Let's get this thing about Hillary and the "surge" straight.

[BuyingThyme]

Media Matters, a few DUers, and others keep claiming or implying that Matt Drudge and other professional liars quoted Hillary Clinton as saying "the surge is working."

Now, I might be wrong, but I think Media Matters and others are trying to mislead us in an extremely dishonest fashion. (They're lying their fucking asses off.)

This is the misleading headline Media Matters is using in it's big story:

MSNBC, NY Post, Drudge falsely claimed Clinton said "surge" is "working"

Notice how they used quotes on the words surge and working. But there's a problem here: They're using quotes twice, but in two completely different contexts. In other words, they use the first set of quotes to quote people like Drudge, and the second set of quotes to quote Hillary. But they want you, the reader, to get the false impression that it was the likes of Drudge who did the quoting. They want you to believe that Drudge falsely quoted Clinton, when they're the ones who are falsely quoting Drudge.

They are lying.

Here's what Drudge wrote:

Hillary on Surge? 'It's Working' ...

Media Matters extends this strategy to fool you in regards to the reporting of the Washington Times, the Associated Press, JustHillary.com, the New York Post, and MSNBC.

Hey, I love Media Matters, but I don't need this kind of bullshit from anybody.

Carry on...



http://mediamatters.org/items/200708210008

[Mythsaje]

1. She said "It's working in some areas," right?

Which, as far as I'm concerned, is meaningless. "Some areas" means that the insurgents are simply moving around and avoiding conflict wherever possible to return later.

[MADem]

4. No, she did not. See the link at post 3, and get the facts from her campaign, not Drudge. NT

[BuyingThyme]

11. See post 7. Her campaign is lying.

[MADem]

19. Someone is, and it isn't her campaign. NT

[BuyingThyme]

25. So, then, you believe her campaign is telling the truth?

You think she was only talking bout Anbar, and her words had something to do not with American tactics, but with tactics implemented by Iraqis in the Anbar region?

Now, I know you don't really believe this, because you've been caught doing this before. The only question left is, why do you keep doing this to yourself?

[Dawgs]

2. Thanks for posting this. I agree with MM on almost everything, but this is wrong.

[KoKo]

21. "The Atlantic Monthly" has article about Hillary...says she helped Brock start

"Media Matters." The article doesn't say how she did it...but I was shocked to read that. I think MM is a great site...they do excellent work. But, if Hillary helped them they might just be paying back.

I don't have a problem with what Hillary said. She's not my candidate but if she thinks it's working then she should say it. Better we Dems who want out of Iraq know what she thinks than for her to cover it over. So, I don't see what the big deal is about this. :shrug:

[MADem]

3. Yeah....bullshit indeed. But way to defend Drudge, and pretend that he didn't mean what he meant.

The sky? It's blue--oh wait, I was talking about my neighbor's eyes, not the sky.

:eyes:

Keep up the "heckuvajob" there. You really can't let this story go, can ya, even when her campaign makes it clear to those who can't read or hear for comprehension: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Clinton_camp_on_surge_quote_AP_0821.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) comment that some new US "tactics" in Iraq are "working" should not be taken as an endorsement of President Bush's troop surge strategy, her campaign said Tuesday.

"She has said this before and was specifically referring to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against Al Qaeda in Al Anbar," campaign spokesman Phil Singer said in an e-mail to RAW STORY....A headline that appeared on the Drudge Report early Tuesday said, "Hillary on Surge? 'It's Working'...". It linked to an Associated Press report on Clinton's comments Monday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention.

Clinton cited successes in Iraq's Al Anbar Province as an example of how changed tactics are "working," but her comments were not meant as an endorsement of President Bush's surge strategy as a whole, her campaign said.

Clinton believes there's been progress quelling violence in Iraq's Anbar province, but doesn't believe the overall troop surge has been effective and continues to argue there is no military solution to end US involvement in Iraq, Singer said.

[BuyingThyme]

7. Drudge is correct. Your post is misleading.

Somebody knowingly decided to edit Hillary's statement, as it appears in your post, in an effort to mislead people (like me).

Here's what she really said:

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.

Notice that your explanation about the quote, about it specifically applying to the Anbar region, cannot possibly be true, as Hillary actually refers to "some areas." You can't get less specific than that. And as for the changes that came "years" too late, we all know that those changes are (falsely) collectively referred to, in some circles, as a surge.

[MADem]

9. You're not reading for comprehension...again. You're confusing the words of a spokesperson

with the speech. AND you're cherrypicking.

Why you do this, I've no idea. There's nothing wrong with not liking a candidate, but lying to pull them down is just cheesy.

[BuyingThyme]

10. You're the one who confused the words of a spokesperson with the speech.

And that was precisely your intention.

It's a good thing I caught you before you fooled anybody.

Turn of the projector before you burn a hole in the film.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HeraldSquare212]

8. But that tactic is short-sighted and dangerous

Basically, she's endorsing the idea of making a short-term alliance with former insurgents, in order to attack al Queda. The support we give them now will later be used against us and against the Iraqi govt. and to engage in ethnic cleansing. Several months from now we'll make alliances with al Queda elements to fight the Sunnis (as we have done in Lebanon, enlisting al Queda groups to fight against Hezbollah). And so on.

[MADem]

14. She's endorsing the idea of getting the fuck out of there.

From the link I offered: The Times said Clinton's remarks were "notable" because Republicans have been "seizing on signs of progress in Al Anbar Province in arguing against a troop withdrawal."

Unlike the Times, the AP paraphrased the first sentence of Clinton's quote, reporting that she " said new tactics have brought some success against insurgents, particularly in Iraq's Anbar province," before running a quote beginning with, "It's working."

Her comments referred specifically to increased cooperation from Sunnis in the area leading to progress against insurgents, but she still believes that extricating US troops from what many see as a festering Civil War is the best option. She has made similar observations before.

Following the link to the "similar observations" leads you here, to comments she made BACK IN MAY of this year: http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-sees-progress-anbar

Asked yesterday during a Town Hall-style event in Red Oak, Iowa about what to do about Iraq, Hillary Clinton made the familiar argument that the troops needed to be extricated from a civil war. But she also added some notably optimistic comments about the soldiers' recent success in the mostly Sunni Al Anbar province where Al Qaeda has its stronghold.

"The war is 360 degrees, there is no battlefield," she said. "So I want to get our combat troops out of a sectarian, civil war. And I have also said, and I somewhat do differ with some of my other colleagues, I think you have to take a hard look at the situation we are in. We are making some progress it turns out, in what is called Al Anbar province against al Qaeda, and the reason we are is that our military leaders have learned a lot in the last several years there and they have made common cause with some of the tribal leaders, who don't like Al Qaeda any more than we do because Al Qaeda is also going after them."



What nerve of the woman, to see the ENTIRE picture and discuss it forthrightly!! Far better that she speak in moronic soundbites without any nuance or evidence of in-depth understanding of the issues behind them.

I really despise it when people misrepresent what candidates say. It's just unnecessary. I'm not sold on Clinton as the nominee, FWIW, I do the same for Obama and Edwards when I see people UNFAIRLY crapping on them just to put them down, as though doing that builds up their own choice--it doesn't--it just makes me think that STUPID people are attracted to the candidate they're supporting.

I'm in no hurry to pick a candidate--I'd probably pick one sooner if I didn't have to sort through so many lies and bullshit about our OWN choices on this democratic forum...

[BuyingThyme]

16. Why get out when we finally found tactics that work?

[MADem]

17. Because if the house has a great stove and refrigerator, but it's full of termites,

it's not a good place to live, is it?

One thing CAN be good while other things aren't.

Unless you live in Black and White land, and nuance of that nature is too difficult to wrap your head around.

[BuyingThyme]

27. Then why make a speech about the stove?

[MADem]

28. To give the VFW, who is about to buy the house, a FULL VIEW of it.

And not be accused of only pointing out the negative.

But then, you're cherrypicking, AS YOU DO, and not pointing out the bits where she said there's no foundation and the roof is a mess.

Because that's what you do.

:eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

29. Why do you keep doing things, only to say that I'm the one doing them?

What is working? What is the goal?

[MADem]

30. I understand clearly that your dislike of Clinton rules your life here at DU

And I do nothing except point out when you lie about her. Just as I point out when other partisans lie about Obama or Edwards.

You may think you're 'helping' but you aren't. You're just further eroding every shred of credibility you have.

Let Clinton's true words sink her or allow her to swim. When you try to say she said things she didn't say, with meanings that are not true but straight from the mouths of GOP opeatives, all you are doing is smearing yourself.

I'm interested in making my elective decisions based on facts--not lies, not half-truths, and not rumors. You prefer to work towards victory for your favorite at the cost of your credibility.

It's not working. You're only screwing yourself.

[BuyingThyme]

31. I've posted very little here about Clinton. I usually trash Pelosi.

How is it that you always seem to start and end your posts with <misrepresentations>, yet manage to <misrepresent> between? Are you a compulsive <misrepresenter>?

Let's give you one more chance to prove that you are not a compulsive <misrepresenter> from the land of <misrepresenters>. Name one of my lies. Be careful, you don't want to do what you did on every previous occasion.

[MADem]

32. Coulda fooled me. You were all over her for the past several days. NT

[BuyingThyme]

33. So, when you said my Clinton postings rule my life at DU, you were just

<misrepresenting> again?

I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking for another example of your compulsion to <misrepresent>. (That's easy.) I was asking for just one example of what you mean when you accuse me of lying.

You seem to have progressed into some kind of double projectionism world. I don't know if I'm going to be able to keep up with you.

[MADem]

34. Nope--telling the truth. Something you have a tough time with, apparently. nt

[HeraldSquare212]

18. To be fair

She was endorsing a dangerous tactic, and she is not calling for complete withdrawal. How is my statement "lies and bullshit"? I was engaging her on the terms of her own statement and not on the 'statement' that the media reported.

[MADem]

20. I am not referring to your objections to her view of the total situation

My objection was to the OP, who continues to insist that Clinton's comments were about the surge, when she said the same damned thing several months ago.

You've every right to take issue with her differences about who stays in Iraq after her proposal to get the troops out of the middle of that civil war. That's a valid difference of opinion. My gripe is not with that aspect, which is a point worthy of discussion.

What pisses me off is this smarmy effort to continue to put Clinton in the GOP camp along with the 'pro-surge' crowd, when that is simply a false assertion. It's mendacious, and done for purely political purposes, too.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Link?

[bvar22]

22. Hillary has NO intention of withdrawing US Troops from Iraq.

Your post contains quotes FULL of Weasel Words.

Hillary has promised to keep Combat Troops in Iraq indefinately.

[MADem]

24. And that has WHAT to do with the OP?

Go on with yourself--you've no intention of following the actual discussion, apparently.

[bvar22]

35. My post was a response to post #14.

Lets go back and look at post #14.
It was written by someone screen named "MADem".
Isn't that YOU?

Quoting Post #14 by MADem:

" She's endorsing the idea of getting the fuck out of there.

To which I replied:

"Hillary has NO intention of withdrawing US Troops from Iraq.

Hillary has promised to keep Combat Troops in Iraq indefinately."

to which YOU replied:

"Go on with yourself--you've no intention of following the actual discussion, apparently."

Are you having trouble keeping up? :shrug:

[MADem]

37. Oh, joy, another heat, fury and no-light poster.

Your comments are simplistic and not fact-based. And they've nothing to do with the first lie in this lame thread.

But enjoy the old 'weasel word' drama you're creating. Oh, and it's 'indefinitely'--but that assertion you are making is not true, either.

So long.

[Bluebear]

5. 'We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.'

I still would love clarification of that remark.

[jonnyblitz]

6. I suspect David Brock of Media Matters is trying to make

amends for his trashing of the Clintons while he was a hatchet man for the right wing in the 90's thus he is overcompensating by going out of his way to spin positively for Hillary Clinton now. just a thought. :shrug:

[Disturbed]

12. Sen Clinton should have known better.

People say that she choses her words carefully. This statement was not off the cuff. It was a thought out speech. It's obvious that she didn't consider that her statement would be used against her or didn't care. By "tactics" it's plain that she meant "Surge methods". Her statement was meant to give the concept that the US Military was finally using the correct methods in the effort defeat al Q factions in Iraq but that it is too late for this to be successful for the entire territory in Iraq. Of course, her detractors chose to only use part of her statement to distort her message. Again, she made a mistake in her delivery of what she intended to convey.

Here is another mistake she made:



Does one need to wonder why so many Dems dislike her?

[BuyingThyme]

13. One of the things that gets overlooked is that she's probably

been coached never to use the word surge because it's so Pukey.

[tabasco]

23. She looks so presidential in that pic with Murdoch.

More like a smitten teenager and her fave rock star.

:puke:

[Imagevision]

36. Hillary, Bushlite - Obama had it right!!!