Webloggin » Media Matters Defends Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn’s Progress Fearing Statement on Iraq

Most everyone who reads this web site is familiar with Media Matters. They are the left wing version of Newsbusters that monitors well known Conservative outlets of information. Their about page lists the mission statement under which they operate.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

[~snip]

Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

Fair enough, no axe to grind there, we all seek out misinformation that operates under the guise of objectivity. The problem for me starts when the actual seekers of bias are less than truthful themselves, as is the case of the Media Matters defense of statements by Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn (statements that didn’t get much play in well known bastions of liberal protectionism, e.g. The New York Times, etc.)

Rewind to an interview that Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn gave to the Washington Post on July 30_th. In that interview WaPo reporter Dan Balz asked Representative 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.”

This has caused quite a stir on the internet and within the realm of conservative radio talk show hosts such as Laura Ingraham. They pounced on Clyburn’s statement as proof that Democrats are invested in defeat; a charge that democrats have been trying to avoid ever since they back peddled on their votes in support of the war.

Media Matters sees it a different way. They are attacking conservative claims as distortions even though the conservative hosts are playing recordings of the interview while opining on them. In the world of liberalism nowadays it is not so much what you say as it is what you meant to say, when caught saying what you said.

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.” In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats, as many conservatives have suggested. Rather, he said that a recommendation from Petraeus against “back[ing] away” from the current course in Iraq would impede Democrats’ efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: “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.”

Huh? How is that different than being invested in defeat? There is not much room for interpretation here. It is quite clear that that Democrats would have a problem if Petraeus reported that we should stay in Iraq in light of progress on the surge, i.e. - good news that we are winning. Notice that Media Matters actually restates the answer in coming to Clyburns defense. But in doing so they essentially throw away the reporters question, at least the part of the question regarding good news. The fact that Clyburn followed the response up with the standard “None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq” means nothing, it is simply a well practiced CYA response; sort of like supporting the troops but not their mission.

Also note that Clyburn can’t even speak in the definitive, “I think Democrats want to see that”. That’s really a strange thing to say. Not “I know” or simply a natural kind of well duh type of response; he said “I think”, as in well maybe, possibly, but then again…. The other side of “I think” is but I could be wrong.

In any case Clyburn said what he said an now everyone feels they need to come to his defense to tell us what he meant to say. But I believe in taking someone at their word. Clyburn was being very blunt.

Even if the statement was as Media Matters claims it to be; how is that a good thing? Nobody in their right mind would pull out of Iraq if we were winning. So why would Democrats need to garner support for withdrawal if Petraeus said the surge was yielding positive results. In a saner world a strategy of withdrawal would be off the table. Wasn’t that the point of the surge in the first place? Or, did Democrats see the surge as another opportunity to stake claim to defeat, no matter what. But now they have this problem of the Blue Dog Democrats who aren’t so gung ho on seeing America lose if it has a chance of winning.

Of course Democrats are invested in defeat. Good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats. There is no other way to frame it. Winners don’t attend conventions that try to shut down the voice of the American soldier. Winners don’t take the violent acts of brutal head chopping terrorists and excuse it away as a temper tantrum in response to U.S. foreign policy. Certainly winners don’t surrender in a war against evil no matter what the stakes. Winners keep trying until they are victorious, they don’t take a collection of goals and call for surrender unless every single goal is met with overwhelming results. Winners unite.

Democrats speak for themselves. Spare me the restated interpretive spin. Democrats don’t speak a foreign language and I don’t need an interpreter to tell me what they really meant to say. In other words, I understand the Democrat position loud and clear.