CNN's Dobbs, Daily News' Goodwin expressed incredulity that Pelosi would "giv[e] the Iranians the credit," but her comments echoed CNN's own reporting
SUMMARY: On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Lou Dobbs and Michael Goodwin cited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments about Iran negotiating an end to fighting in Basra, Iraq, to accuse her of being unwilling to give credit to U.S. troops and being "invested in failure" when, in fact, CNN itself reported that Iran had played an integral role in brokering a cease-fire in Basra, as did numerous other media outlets.
During the June 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs and guest Michael Goodwin, a columnist for the New York Daily News, cited comments that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made about Iran negotiating an end to fighting in Basra, Iraq, to accuse her of being unwilling to give credit to U.S. troops and being "invested in failure" when, in fact, CNN itself reported on March 31 that Iran had played an integral role in brokering a cease-fire in Basra. Dobbs asserted that "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears unwilling to give our troops the credit they deserve for progress in Iraq. Instead, Pelosi is now praising Iran." Citing Pelosi's May 28 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Dobbs stated: "Speaker Pelosi said, quote, 'Some of the success of the surge is the goodwill of the Iranians. They decided in Basra when the fighting would end.' The speaker added, 'They negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians.' " During a subsequent discussion, Goodwin stated, "I mean, you saw earlier -- you reported about Nancy Pelosi basically giving the Iranians the credit," and later asserted: "[W]hen people say the Democrats are invested in failure, Nancy Pelosi is exhibit A. That sort of statement means she will not give credit to the American military, to the American strategy. She's so invested in criticizing it that she can't accept it." In addition to the March 31 CNN report, numerous media outlets have credited Iran with playing an instrumental role in brokering a cease-fire in Basra.
During the Chronicle editorial board's interview with Pelosi, a reporter asked her, "When you were in Iraq, you said it -- basically, your position that you've held all along is steadfast: that this war was a mistake; that it's not working. Did you see some -- the administration wants to claim some success from the surge. Do you think it had some impact in a positive way?" Pelosi responded:
PELOSI: Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space -- time -- for the political change to occur, to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn't happen. Whatever the military success, any progress that may have been made of the surge didn't accomplish its goal, which was to change the -- and even [Gen. David] Petraeus says that it has to be a political solution. You cannot have just a military solution in Iraq. And some of the success of the surge is at the goodwill of the Iranians. They decided in Basra when the fighting would end. They negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians.
Notwithstanding Dobbs' and Goodwin's incredulity that Pelosi would "giv[e] the Iranians the credit," during the March 31 edition of CNN Newsroom, senior international correspondent Nic Robertson reported, "Well, it does appear as if a huge amount of pressure was put on the Shia cleric Moktada al-Sadr to get his militia, the Mehdi Militia, to stand down and cooperate with government forces." Robertson continued:
A group of Iraqi politicians from the Shia United Iraqi Alliance -- that is the bloc of the main Shia political parties here, the prime minister's political party, his allies, Moktada al-Sadr's political party -- all went to Iran over the weekend, with the help of Iranian officials negotiated an end to the fighting.
And if you remember, back in the beginning of the weekend, Moktada al-Sadr was telling his militia to continue the fight. Twenty-four hours later, under what appears to be huge and heavy Iranian pressure, he has backed down, told his fighters to cooperate with the Iraqi government.
Robertson concluded his report by saying that "it does appear to be the Iranians, through negotiations, who have gotten Moktada al-Sadr to back off and go along with the cease-fire." Two March 31 articles on CNN.com also reported on Iran's "integral" role in brokering a cease-fire. In addition:
- An April 4 Washington Post article reported, "[I]t was Iran that helped broker an end to the clashes, enhancing its image and illustrating its influence over Iraq's political players."
- An April 2 Chicago Tribune article reported, "During the latest hostilities, members of the Dawa Party and Badr Organization traveled to Iran, where an agreement to end the fighting was reportedly brokered by a senior official of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed by Sadr."
- A March 31 USA Today article, headlined "Iranians help reach Iraq cease-fire," reported that "Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers."
From the June 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears unwilling to give our troops the credit they deserve for progress in Iraq. Instead, Pelosi is now praising Iran. In comments to the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker Pelosi said, quote, "Some of the success of the surge is the goodwill of the Iranians. They decided in Basra when the fighting would end."
The speaker added, "They negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians." Well, Madam Speaker, we should point out Basra was never included in the surge. British and Iraqi troops are responsible for security now in that part of Iraq, and none of the additional U.S. combat brigades sent to Iraq in the surge were stationed in Basra.
[...]
DOBBS: I get the feeling that [Democratic strategist] Mr. [Robert] Zimmerman is not ready to give any -- any -- glimmer of acknowledgment to the progress, at least at this point, to the war in Iraq. What is your answer to the same question, Michael?
GOODWIN: Well, look, there's no question it does help McCain. But I think more than that, it's good for America, and I think that's the problem for Democrats.
DOBBS: Well, no, we understand that. But my question was, what does it mean for the Democratic candidate?
GOODWIN: Well, I'm -- I think it's terrible for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, if things continue. I mean, you saw earlier -- you reported about Nancy Pelosi basically giving the Iranians the credit.
DOBBS: What was that about? I mean, I don't even understand what she was trying to say.
GOODWIN: Well, I think when people say the Democrats are invested in failure, Nancy Pelosi --
DOBBS: By the way, I want to give equal time here. I haven't understood what this president has been trying to say for years now. So --
GOODWIN: Well, but --
DOBBS: -- this should not be taken as a --
GOODWIN: But when people say the Democrats are invested in failure, Nancy Pelosi is exhibit A. That sort of statement means she will not give credit to the American military, to the American strategy. She's so invested in criticizing it that she can't accept it.
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on March 31:
BRIANNA KEILAR (anchor): For the first time in almost a week, guns fall silent in parts of Iraq. How did this cease-fire come about? And, of course, is it going to hold? From the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson has more on Iran's role in all of this.
ROBERTSON: Well, it does appear as if a huge amount of pressure was put on the Shia cleric Moktada al-Sadr to get his militia, the Mehdi Militia, to stand down and cooperate with government forces.
[begin video clip]
A group of Iraqi politicians from the Shia United Iraqi Alliance -- that is the bloc of the main Shia political parties here, the prime minister's political party, his allies, Moktada al-Sadr's political party -- all went to Iran over the weekend, with the help of Iranian officials negotiated an end to the fighting.
And if you remember, back in the beginning of the weekend, Moktada al-Sadr was telling his militia to continue the fight. Twenty-four hours later, under what appears to be huge and heavy Iranian pressure, he has backed down, told his fighters to cooperate with the Iraqi government.
The militia off the streets today, not in evidence. People back out on the streets. The curfew's lifted. Shops are reopening.
It does raise the question of, if Sadr's militia controlled large areas of Basra and some of the suburbs, the Sadr suburb of Baghdad, controlled those large areas over the weekend, how can the government be in a position, as it says it is now, of being in charge and in control? The government says it will continue its operations until it has rounded up all the criminals. It says it hopes it will do that by the end of the week.
It has called into question Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's judgment in going up against an enemy, in Moktada al-Sadr, that he couldn't win militarily. He had appeared to become bogged down in a stalemate, whereby there were areas of Basra, areas of Baghdad, he militarily couldn't push the Iraqi security forces into, couldn't take control. So it's calling into question Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's judgment.
As well, U.S. forces have supported the prime minister with aerial bombing, with some ground forces, to rout out the Mehdi Militia, rout out the criminal element, as the government was describing them. But despite that bombing, despite the U.S. bombing and the U.S. support of the prime minister, it does appear to be the Iranians, through negotiations, who have gotten Moktada al-Sadr to back off and go along with the cease-fire.
Nic Robertson, CNN, Baghdad.
Here's a thought for MMFA to consider. I expect a politician to always hold up the American Military first. If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that. I don't hold the News media to the same standard. For a politician to allow to go unsopoken the efforts of our troops while citing the help of the Iranians is to be "invested in defeat".
Besides - didn't she promise a plan to lower the gasoline prices - where is that?
Supporting our military publicly is not political posturing. If you think that then your priorities are EVEN more out of WHACK than I ever dreamed..
WOW!
The CAPS were the result of the stunning nature of your ridiculous remarks, but you're right, I've seen it all before from you so it's par for the course.
Thanks for the reminder, I overreacted.
Personally, I'm sick of the "I support the troops" or "I honor your service" qualifiers that are repeated ad nauseum. But Tommy can't get enough of those worthless statements that are meaningless at their core.
Can't we all agree that EVERYONE supports the troops (even the Democrats) and get down to the business of stopping the needless DEATH and THIEVERY! But no, look over there - (insert Democrat) is not wearing a flag pin.
But you see, its the Republicans who trot out the "I support the troops" line every time they point to their flag pin. But you see, Tommy, that statement has little meaning because it is the same Republican party that is invested in DEATH and THIEVERY. So I will speak that line to the troops if and when I meet with them, but I don't need our political leaders out there saying it every time they open their mouth.
So what do you think the average grunt in Iraq would rather have. A few dozen platitudes or an uparmored vehicle and the end to stop-loss? Or how about a shower that doesn't electrocute you? You do see the hypocrisy, don't you? Those that say they support the troops the most, in actuality, DO NOT support the troops.
Pelosi was more interested in political manuevering than crediting our military first, before any foreign country, much less Iran.
So right there, you whined that Pelosi didn't genuflect to the almighty troops. My point is that she DOESN'T HAVE TO because everyone supports the troops. It's a known known, to quote Rummy. And those that say they support the troops the most often (Republicans, usually), in reality, do not support the troops where it counts.
Anything else you don't understand?
Your incredible disrespect for our "almighty troops" aside, for which you should be ashamed by the way, is quite revealing, but nonetheless......I expect our elected leaders to be very cautious and careful when speaking in any official capacity, far more than some dopey media member or any private citizen. They represent our country and our citizens and should remember that, and the ramifications of what they say, every time they open their mouth.
I have already given my opinion on what Pelosi said.
Now go and pay homage to your "almighty Democrats".
the ramifications of what they say, every time they open their mouth.
She didn't say she "didn't support the troops". She just didn't say that she supported them enough for your liking. I guess that having politicans repeatedly say how much they support the troops makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
And by the way, I'm certainly not ashamed of anything that you say I should be ashamed of. Follow?
FOG
He understood your point the first time. WE have some on here that claim to be soooo patriotic,it reminds me of Hannity
A flag pin made in China at that. Is it me,or is tommy becoming more obnoxious than ever?
tony and guidedog Lido
It's lip service, and therefore, WORTHLESS (especially when spoken by the neo-con warmongering liars.)
Don't you know lip service is more important than proper, working, equipment.
Of course the right wingers love the troops somuch, they try and make fun of post traumatic vitims.
I don't hold the News media to the same standard
Carefully disguised double standard? It's a blatent double standard. Congress is responsible for supporting our military - not the news media.
Wow, how many different levels of irony did you manage to pull off with that one post?
Back to irony again, a concept you're still hellbent on proving you don't understand. I think you need more time off. :)
irony ?
"I do not think that word means what you think it means"
So again, if you wish to question the substance of Pelosi's comments then have at it. Something tells me that your (and Jonwiz2's) oblique suggestion that Pelosi's facts are wrong is just chickensh!t sniping, so I won't hold my breath.
Now I understand the source of your anger today and why you've suddenly returned. Considering this is third post on this very thread where you have nervously spoken of patriotism and lashed out at me, or others, for questioning yours as some deflection to avoid debate, or some such ridiculous nonsense.
I never even uttered the word "unpatriotic" when referring to Ms. Pelosi, or implied it in any way shape or form, I questioned her judgement and political motivations, not her patriotism. Nor have I ever on these boards questioned anyone's patriotism, nobody, not a Democrat, or a liberal, or anyone, including yours.
However, it's quite clear now that you are passionately defensive on that charge, for whatever reason I do not know, but your overreaction here, and on an earlier post on this thread, reveals a sting that has you backed into a corner. Which would explain your return here?, a friendly environment perhaps, or a place to take out your pent up rage?
Whatever it is, stop looking foolish and accusing others of calling out yours, or Ms. Pelosi's patriotism......and don't blame me for why you are so touchy on that subject, hey, it's not my fault.
Easyto refute wingnuts coined a good acronym for Tommy:
Deflect If Corrected, Knowing He Eagerly Attempts Derailing.
Thanks Mary, I guess you're addressing the ad hominem attacks to avoid the topic, well done.
I must say it's clever though, nice job Easy.....hat tip.
What's b.s is the way you shift arguments. I specifically said I was questioning Pelosi's judgement and her political motives, yet you went on about flag waving and lapel pins and patriotism when that was not the criticism. You knew it, but to try and compensate for your flimsy argument, you manufactured that baseless line of attack in an attempt to try and invalidate the point, which was not attacking anyone's patriotism at all, but rather their judgement.
You haven't changed.
Do you honestly think you can fabricate your way out of the chronology of your own posts?
First off, nowhere does Lou Dobbs question Ms. Pelosi's patriotism, the word was never uttered in this conversation, and Johnwiz2 never mentioned it either - first lie of yours.
Secondly, you posted two ranting and unwarranted posts about baseless attacks of unpatriotic accusations before you responded to Johnwiz2, so don't act like he prompted that from you, another lie.
Questioning someone's judgement, lack of respect and political motivations is not questioning their patriotism, yet you manufactured that strawman out of desperation and lack of integrity, a worn out tactic you still cling to on these boards.
I would have hoped that your time away would have afforded you time to reflect on your past dishonesty, so you could return new and improved.
Nope, the kitchen is still serving up the same ole' Clams Casino.
Dems/Tommy,
Are you guys saying that this would have occurred without Iran's intervention?
You were both talking about Pelosi giving credit to Iran and not the military. I think it's dishonest of you to think the Military could do it alone. They have been there for quite awhile now and have not been able to achieve the success that the Bush admin. thought they would.
Now everyone realizes, the only way to achieve any success is through political means. We have to involve countries like Iran. That's what Polesi was saying, but neither of you has the guts to put aside your partisan ways and be honest.
It's always easy to throw up that idiotic "liberals are aginst the military type stuff". It really means nothing and shows your complete lack of understanding of how things get accomplished.
If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that.
I'm guessing you missed this from my original post?
I prefer our elected leaders, particularly the third in line for the presidency, always put our military at the forefront of any positive outcomes with regard to foreign conflict, and always long before any enemy.
But that's just me.
If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that.
What does that mean to you?
Neither I nor Tommy is discounting the participaton of the Iraninas in the process. We were agreeing on Pelosi's misguided focus in crediting only the Iranians while ignoring the efforts of the military. That's where you drifted off point.
Okay Dems,
Nice projection!
I think it's dishonest of you to think the Military could do it alone.
What led you to this conclude I was thinking this?
Exactly. But you have to remember Dems, some here view it like this; Credit Iran means discrediting Bush. Crediting the military means crediting Bush. It's all about who gets, and who doesn't, get the credit. Gotta be careful with that.
It's warped, I know.
Let's see, who wanted to jump on Pelosi for saying exactly what happened. The military was not successful. Iran steps in a negotiates a cease fire. Pelosi credits Iran.
I just deal in facts, not foolish speculation like you two dolts.
I just deal in facts, not foolish speculation
I noted the participation of the Iranians in my initial post. For you to jump to the conclusion that I believed their help was unwelcome or unwarranted was indeed foolish speculation on your part and without any factual basis.
Tommy and Dems,
You guys have no clue. The US military had nothing to do with this. Why should she credit them with anything.
You have to be the two most dense people on the planet!
Uh, I suggest you try reading MMFA's piece before you comment, Dem_SOL. The point is made, above -- nonsensically, by Lou Dobbs himself -- that the US military was NOT in Basra. So why should the US military get credit there? The CNN reporter in fact said that the backing off by al Sadr was NOT due to the US military-assisted efforts by the Iraqis. This appears, in other words, to be a gratuitous attack, by Dobbs et al, on the patriotism of a Democrat, Speaker Pelosi, who happens to be someone who goes out of her way at every opportunity to give credit and thanks and support to our US troops.
"Here's a thought for MMFA to consider. I expect a politician to always hold up the American Military first. If she wanted to say " in addition to the success of our military, the Iranians played a positive role" - I could accept that."--dems_sol
So you apparently prefer an acknowledgement of a reassuring fairy-tale as opposed to the unvarnished truth. I guess that is pretty consistent with conservatism in general, but it is pretty sad to see a presumably grown adult admit that.
Pelosi in the same statement says the surge didn't achieve it's goal and Iranians goodwill is the reason for some of the success in the surge. She gives them credit for the cessation of the hostilities.
This is from the the first person behind the VP in line for the Presidency! Wow. If that isn't invested in defeat then Hillary has conceded.
AA,
I'll ask you the same question, do you think this would have occurred without ths Iranians intervention?
skeptic,
I think the coalition forces would have taken out the militia.
BAGHDAD — Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.
By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.
-April 28, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html?hpAA,
Your article is about a ceasefire that happened at least three, if not four, weeks after the events Pelosi was talking about. What do you make of CNN's own reporting (links in the article) that showed Iran played a role in the ceasefire.
That is not being invested in defeat, by the way.
I'm not denying the Iranian's influence in the settlement. It is apparent by Pelosi's statement that she is denying the success of the surge and praising the Iranians. It looks like investing in defeat to me.
AA,
The military was not having any success until Iran stepped in. Sorry, but thems the facts.
AA,
Saying that the Iranians played a positive role is not denying American success. Its merely stating that the Iranians helped.
Both.
Did - The Al Sadr militia was defeated in Basra.
Would have - The negotiated cessation in Sadr City stopped the coalition forces from hunting down the militia and defeating them there.
The Iranians probably saw that Sadr would be defeated and there would go their influence, so they negotiated the cessation of hostilities. In other words, they ran away to fight another day.
Wow,
You have a way of re-writing history. Iran negotiated a cease fire and then the military swept through.
What about that do you not understand?
skeptic,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it was two different situations. One in Basra, the other in Sadr City.
Hmmm... The Iranians, in case you didn't realize it, are fighting a proxy war with the imbicile Moqata Al Sadr.
Why all the pretense? The Iranians are already at war with the U.S. It really doesn't lend much credence to Obama's and Pelosi's cut and run strategy now does it?
Why all the pretence? Nothing a progressive does will ever meet your standards. To pretend to be willing to discuss matters objectively, while you accuse them of every possible negative action or thought, is what I see from you.
Your definition of war must set the bar low enough that you are essentailly at war with close to three quarters of the population and thats just in this country.
Cut & run, seven little letters. How much effort does it take to type them out? How much effort would it take you to tell us about all the actions you put into those seven letters.
A friend's phrase suits your posts, panglossian tautology.
The only ones who benefited more than Al Qaeda when the imbecile George Bush invaded Iraq were the Iranian hardliners.
And maybe Halliburton and Blackwater.
Black and White.
Either - Or.
No Nuances here.
If she is giving credit to Iran, then she can't be leaving any for our military. Anyone who denies that Media Matters is 100% spot on with this report is deluding themselves but not fooling the sane, intelligent ones here.
She says "You cannot have just a military solution in Iraq. And some of the success of the surge is at the goodwill of the Iranians. They decided in Basra when the fighting would end. They negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians."
Goodwin stated, "I mean, you saw earlier -- you reported about Nancy Pelosi basically giving the Iranians the credit," and later asserted: "[W]hen people say the Democrats are invested in failure, Nancy Pelosi is exhibit A. That sort of statement means she will not give credit to the American military, to the American strategy. She's so invested in criticizing it that she can't accept it."
Bush/Cheney set the "destruction of the u.s." bar pretty high.