Brokaw allowed McCain adviser to falsely claim McCain "called for the firing of Don Rumsfeld"
SUMMARY: On NBC's Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw did not challenge Steve Schmidt's false claim that Sen. John McCain "called for the firing of Don Rumsfeld." In fact, the McCain campaign itself reportedly admitted that McCain did not call for Rumsfeld to be fired, or for his resignation.
On the September 28 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, during his interview with McCain campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt and Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, host Tom Brokaw did not challenge Schmidt's false assertion that Sen. John McCain "called for the firing of Don Rumsfeld" as Defense secretary. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, and the McCain campaign reportedly admitted, McCain did not call for Rumsfeld's dismissal.
Rather than noting the established facts debunking Schmidt's claim, Brokaw concluded the interview by stating, "In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note," then cited the results of a poll question favorable to McCain.
Brokaw has been chosen to moderate the second presidential debate October 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.
From the September 28 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
BROKAW: I'm going to end on two notes here if I can very quickly. We have a crowded agenda this morning. Let's go back to this business about winning in Iraq, if we can. In fact, a number of people on the Republican side have said that we're winning, but in an interview with the BBC, General David Petraeus said he did not know that he would ever use the word victory about Iraq: "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant a flag and go home to a victory parade. ... [I]t's not a war with a simple slogan."
So isn't it misleading, in many ways, for Senator McCain to say we are winning and we'll come home when we have declared victory?
SCHMIDT: Well, absolutely not. Here is what victory means in Iraq. It means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its borders, and it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its people -- that moves forward on its path to democracy. This country was losing this war. Senator McCain stood up to the Bush administration, called for the firing of Don Rumsfeld, risked his political career to advocate a strategy almost by himself that has led us to the edge of victory there. Senator Barack Obama opposed that strategy. In the debate, you heard not one time from Senator Obama the words victory.
We must win this war. This country doesn't have a choice. Senator Obama's judgment on issues of security to this country, whether it's in Iraq or calling Iran a tiny threat, or saying that --
AXELROD: Tom. Tom --
SCHMIDT: -- he would sit down unconditionally with the Iranian president, without preconditions, make the world more dangerous.
AXELROD: It is --
SCHMIDT: It is a fundamental consideration for the American people.
AXELROD: It is ludicrous -- it is ludicrous to assert after four years of mistake after mistake after mistake, when he didn't challenge Mr. Rumsfeld, when he didn't challenge the Bush policy, when he cheerleaded for it, to then say that he was a critic of the policy --
SCHMIDT: Just like the president, he didn't challenge --
AXELROD: Just a --
SCHMIDT: -- Secretary Rumsfeld --
AXELROD: Just a second, Steve. I let you speak.
SCHMIDT: -- not true, Dave.
AXELROD: I let you speak, let me --
SCHMIDT: Not true.
AXELROD: -- let me finish. What has happened is, as Senator Obama predicted from the beginning, that we got distracted in Iraq, and now Osama bin Laden, who is the person who attacked the United States, killed 3,000 American citizens, is now resurgent. He is stronger, and that's the result of the misbegotten decisions of John McCain.
And he stubbornly wants to continue, even as the Iraqis won't take responsibility, sitting on $79 billion of their own surplus while we spend $10 billion a month. It doesn't make sense. We can't take more of the same, Steve.
SCHMIDT: Well --
BROKAW: In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note, and that is that we continue to poll on who's best-equipped to be commander in chief -- John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama, by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
A discussion concerning "winning the war" can only be held when someone can explain to ALL Americans what winning is......And according to McCain and his boys, someone has to surrender before the troops can come home. I ask..WHO IS GOING TO SIGN THE SURRENDER PAPERS??? We win when we leave the occupied country of Iraq to care for itself...
McCain had been pretty adamant that he had 'no confidence' in Rumsfeld and had been encouraging President Bush to look at developing the surge. The difference between 'no confidence' and firing is pretty insignificant and Media Matters (for very little) is looking to make this more than the molehill it really is. Besides, he always insisted that matters of the shape of the cabinet belongs to the president alone.
From the link MMFA provided:
"A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.'"
Why does McCain continue to lie about everything?
There's a HUGE difference between saying you have no confidence in someone and asking for him to be fired. More importantly, the same people who are willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt by saying there's practically no difference between saying "no confidence" and "fire" are the same ones who parse every single comment Bill or Hillary Clinton make and look for hidden meanings. Why the double standard?
In addition, saying you have no confidence in Rumsfeld when his departure is already imminent is like 1974, when prominent Republicans including George H.W. Bush were informed that President Nixon planned to resign, enabling them to all send CYA letters to Nixon asking him to resign. It's pretty easy (and Republican) to take the face saving way out.
Again, not a ringing endorsement of Rumsfeld by McCain..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-14-mccain_x.htm
Yeah, that McCain is such a maverick. He started dumping on Rumsfeld only after all the other heavy hitters quit him. What leadership, to blow off the man who's policies you trumpeted over and over again until it turned out he was wrong, thus making you look bad for supporting him. Yeah, that maverick, always focused on...
image.
i will say that brokaw did let both sides talk, and he interrupted very little. i watched this and schmidt was spinning fairly tales. to listen to him, it was mccain who was jim dandy to the rescue on the bailout. supposedly mccain flew in, got all the sides together and then left, knowing everything was ok. except it took mccain a full day to get back to washington after his breathless announcement, he only spent a limited time on capitol hill, and his main goal was a photo-op. he's all show. this from an associated press story by charles babington and julie davis:
"frank, a gruff and ruffled democrat from massachusetts, demanded to know which of two competing financial plans republican presidential candidate john mccain supported. with bush, congress' leaders, and mccain's democratic opponent, barack obama, watching intently, mccain declined to say, according to those present."
schmidt's comments on iraq were of the usual true believer quality that got us into this mess. victory, failure, all the buzz words that can't change the fact that we can never ever leave unless we tell the iraqis we are going, and they need to govern their own country. it was supposed to be the end of the world if we left vietnam too. sort of brings to mind this song:
"some folks are born with star-spangled eyes,
they'll send you down to war, and when you ask them how much we should give,
the only answer is more, more, more..."
creedence clearwater revival, "fortunate son", talking about vietnam, and nothing's changed.
That's why his fave undies is named "depends". It just "depends" what songbird wants to believe today...
What was the purpose of the surge?
How can McCain ridiculoulsy, and falsely, claim 'thank god the surge has worked' repeatedly when American troops are still in Iraq?
Gen Shinseki got relieved of command for saying more troops are needed to confront Iraq and pres Bush did not believe him. The " surge ' would have never been needed and it is similar in idea as ten cop cars showing up for a fender bender. All the speeders would move to another side of town, just as the insurgents went to Afghanistan and created a situation there. Why McCain is pounding his fist on the podium when speaking of the surge is beyong me. He looks more like krutshev when doing his fist pounding antics.
Brokaw is as biased as they come, him and that old guy at CBS.
And the narro-minded Brokaw never misses an opportunity to push his propaganda poll, as if to suggest that Americans make their decision on one criterion.
These mainstream media BUSINESS people are a disgrace to so-called 'freedom of de-press'; because Americans are ill served by their obvious bias.
These main stream media BUSINESS propagandists are primarily responsible for promoting the bush propaganda that led to the destruction of tens of thousands of American lives, limbs, mental health and trillions of dollars, along with the 'shock and awe' and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi women, children, old people, etc!
And if left alone, the Brokaws of the mainstream media BUSINESS will AGAIN allow McCain to continue the assault that he and the wild bush is now waging on America in all areas.
I may be stating the obvious, but McCain appears to be living in a time warp...or multiple time warps. One thing that has become clear to me is that McCain still has some unresolved issues about the Viet Nam war that will perhaps intrude upon his decision making with respect to not only the Iraq war but any future potential conflicts. It is not comforting...
I get that from McCain too. His unresolved issues about Vietnam filter every position he takes. It's like he's trying to right all of the "wrongs" done to the poor US during the Vietnam War.
From listening to him, i get the sense that he feels we lost the war when in fact we did no such thing. We, as a nation, decided that we would not allow our sons to continue to die for something that no one in the country believed in anymore.
Another example of how McCain is the consumate politician, playing with words to allow deniability and wiggle room. Yes, it is true he was at one point critical of Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq war. But he left Rumsfled's termination as Secretary of Defense to the discretion of the President. So, later, he could argue it either way. Not much clarity from the alleged straight talker, IMO...
There can be no winning of the "War in In Iraq". The Lives that have been lost, (Negligible to Repubs), the money spent (wrecking our economy) have mde any victory a Phyrric one at best.
I really se no good reason to put troops and money into Afghanistan, either. Somebody make that case for me, please. After all, according tto the FBI there is no credible evidence to convict OsamaBin LAden.