polling repeatedly shows that a significant majority of the country supports withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in -- at most -- a timeframe that comports with what Reid has suggested.
The September 19 edition of ABC News' The Note stated, "Welcome back ... to the left of the Democratic Party, [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] (and MoveOn.org says thanks)," adding that "Reid ... virtually ensured the return of polarized Iraq politics -- and is giving the left the showdown (take two) it craves." The Note then linked to an article by ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper, in which he reported: "Senate Democrats announced Tuesday afternoon that they were forgoing any softer language in their bills and would introduce Iraq-related legislation as aggressive as that in previous bills -- including two that called for withdrawing U.S. combat troops." The Note called the move "a near-direct response from pressure by the left," but did not explain how Reid's position in favor of legislation calling for troop withdrawal timelines -- which polling repeatedly shows is supported by a significant majority of the country -- can be described as "polariz[ing]" or one motivated by "pressure from the left."
Tapper referred to two pieces of legislation that called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, one sponsored by Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Carl Levin (D-MI), and another sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Reid. The Levin-Reed bill, as offered in July, proposed that "[t]he Secretary of Defense ... commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act" and that "[t]he Secretary of Defense ... complete the transition of United States forces to a limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) by April 30, 2008." The Reid-Feingold bill proposed that "[t]he President ... commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act."
Recent polling indicates that a large majority of Americans -- not just "the left of the Democratic Party" -- would like to see U.S. forces out of Iraq "within the next year" or "over the next year" at the latest, timelines that fall squarely within the Levin-Reed and Reid-Feingold bills:
- A September 14-16 USA Today/Gallup poll, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points, asked: "If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the U.S.?" The option "Keep troops in Iraq until situation gets better" garnered 38 percent support, while "Set time-table for removing troops from Iraq," was supported by 59 percent of respondents. Four percent of respondents had no opinion.
- A September 7-10 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points asked:
I'm going to read you several possible outcomes to the war in Iraq. Please tell me which one of these would be the most acceptable outcome to you.
A) Maintain the number of troops there now, and U.S. troops leave only after Iraq becomes a stable democracy, however long this takes.
B) U.S. troops leave within the next year even if violence in Iraq continues, but some troops remain in the region to prevent the conflict from spreading.
C) U.S. troops begin the process of leaving now regardless of conditions in Iraq.
Or are none of these acceptable to do?
Thirty-seven percent of respondents answered that they prefer "U.S. troops leave within the next year even if violence in Iraq continues," while 26 percent favored starting to withdraw troops now "regardless of conditions in Iraq." In total, 63 percent of respondents support withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq using a timeframe that comports with the bills to which Reid referred.
- A September 11-12 Fox News poll sampling 900 adults asked: "Based on General [David] Petraeus's new report, do you think the United States should ... [p]ull out all troops immediately ... [p]ull out all troops gradually over the next year ... [p]ull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over," or "[s]end more troops?" Twenty-two percent of respondents favored "pull[ing] out immediately," while 42 percent thought the United States should "[p]ull out gradually." A total of 64 percent of those surveyed support pulling out U.S. troops out of Iraq in -- at most -- a timeframe that comports with what Reid suggested.
From the September 19 edition of ABC News' The Note:
Welcome back. .. to the left of the Democratic Party, Harry Reid (and MoveOn.org says thanks).
On another busy, scattershot day on the campaign trail, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, made a pronouncement that will be felt across the political spectrum. All that talk of compromise, of reaching out to moderate Republicans to forge a consensus on the Iraq war? Gone with yesterday's papers (and just maybe because of that MoveOn.org ad inside -- if not that Cheney op-ed).
Reid, D-Nev., virtually ensured the return of polarized Iraq politics -- and is giving the left the showdown (take two) it craves. The major Democratic presidential candidates are lined up to vote against war funding that doesn't include timetables. And the Democratic Senate leadership is going to make things (relatively) easy on them.
Per ABC's Jake Tapper, "Senate Democrats announced Tuesday afternoon that they were forgoing any softer language in their bills and would introduce Iraq-related legislation as aggressive as that in previous bills -- including two that called for withdrawing U.S. combat troops."
This is a near-direct response from pressure by the left, but it's the center (and all of those Republicans who are straying near it) who will tested in the Iraq votes coming this week -- and the domestic bills that President Bush is promising to veto.
Boyo, that liberal press is sure on a roll today!
The public overwhelmingly want the war to end and yet it is not being reported that way...big business owns the media and big business is making a fortune right now, it is sickeningly obvious.
Especially the defense contractors. 600% pay raises are down right sickening when my wages barely grow at the inflation rate.
Blood money, that's what it is. Exxon keeps reporting record profits of blood money.
A RETURN to polarized Iraqi politics???? Exactly WHEN was Iraqi politics NOT polarized? Because I missed that time
When Saddam was in power? Maybe the CIA could hire him again? He made a good boogeyman before think how scary he'd be now!
the republicans have been masters at polarizing. especially in 2002 when they ran pictures of saddam and osama alongside that of senator max cleland. now they're running all those phony "we must stay until we win" and "they attacked us on 9-11" ads meant to keep the limbaugh-hannity crowd in line. the fact is that we listened for months to bush's song of "see you in september", and the reward for that is more of the same old rhetoric. qb bush keeps demanding extra downs.
Journalism is dead, it's final rattle went along with Dan Rather when a mistake was used to run him out of town. The GOP and big business now write the news and according to Kurtz they have every right to do it. Enablers, the whole lot.
Where did all these blood thirsty talking heads come from?
Sure there's editors, and such, up to owners suporting this. They cannot even acknowledge that there is a viable argument here. A mortal argument. Instead OH Oh the leftwingdems are having a hissy fit God knows why.
I wonder, was this crap followed by a "Freedom's Watch" commercial?
The people who made those commercials have defined a new low in political propaganda. Yeah, calling Petraeus "betray us" was over the line, but the Freedom Watch ads are political pornography.
Yeah right, those libruls just want to sturr up truble.
Here's some of what happened immediately after the Petraeus spectacle:
- Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni leader representing the Anbar "renaissance" was assassinated
- We found the new direction involves the United States arming the Sunnis, yes the same sunnis who ran the country under Saddam, and the ones whose army we disbanded, and the same sunnis that were hit by de-bathification. Those sunnis , who will use those weapons next against - well who knows?!? Probably everybody!
- the Pentagon reports there is "an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South" I can't imagine why Petraeus would not convey this info during his testimony;
- the Iraqi government freaked over the friends of Cheney making tons of money Blackwater private security firm, after it's guards allegedly randomly murdered/gunned down Iraqi civilians
- nonmilitary U.S. personnel are restricted to the Green Zone, yep things in Bagdad are looking up. They're Grrrreat!
- Iraqi Red Crescent reports 1 million people are internal refugees due to ethnic cleansing (this does not include the 2 million refugees who have fled Iraq)
- and the House Committee on Oversight announces an investigation into a potential cover-up by the State Department's inspector general of fraud in U.S. Embassy and other Iraq projects.
- Finally lets not forget the soldiers who continue to die or become emotionally or physically maimed.
How can the Note and other idiots like them be so stupid in not being able to connect the dots. The above happened all in about a week. The General says progress and the war mongers in the media nod their heads up and down and up and down and then instead wonder why in the world those dang libruls are so negative.
And what, in the end, will these war gongers have to show for it? Does anybody go back (besides historians maybe) to read the drumbeat for the Vietnam war?Morally, as stated in the many reasons above, their writings are reprehensible.
Rush Limbaugh has already proclaimed that the "surge" is a resounding military success which has reduced the Democrats to a quivering pile of gelatinous goo.
This, of course, was right before he expounded on the brilliance of Norman Podhoretz.
How much longer can the "Liberal Media" ignore the Elephant sitting in the Bean Dip? We went into Iraq for the Oil. Even Alan Greenspan confirmed it this week. One of Bush's Texas Oil cronies just signed an oil deal with the Kurds. The worthless Cable TV talking heads will spend hours upon hours "investigating" Hillary's fundraising...while a war criminal sits in the White House, lying to Congress, lying to the public, and wasting our national resources with impunity. The damage done by this imbecile will be with us for a generation...maybe longer.
It's madness.