For every real journalist that succeeds in presenting the facts in an accurate and unbiased manner, like Solomon Moore from the LA Times, or CNN's Michael Ware and John Roberts, you have a Candy Crowely, or a Norah O'Donell who consistently exhibits an uncanny ability to avoid the facts, as if these faux journalists were born with an allergy to tidbits of truths.
Today on The Chris Matthews Show, MSNBC's Chief Washington correspondent, Norah O'Donnell discussed the Democrats' call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. She appeared absolutely flabbergasted as to why Democrats were proposing such a plan. You can watch the video courtesy of C&L here. She just couldn't seem to wrap her head around why Democrats are proposing withdrawal since they'll "wind up looking weak on national security." She presented the idea of a 2007 phased withdrawal as some irresponsible or crazy notion that foreign policy and military experts wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole:
The problem for the Democrats, once again, is that they wind up--even though they were validated somewhat in their message by the election--they wind up looking weak on national security because what they're proposing is essentially a pull-out in 4-6 months. There is not one military or foreign policy expert who thinks you could actually feasibly do that and second that it would be a good idea. So why are they proposing that? And they're going to put it forward and they're going to create a vote probably on the floor and then they aren't--even though they want to push that, they won't put the muscle behind it by saying we'll cut funds...Anyway, it's an empty proposal.
Let's cut away from NorahWorld and enter reality again, shall we? Via MediaMatters, we see that several retired U.S. generals do indeed think that beginning a phased withdrawal soon is a good idea:
- Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said in May 2006, "I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment."
- Former National Security Agency director and retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom wrote in the May/June 2006 issue of Foreign Policy, "America must withdraw now."
- Retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. and retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns wrote in November 2005, "There may well be some negative consequences as a result of withdrawing of U.S. troops, but fewer, we believe, than if we continue on the present course. Ultimately, the United States will be stronger if we leave the quagmire that is Iraq to resolution by its own citizens."
- In a November 2005 interview, retired Army general William Nash said, "This is not a situation of figuring out the perfect solution. So I am one who believes strongly that our presence is now a detriment to our achieving our goals. As a consequence, I would say we need to be looking for excuses to withdraw, not for reasons to stay."
Add to that list former Senator McGovern and William Polk, who in their new book Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now propose starting withdrawal this year, with a complete withdrawal completed by mid-2007. Oh, and add Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, who called for a withdrawal of troops after the election in 2005 (with complete withdrawal in 2007). Add Barry R. Posen, director of the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (who argued in January for a complete withdrawal within 18 months). Add former senior counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke. And add Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. In his op-ed, Carpenter calls for a withdrawal beginning today.
And while we're at it, let's mention Senator Chuck Hagel, the second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, who in a WaPo op-ed today reiterated his support for phased withdrawal. He's previously stated that the drawdown should take place this year.
All these aforementioned names don't exist in NorahWorld. Facts, you see, are outlawed in here. It's a place where one can revel in the glitter of cocktail circuits and White House press pools. A world where one can wear the title of Chief Washington correspondent but not have to live up to its label. It's a place where you twirl and spin and flutter from show to show and let the most baseless assertions trickle from your smirking lips. It's a place that grants you immunity for your ignorance, where you can dabble on, breathlessly "reporting" one one factual inaccuracy after another without ever having to be called out on your bullshit by your equally doltish peers.
Welcome to NorahWorld. Check your facts at the door, and let the mediocre "journalism" consume you.