Lowry falsely claimed Feingold's position on Iraq is "get out now"

[paineinthearse]

An earlier post about Tom Oliphant's recent Boston Globe op-ed describing Senator Feingold's statement can be found at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2028238

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230002

Lowry falsely claimed Feingold's position on Iraq is "get out now"

Appearing on Fox News' Dayside with Linda Vester following coverage of President Bush's August 22 speech at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, National Review editor Rich Lowry falsely claimed that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said that the United States should "get out now." In fact, Feingold has proposed a goal of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006, but did not propose a date by which the United States should start withdrawing troops.

As Feingold noted on the August 21 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, his proposed withdrawal date is a "target" not a "deadline." In other words, the timeline could be pushed back if circumstances require it:

FEINGOLD: here could be flexibility. There could be ... Look, what we're doing with the constitution right now, it wasn't achieved by a particular date, so you add a little more time. Look, let's say they have to train up a few more troops. Let's say that the administration is open and tells us exactly what's going on and says, "Look, we think we need to stay there two more months"; so be it. But without any sort of a time frame in place, we'll never even get to that point.

Perhaps Lowry was confusing Feingold with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), who said on August 18 that "he longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop" between Iraq and the Vietnam War.

From the August 22 edition of Fox News' Dayside:

LOWRY: Politically, though, what's most interesting is not, you know, what Bush is going to do, because we know he's going to stay the course, and that's what he wants to do. It's what happens to the Democrats. I think they really risk a split on this. Do they go Hillary's route and say "stay the course," or do they go with Russ Feingold and these left-wing groups around Cindy Sheehan who say "get out now"?

Video clip is available at http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230002

[Montauk6]

1. Can I ask a stupid question?

What's wrong with "get out now"? What's the problem with immediately putting into play whatever procedure to get ready and leave? I'm not saying that Feingold said or goes along with this, but I'd throw the question back in the can't-leave-now folks' faces: "When are we supposed to leave?"

Also, this particular war is akin to criminal activity. When the Feds want to bust up an operation, they don't sit around saying "well, is this really the right time?" As soon as that judge signs the warrant, they're in there, activity stops, and folks get cuffed.

True, it's not the best analogy, but I think you get where I'm coming from.

[endarkenment]

2. nothing.

I like Russ and I am glad he is standing up and speaking out, but 1.5 years to stop our criminal and stupid invasion of Iraq is not acceptable to me. 90 days. Out Now.

Now the other point here is that there is framing going on. They are trying to make the obviously right thing to do: get out of Iraq now, an unacceptable, unmentionable, irresponsible alternative.

Out Now.

[paineinthearse]

3. Wouldn't it be nice if our government had a deliberative body designed to

debate issues of national and international importance?

[jonnyblitz]

4. oh man he DOESN'T want us "out now"?

crap. I knew it was too good to be true. that figures :(