Post's Milbank failed to note Shays' misrepresentation of Clyburn comments
SUMMARY: In his column, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, referencing comments Democratic House Majority Whip James Clyburn made to the Post on July 30, wrote: "[Rep. Christopher] Shays condemned a House Democratic leader for saying that 'if the Iraqi war went well it would be bad for Democrats.' " But Milbank did not provide Clyburn's actual statement, nor did he note that Shays misrepresented Clyburn's remarks.
In his October 26 "Washington Sketch" column in The Washington Post on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's appearance before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Dana Milbank wrote: "[Rep. Christopher] Shays [R-CT] condemned a House Democratic leader for saying that 'if the Iraqi war went well it would be bad for Democrats,' " a reference to and mischaracterization of comments House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) made to the Post on July 30. Indeed, during the hearing Shays said, "I was struck by the comment of House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who said that basically, if the Iraqi war went well, it would be bad for Democrats." However, Milbank did not provide Clyburn's actual statement or note that Shays misrepresented his comments. As Media Matters for America documented, during a July 30 "PostTalk" interview for washingtonpost.com, Clyburn said that a recommendation from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, against "back[ing] away" from the current course in Iraq would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq; Clyburn did not say that if the war went well, it would be bad for Democrats. In fact, the media have frequently misreported Clyburn's comments, as Media Matters has documented.
During the July 30 "PostTalk" interview, Washington Post reporter Dan Balz asked Clyburn, "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 responded: "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."
Tim Grieve at Salon.com also noted that Milbank cited Shays without reporting that Shays had misrepresented Clyburn's remarks.
From Milbank's October 26 column in The Washington Post:
While other lawmakers each got five minutes to question Rice, Shays managed to grab three turns. When he wasn't speaking or raising his hand to speak, he was coaching four GOP colleagues before their questioning time.
Shays lobbed the softest of questions at the secretary. "Tell me what would be gained," he asked, referring to the Democrats' questions, from "a frontal assault against the prime minister."
"Well, I see nothing that could be gained from a frontal assault," Rice replied.
Shays condemned a House Democratic leader for saying that "if the Iraqi war went well it would be bad for Democrats." He said Democrats' impertinence "blows me away." As for Rice's refusal to answer questions, Shays said, "I'm happy that you have resisted."
Shays even defended the maligned Blackwater security firm when Democrats questioned Rice about a drunken Blackwater employee who killed a security guard for an Iraqi vice president inside the Green Zone.
"I'd like to point out that there appears to have been no witnesses," he argued.
Form Clyburn's comments during the July 30 "PostTalk" interview with reporters Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza 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.
"None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq"
Okay, where are all the "out of context" police?
So I don't take this out of context as you suggest - tell me why, if "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq", then why "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" would that "be a real big problem for us (democrats)" ?
Why is a positive military report a real big problem for democrats?
Obviously Clyburn's knee-jerk reaction was a political one. As he continued he did a little damage control, but it was too late.
Because it would impede the effort to end the occupation of Iraq which is overwhelming supported by the American people and the Iraqis.
That should be "overwhelmingly".
So as it relates to the storyline here - Shay's was right in his representation of what Clyburn said. Media Matters is simply helping with damage control here - not reporting "misinformation"?
No. Most Democrats want to end the occupation of Iraq and a report from Petraus (good or bad) wasn't going to change that. But a good report would impede their efforts to end it because the Blue Dogs would vote with the republicans.
So democrats would have preferred a negative report because it would help advance their agenda of getting out of Iraq. I think that's exactly what Shay's condemed Clyburn for.
It would advance the agenda of the American people, the Iraqis and the whole world for that matter. The Neocons and their supporters have their own agenda in staying there (oil, imperialism and profits for their buddies).
What spin? Good news, real or fake, from Iraq makes leaving a hard sale. Its effect on democtratic election hopes was never an issue. Except in the wingnut minds.
So, you are in favor of bad news coming from Iraq?
It doesn't matter if the news is good or bad. We shouldn't be in Iraq period.
We shouldn't be having fires in California either, but we are, and we deal with them the best way we know how.
Perhaps we shouldn't have ever gone into Iraq, agree. But we are there and the discussion at hand is how to deal with it effectively with the least amount of negative implications.
If Democrats want bad news because it benefits them politically, or as you say it gives up more of a reason to get out - either way, bad news in Iraq is not what any American should want. Even Clyburn says that.........eventually.
We shouldn't be having fires in California either, but we are, and we deal with them the best way we know how.
The fires are a threat to Americans; Iraq is not. And the Iraqis are the ones who should be deciding the future of their country; not us.
Perhaps we shouldn't have ever gone into Iraq, agree. But we are there and the discussion at hand is how to deal with it effectively with the least amount of negative implications.
The Iraqis should decide the future of their country.
If Democrats want bad news because it benefits them politically, or as you say it gives up more of a reason to get out - either way, bad news in Iraq is not what any American should want. Even Clyburn says that.........eventually.
They don't want bad news; they want out of Iraq.
That's more than just a little leap. Define your terms;Good news,Bad news, how do you define them?
I fear most news can be ambigious. Parts good, parts bad i.e. we took out 100 insurgents, but your brother died on this mission. Exclusive of family, ones outlook on the news, in this case would depend on the relationship with the brother.
For the nonce, I'll take honest news, for 2.6 Trillian. It should be affordable at that price.
Because the question was specifically "Democrats", not the American people.
Clyburn specifically talked about the Blue Dogs impeding the will of the American people and the Iraqis.
The operative word here being positive military REPORT. If a report comes back and says everything's going great, it would be harder to make a case to pull out the troops.
Which is what he said. He didn't say that military success in Iraq is bad, or that it would be a problem for Iraqis, or a problem for Democrats. He said if a report was positive, it would be harder to build support for taking home the troops "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."
Which leading Democratic candidate is making any case for pulling out troops? And why isn't the Democratic leadership pushing to pull out now?
I have no idea... not sure why you're asking either.
Why is a positive military report a real big problem for democrats?
WC4MC why should ANYONE believe ANY report supplied by the military. Almost every military officer who has retired has told a totally different story from the one they told while still active in the military. Why should ANYONE believe Petraeus? Zinni, Johns, Newbold, Sanchez, Batiste, Eaton all came out with strong criticism or the war and how it was handled but no one spoke out UNTIL they left the military. What would leave ANYONE to believe that Petraeus will be ANY different? What would make ANYTHING he says more truthful considering past military change of opinions after leaving the service?
Another "Big Picture" smackdown by Pearlene.
You better be careful, old woman. I'm only a few hours away, and you're encouraging a "manly" road trip ! ;0)
They still got those 99¢ shrimp cocktails and $1.99 prime rib? If so, we got a date!
Hah hah LOL
The one thing that Vegas still has is cheap but great food and HBL, you better get lots of sleep and take extra vitamins if you hope to keep up with this 'old lady'. :-)
Is that a threat or a proposition, Grandma?
;0)
LOL
HBL, I wouldn't dream of threatening such a 'manly' man as yourself and we both know I'm wayyyyy to young to proposition you. :-)
OK - so following the storyline here, taking everythig you say into account, in Clybourn's words
Why is a positive military report a real big problem for democrats?
MMFA taking it to one of Keith Olbermann's mainstays.
Fascinating.
They have questioned him before but Keith ignores it. Just like he ignores any MMFA coverage of MSNBC, only FOX and Glen Beck get attacked by Olby. Its hypocrisy at its best.
OK, hypocricy is doing differently than one says one does (or will do). How is Olbermann behaving hypocritically when he lambastes some liars, complete with full video, but leaves alone those who are employed by his employer? That might be less than full and forthright disclosure, but it is not the same as hypocricy.
Shays has some nerve. The only reason why he beat Diane Farrell was that at the last minute he changed his "view" on the war. the guy is scum.
You expect a WP reporter to trace a story back to its sources and give a balanced picture of events?
Come on, let's not mistake the WP for the NY Times.
The biggest reason a great report from Iraq (Gen. Betrayus) is bad for Democrats, is that in order to show it to be a complete lie, one must risk offending the delicate sensibilities of the designated liar and all his Corporate Media / Repugnant allies. Yet the Democrats are almost obligated to object to those lies, in order to keep faith with the 67% who would want us out of Iraq ASAP.
I have yet to find an explanation of why the legion of liars defending the Repugnant cause, came subject to such delicate sensibilites. It is certainly true though, that every one of them bursts into tears whenever called on even the most outrageous lies.