Russert let McCain mislead on Clinton's Iraq withdrawal proposal
SUMMARY: Tim Russert left unchallenged Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Hillary Clinton "would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq." In fact, Clinton said that if she were to become president, "[W]e will start withdrawing within 60 days," and would continue to withdraw "one to two brigades a month" with the goal of having "nearly all the troops out by the end of the year [2009]," except for those necessary to "protect our embassy" and other "strategic interests."
On the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert left unchallenged Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) false claim that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq." In fact, Clinton stated during the January 15 Democratic presidential debate, which Russert co-moderated, that if she were to become president, "[W]e will start withdrawing within 60 days," and would continue to withdraw "one to two brigades a month" with the goal of having "nearly all the troops out by the end of the year [2009]," except for those necessary to "protect our embassy" and other "strategic interests." Clinton made similar remarks to Russert during the January 13 edition of Meet the Press.
From the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, when she suggested timetables, you said was waving the white flag of surrender. Is Governor [Mitt] Romney [MA] waving the white flag?
McCAIN: Actually, Tim, what Senator Clinton said was that you would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq. To me that's surrender. And I think in most people's view that would be surrender if we told Al Qaeda that we are leaving Iraq within a certain period of time.
RUSSERT: Is Governor Romney suggesting surrender?
Russert just gets so darn forgetful when he has a...
Con on.
He has to save himself so he can be sharp when it comes time to badger and spread falsehoods--when the Democrat come on.
A sweet stride and eyebrows to die for. Maybe too much straight talk there.
Now fights are breaking out. Romney has called MawCain a liberal, the insult was returned. Thats the bottom of the barrel right? Nothing can take the dabate any further down than that, can it?):p
How hard would it be for Russert, as a journalist and a person charged with the responsibility of giving TRUTHFUL NEWS to the American Public, to tell McCain, "That's not Hillary's policy. I know, because I was sitting there asking questions at the last debate, and I heard her answer clearly."
Nah. That might give voters the RIGHT idea. Better to let LIES stand, right Tim? Better to move along than to correct the record, and show the audience that THIS PARTICULAR candidate you are interviewing is prone to telling FALSEHOODS. No, that wouldn't do at all.
Tim Russert is a TOOL of the rightwing, and thus incompetent in his job.
Tim Russert is a TOOL of the rightwing, and thus incompetent in his job.
- tex
Tex, you know and I know these people have become "Hit men" for the Republican Party. They have an AGENDA, I got the thing with caps from you, and will not be denied. However, there seems to be a growing awareness I am seeing in the number of people who are outraged at the one sided nature of MSNBC and CNN. It is bad, I mean really bad, and I have made up my mind to give Hillary Clinton my vote.
First this is not solely a protest vote. I see in Clinton a person who is much more prepared to deal with this countries issues. At times, I have really been mad at her for some of her votes on the war and her misguided opinions related to how much Al Qaeda is a true problem in Iraq. I will take it as growing pains, for she has the ability to learn what is the truth and adjust her opinions and actions.
As far as the Obama movement is concerned, as a Black man, I am proud of him. I wanted him to acknowledge the negative nature of the media toward Clinton and distance himself from their practices. He has not done that and often seem to suck up the same talking points asscoiated with their made up attacks against Clinton.
Joseph
JOSEPH:
The only problem having Obama as President is that I believe he is TOO DAMN NICE. He's a good man, and his intentions are beyond reproach, but I don't think he has any idea the opposition he would be facing.
And while he was trying to figure out why people would be so stupid and so determined to undermine progress in America (to maintain a status quo that is enriching their pals), time and opportunity would be lost.
My quandry is that Obama seems to be bringing out voters in droves who are inspired to reconnect with their government, after years of being treated like scum by the Bush Regime. IF that turnout holds to the general election, then maybe enough Democrats could be elected to actually give his ideas and policies a chance to be passed and enacted.
However, I'm too much of a cynic to depend on that turnout. I believe disgust with Bush is sufficient to allow Hillary to win without much problem, and once in office, she would have no illusions about the type of people she would be dealing with in the Republican party, the Media, and everywhere else. She knows these people cannot be reasoned with, compromised with, or led to their better angels. They must be outsmarted and defeated, marginalized and hamstrung. And she's the person to do it.
I want ACTION, not wonderful dreams of HOPE and a brilliant future, dashed because of concerted desire to see him fail. A POET may be able to inspire the troops, but it takes a drill sergeant to whip them into combat readiness.
When Hillary wins the nomination, I have my OWN hope: That she tags Obama as her running mate. THEN, he will be positioned to take his two terms AFTER hers. It wouldn't work the other way around.
When Hillary wins the nomination, I have my OWN hope: That she tags Obama as her running mate. THEN, he will be positioned to take his two terms AFTER hers. It wouldn't work the other way around.
Tex.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be a healing choice as well as an effective one. However, I truly feel the right-wing media is not willing to sit by and see that happen without trying to prevent it from ever coming to past. Currently, the Obama camp seems very head strong, and unwilling to humble themselves to nothing but the primary nomination. I hope I a dead wrong about this. I have no wish to see division, but it is here big time. JosephIt is amazing how many times the media has let the inaccurate comments about Clinton slide. They hold her feet to the fire on things that she didn't even say but let everyone else take a pass. The fact that she has gotten so far with the media trying to pound her into the ground should tell the people how tough she really is. It was also very obvious at the debate that Barack Obama turned away from Hillary and refused to make eye contact with her which was incredibly rude. She always looked at him when he spoke. Both Edwards and Obama have been disrespectful to her after all she is a Senator. At the State of the Union tonight, Obama did it again when Hillary reached over to shake the hand of Sen. Kennedy even though he threw his support to Obama and basically dissed her entire agenda. At least she had the class to extend herself and shake his hand but again Obama turned away and ignored her. It was even pointed out by the pundits on MSNBC, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, who stated that the photographer who took the picture noticed what Obama did. No one questioned the obscene disrespect.
The Numbers Don't Add Up
The reason McCain is running this "close" race with all the Democratic candidates is because they are in a divided time called the primaries. A lot of mud slinging has prevented what would be overwhelming and united showing in the polls. In short, the camps are mad at each other.
So far, the democratic turnout has been more then twice that of the Republicans. Why do you think this fact is not showing up in favorable poll numbers? Do not fool yourself. The Republicans are headed for a sound beaten at the hands of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
JosephSummary: Tim Russert left unchallenged Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Hillary Clinton "would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq." In fact, Clinton said that if she were to become president, "[W]e will start withdrawing within 60 days," and would continue to withdraw "one to two brigades a month" with the goal of having "nearly all the troops out by the end of the year [2009]," except for those necessary to "protect our embassy" and other "strategic interests."
I have come to expect this sort of cowardly and characterlessness from you, Russert. You are a total Phony. You're just another Media owned shill for the corporate criminals that own you. You and all your shill friends in the corporate owned media will be remembered for the traitors of Democracy that YOU ARE.
Summary: Tim Russert left unchallenged Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Hillary Clinton "would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq." In fact, Clinton said that if she were to become president, "[W]e will start withdrawing within 60 days," and would continue to withdraw "one to two brigades a month" with the goal of having "nearly all the troops out by the end of the year [2009]," except for those necessary to "protect our embassy" and other "strategic interests."
OH, WHAT CHARACTER AN INTEGRITY YOU DISPLAY, NOT! TIM RUSSERT, TOTAL PHONY AND SHILL FOR THE FAVORITES OF THE CRIMINAL CORPORATE INTERESTS