Skip to main content

Same Cokie, same old story, five years and counting.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But this is going to be a split in the party. You all (at The Nation) are backing a plan that a lot of Congressional challengers are backing (The Responsible Plan) saying, immediate withdrawal, unconditional...

VANDEN HEUVEL: that's right...


VANDEN HEUVEL: There are 42 Congressional challengers...

ROBERTS: But no major Presidential candidates are saying that, because they're sitting there saying look, we've been there, we've seen it, we think it's an irresponsible thing to do.

VANDEN HEUVEL: It is not, but you know what, the responsible thing to do is withdraw.... If we withdraw responsibly, the region would be more stable in the long term, America will be restored as a responsible global leader, and there are 42 challengers, you are absolutely right Cokie, who have a responsible plan to withdraw.

ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is--

VANDEN HEUVEL: But what is winning? This war is unwinnable, there are no military solutions. And Cokie, Americans are already behind this, 2/3 of Americans believe this war was a mistake to fight. And when Dick Cheney said to ABC's Martha Raddatz last week, "I don't care what Americans think." The contempt, the disdain for Americans and for what this war has done to the military, to our economy, and to our future as a nation. If you care about responsible....

Of course Americans would prefer to win. In the immortal words of Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh, winning is "like, you know, better than losing!" The thing is, we're not going to win and the American people are actually smart enough to realize that.

It's time to talk about what "winning" would really mean, in the real world--the one outside of the fevered imaginations of Roberts, Broder, et al. It means, in large part, what the Responsible Plan is calling for: a solution that reengages the international community, that puts diplomacy above military posturing, that soberly assesses where we are in order to get us out as quickly, as efficiently, and as responsibly as possible. "Winning" in Iraq at this point can only mean limiting further destruction and death.

The majority of Americans know that. And as a reflection of that reality, more than 50 Congressional challengers, as well as a number of military advisers, recognize it, too. They're so convinced of it that staking their future careers on it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:52 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Cindy is a trollop and a... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    John McCain to wife Cindy "At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt."

    trol·lop  [trol-uhp] –noun

    1. an immoral or promiscuous woman, esp. a prostitute.  
    1. an untidy or slovenly woman; slattern.  

    [Origin: 1605–15; earlier trollops; perh. akin to troll1]

    —Related forms
    trol·lop·y, adjective

  •  We win when the mission is accomplished. nt (0+ / 0-)

    John McCain: 4 more years of war, economic disaster, inadequate healthcare, and anti-choice supreme court appointments.

    by smash artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM PDT

    •  When is the mission accomplished you ask? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leap Year

      Well that's quite simple.  The mission is accomplished when we win.

      John McCain: 4 more years of war, economic disaster, inadequate healthcare, and anti-choice supreme court appointments.

      by smash artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and on and on ad Nauseous (0+ / 0-)

        no, that's not a typo in the subject line....

      •  I hear this... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leap Year

        It's time to talk about what "winning" would really mean...

        and have to ask another question.

        Last night watching the 60 minutes segment with Douglas Feith, it finally hit me what should be the real question here. After taking Feith to task for not finding WMD or any of their other bogus justifications, Feith was asked if he still thought the war was "worth it". His reply?

        Even given what we've learned since... (it was worth it)

        This is a comment that is said by nearly everyone in the administration. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain and even Joe Leibermann!

        What I want answered is, what was worth it??

        After more than 4000 dead US soldiers, another 30k with serious injuries, anywhere from 100K to a million dead Iraqi's, 3 trillion in US treasure, $100 a barrel oil, a broken military and our new reputation in the world as torturers, just what was worth it?

        I couldn't believe that question wasn't asked of Feith! But that question is never asked of any of them that say it was "worth it". From my perspective we haven't gained anything! Not one tangible thing! Saddam Hussein is gone. Do they really believe that was "worth it"? I certainly don't and I'd sure like to see someone asked the follow-up question, "What was worth it??"

        Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07

        by reflectionsv37 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:08:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yup. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jlamkin, potownman, CParis, tbetz, Blackacre

      The reality is that Americans wanted us to win, and we did.  We won years ago.  Then we began occupying Iraq.  You don't "win" an occupation.  Did we win in Germany against the Soviets?  No.  Did we win in Korea?  No.  In both cases, we just never left.  

      The disconcerting thing is that McCain really believes there is a concept of "winning" in Iraq.  The lesson he learned from Vietnam is that American military might can do anything provided that the country is willing to stay in there and fight, no hold barred, over the long term.  This is, in a word, wrong.  

      McCain, as president, will absolutely press for a draft.  He is aware enough to realize that there's a non sequitr between our military capacity and our current commitment to Iraq.  He knows it is unsustainable.  The conclusion of most rational people is that the solution to this is our expedited departure.  To McCain, it's evidence that we need to commit an even larger force for the indefinite future.

      Remember that 300-500K troops that was talked about way way back when this whole mess got started.  That big number that Rumsfeld ignored.  That's what McCain wants.  In reality, there'd probably need to be an even larger presence.  The only way to do that is with a draft and bankrupting our economy.  But McCain sees that as the honorable thing to do, even if, in terms of the health of this nation and the larger geopolitical system, it is not.  

      Victory at this point will be getting out of there while minimizing the inevitable chaos of our departure.  The longer we wait to do that and the more we invest in the conflict, the worse that outcome will be.  McCain doesn't get that, and he never will.

      Disclaimer: I'm swimming laps in the Obama koolaid

      by sterno on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Saw the Banner! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CParis, tbetz

      So, that means our best and bravest can come home! Yippee!!

      "The future ain't what it used to be." George Carlin

      by CityLightsLover on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is no "winning" an occupation. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      potownman, Blackacre, Andhakari

      If our Democratic politicians would smarten up and start calling what we are doing in Iraq what it is -- an occupation -- instead of calling it what it hasn't been since "Mission Accomplished" day -- a war -- they could turn public opinion around in very short order.

      Occupations can not be won, they can only be ended.

      But, no, they have to bend to the Republicans' false characterization of our activities there.

      Stupid, stiupid, stupid.

  •  A united Dem field (0+ / 0-)

    Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson all preferred to win.

  •  Screw you, mcjoan. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcjoan, cactusflinthead

    I'll tell you what winning means, and some of us really care about getting that trophy, you know?

    Damn that'll look fine over the mantle.

    I want someone to quote me in their sig line - Trix

    by GussieFN on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

  •  Is it possible to get it framed as (8+ / 0-)

    Americans would prefer to stop losing?

    This primary has become not one damned thing after another, but rather one damned thing over and over.

    by middleagedhousewife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:57:22 AM PDT

    •  Frame it as we've already won (3+ / 0-)

      what it is possible for us to win--the Iraqi's have the political space to resolve their problems and build their future, or not.  We cannot do it for them, anymore than the French could have helped us in 1787.

      That's right--claim we've won, make an appeal to our secular religion of self-determination, and then get the f out.

      Team America likes a winner.  Let's be the winner.

      The IMF is a loan shark, bill collector, and repo man all rolled into one.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The McSame people are saying the surge is working (0+ / 0-)

        (!), but that might work to help us get out.  We'd  need a big self gag on the reality based community for the meme ' We've Won, We're Leaving' to work.  

        We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions." Pentagon Chief Counsel Haynes on military tribrunals in Gitmo.

        by sailmaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:09:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The reality based community here in the US (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is very small. Very small.  Micropenis small.

          What's McCain gonna say in response?  We're failing?

          Obama could then ask, "Well, are our boys winning or failing?  They've done their job, with honor, and now the Iraqi's must determine their own future.  Blah, blah, blah. America."  

          McCain would clench his jaw while Obama moonwalked circles around him on the debate floor.  McCain would then either blow with expletives or say that it's our oil, which would be the truth as the PNAC types see it but also politically devastating.  

          I just don't wanna see the Dems as the party that is framed (again) as "choosing to lose the war."

          The IMF is a loan shark, bill collector, and repo man all rolled into one.

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It is so hard to get thru the BS (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that the surge is working when what really happened was M Al Sadr decided to quit fighting to try to work out some power sharing (using Iran as a backer even tho that is shaky at best).  So it was a Shia faction calling a hault to fighting that made it look like the surge was "working."

      Look American's think in black and white.  Win/Lose.  It is hard to break thru using this language.  We must say the war was won when Saddam was toppled and that this is an OCCUPATION.  Do American's want a colony?  Winning is not occupying.  Its time for Iraq and their neighbors to put together anything that looks stable.  We must leave (militarily) to let that happen.

  •  Cokie (4+ / 0-)

    I hadn't seen her for a very long time until recently - she made Peggy Noonan's on air appearances seem down-to-earth.

  •  Saddan Hussein is dead. (12+ / 0-)

    And so are his sons.

    It seems that the old regime is gone and if that's what we set out to do, we have already won.

    I guess it's too hard for Cokie and the like to admit that the real reason we stay there is because for some reason God put our oil under their sand.

    Just once I'd like to see them admit they they don't plan on leaving until the oil is secured for exploitation by US corporations.  And even then, we won't leave because we'll need the military to guard the wells and pipelines.

    In a just world, we'd leave and the oil companies would be left to fend for themselves.  

    "The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa

    by cometman on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:58:08 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps what we really need is a national (3+ / 0-)

    dialogue on just what would constitute "winning" in Iraq. Until we resolve that fundamental question we only address issues like troop withdrawal from personal perspectives.
    Full disclosure: I personally do not believe there is any rational objective in Iraq which can be settled by force of arms.

    I know what I know, and I know some of what I don't know. It's what I don't know that I don't know that keeps getting me into trouble.

    by DaNang65 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:58:36 AM PDT

  •  Does the fact that we're still in NKorea mean (0+ / 0-)

    we "won" there? Can someone ask John McCain that?

    •  Well It Does Mean That We Can Stay in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

      just as long. S. Korea anyway.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:06:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And I disagree with the CW going around about (0+ / 0-)

      howMcCain is wrong with his "We're still in North Korea and Japan, so It's alright if we stay in Iraq for a long time" thing.

      I've seen Andrew sullivan and Se. Kerry say this is wrong because Arab society is so different that Korean or Japanese society and they wouldn't allow foreign troops to stay so long peacefully.

      That's not why McCain is wrong. He's wrong because the decision to keep troops in North Korea and Japan came after hostilities had ended. It was part of the cleanup. You don't justify keeping troops in a hot war by comparing the decision to do so with cold and ice cold wars. It's so fundamentally boneheaded it's hard to respond to it. It's like justifying prolonging the war in Iraq by noting that we have army bases in Georgia. We had a Civil War once, yknow.

      •  there is a distinction between SK and Japan (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        occupations. In SK (that's where we have the troops, not in the North), the threat from China continued. In Japan, it was more for the restoration of a civil government after the dismantling of the war machine.

        Nevertheless, they are both distinctly different from Iraq. In both SK and Japan, the population was supportive of our presence for the most part. Ain't so in Iraq, where we are seen as the aggressors against Arabs and Muslims. And consummate incompetents too.

        Democrats: Unite! Get rid of anti-candidate sig lines!

        by tonyfv on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:29:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A question (0+ / 0-)

    what would have happened if Clinton had followed the 50-state strategy like Obama ?

    Stewart/Colbert '08

    by arnott on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:00:08 PM PDT

  •  Not sure you're being fair here (0+ / 0-)

    Seems to me that Robert's point is right ia a sense, the majority of the American public would like to think somehow "we won."  

    I think they long ago realized that the version "win" the White House sold them is not going to happen, but I also think there is stil a powerful desire for some other version of "win" they can buy.  We ignore that desire at our peril.

    Not that I in any way buy the McCain version of "won," that's a fantasy too. But I'm just sayin......

    •  How about beating the Republicans? (0+ / 0-)

      Then we can celebrate a worthwhile victory.

    •  I disagree... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      potownman, Leap Year, Night Train

      Cokie was basically saying that the mood of the country is against withdrawal, and as mcjoan has pointed out, that is the OPPOSITE of what polls show.

      I watch the show every week.  Cokie is consistently the purveyor of misguided conservative conventional wisdom.

      I appreciate what George Will says more than her, because at least he is a thinking conservative.  Cokie seems to just say whatever the Administration has tried to beat into all of our heads time and time again.

      •  I saw it too, and I watch every week too and (0+ / 0-)

        while I think the majority considers the war a mistake, a bad one, I think the rate and method of withdrawal is a more nuanced issue, not one there is universal agreement about.

        I'm personally for getting out as soon as we can, but I'm not so sure the majority agrees with that position.  That want out, but many are unsure exactly how and when that should occur.

        I certainly don't think Cokie was advocating the administration position which would put withdrawal far in the future.

    •  Everyone is a Winner! (0+ / 0-)

      Why not do like with the kids sports teams, everyone gets a trophy that says "you're a winner", even if they never got off the bench or could put their shoes on straight?
      The Department of Defense could send everyone a gold medal for helping "Win in Iraq".  Done.

  •  I would prefer.... (3+ / 0-)

    I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is-- be two or three inches taller and ten... twelve...  let's say twelve years younger.

    Roberts truly is one of the worst of the worst. I gather she's sort of semi-retired now (?), so she's eclipsed by the sheer horror that is Russert or Matthews, but she was always as bad as Broder at spreading RNC talking points masquerading as Conventional Wisdom, especially once her horror at Teh Clenis overshadowed her gratitude for Clinton naming her mama Ambassador to the Vatican.

    Just a reminder of how much we have to work to change the MSM, not just the elected officials. Cokie, Broder, Brian Williams (virtually the entire NBC roster) might as well be drawing paychecks from McCain.

    Good to see KVH in there speaking truth to vacuity.

  •  Cokie & Cheney sittin in a tree, M-I-S-L-E-A-D (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, hideinplainsight, fisheye, Hope08

    just say no to 'yes men'. Obama for America

    by bluestatemeant on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM PDT

  •  starting a small business in Iraq? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Read this LA Times article.  

    This well-intentioned local fellow went to Iraq to help them create a small business development center.  Iraqis helping Iraqis to create businesses.  Sounds like a way to contribute.  But..

    Borden expected to use his considerable stateside experience helping entrepreneurs. But the deaths of co-workers, locals and American soldiers -- and the continuing absurdities of trying to do business in a war zone -- took their toll.

    hmm.  sounds like a challenging environment.  How did it go?

    "One of our jobs was to create this center and a board of directors and train that board. The center had nine directors, most selected before I got there. But one of the nine was kidnapped and murdered. Six of the eight now live in Amman [the capital of Jordan]. Two of the six have declared they will never under any circumstances go back to Iraq. Two had their businesses blown up. . . . The situation was not really conducive."

    Reminds me of McCain's trip one year ago.  

    "We were warmly welcomed," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who was part of the delegation, along with Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). "I bought five rugs for five bucks. People were engaging."

    "I, too, find myself leaving my day at the market in Baghdad with a new sense of cautious optimism that freedom might just work for these people," said Pence.

    Pence said he was deeply moved by his ability to "mix and mingle unfettered among ordinary Iraqis" and to have tea and haggle over the price of a rug. The Shorja market, he said, was "like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summer time."

    Uh, I need to take a nap.  These guys are too much.

    (-8.00,-7.85) "Jesus Christ was the first nonviolent revolutionary." --S. Stills

    by bubbanomics on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM PDT

  •  Cokie Roberts is a goddamned Beltway idiot. (6+ / 0-)

    Wherever Approved Conventional Wisdom is sold by interested parties, she's there to buy it wholesale, and regurgitate it on TV.

    God, what a tool she is.

    President JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's third term.

    by chumley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:02:28 PM PDT

  •  "Democrats will never ratify an anti-choice..." (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats will never ratify an anti-choice running mate, and Republicans aren't anywhere close to letting someone even "mildly pro-choice" on their Presidential ticket.  

    Eh, there was Lieberman. I think you're putting too much power in the hands of the ratification process.

  •  I lost all respect for Cokie a while back. (4+ / 0-)

    I can't watch this show anymore because I can't stand her or George Will.  They're both full of crap.

  •  I can not understand how, 5 years on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman, CParis, tonyfv

    a national news correspondent can possibly think that there is a way to 'win' in Iraq. Everyone has their blind spots, but geez, Cokie has a whole blind side.

    I think Bushco thought we would be greeted with candy, flowers, and the gift of oil in perpetuity for having brought down a dictator and 'giving' the Iraqis democracy.  After 5 years it should be obvious even to those who refuse to open their eyes, that the are no candy, flowers, contracts, or democracy, i.e. not winning in any area.

    Cokie - get some better glasses, or find some better insight.

    We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions." Pentagon Chief Counsel Haynes on military tribrunals in Gitmo.

    by sailmaker on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:03:39 PM PDT

  •  Demand a definition for winning (9+ / 0-)

    Every time someone says "we want to win in Iraq", ask for their definition of winning. Then watch them stutter, because defining winning sets up specific goals that must be met and once met, we can withdraw.
    Withdrawal is the exact thing they don't want to talk about.
    'Winning' is a red herring unless it's defined.

    •  Still prone to the "Sunk cost dilemma" (4+ / 0-)

      which describes a "sequence of [seemingly] good decisions that finally lead to an overall disaster..."  because "...As decisions are only made considering open costs but not sunk costs, each single decision is computed to be beneficial."

      Which means, if you allow people to define "winning" as simply "staying in the game" or "not leaving Iraq" or "quelling that next upheaval" or even "make sure, our casualties were not in vain" - then those definitions don't buy you anything.

      You need to engage people heads-on with the "Sunk cost" analogy: Yes - 4000+ soldiers are dead now but that number mustn't count (no, not simply "shouldn't" - it's "mustn't". Really!). It's about how many more you will lose.

      So instead of simply asking for the definition of "winning" pose a harder question: "What will the next 100 or 1000 dead soldiers buy you, that the 4000+ up till now couldn't?"

      Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

      by RandomGuyFromGermany on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "winning" could be... (0+ / 0-)

      The pacification of the factions, the restoration of basic services, the establishment of a strong economy, the securing of the borders, the elimination of terrorist cells, the installation of a working democratic government with viable mechanisms for compromise. And a few more phrases. That is what the nebulous "winning" means to them. And you know, it's not bad.

      But, is it achievable? At what cost? And who should take the lead?

      Let's not kid ourselves, they have a definition for "winning". Not reality-based, but they know what they want to see.

      Democrats: Unite! Get rid of anti-candidate sig lines!

      by tonyfv on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:41:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  go one step further then (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tonyfv, brein

        Ask whether those goals are
        a) consistent Where those the goals that were stated last month ? before the conflict started ?
        If the conflict has 'evolved' how many more times is it going to evolve before we have a stable goal?
        b) realistic in terms of time and manpower. How long, how many men? are we budgeting for that specific goal (engineers for service restoration) or just militart

        c)Appropriateness. Should we be involving ourself in an internal conflict?

        •  absolutely! (0+ / 0-)

          All these questions and more. But the point is, that they are not reality-based, and that is what we need to point out. We can take the high road and give them credit for having good thoughts, but we must point out that some thoughts are fantasies only, and reality shows that this is one of those.

          Democrats: Unite! Get rid of anti-candidate sig lines!

          by tonyfv on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Cokie was using her best 'Kristol sneer'... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, potownman, CParis, tonyfv, JML9999, Hope08

    whenever KVH was talking.

    I don't always agree w/ everything KVH says, but at least it's thought through.  It's obvious that Cokie only repeats what she heard on the DC cocktail circuit the night before.

    I thought it was a good thing she wasn't a regular on 'This Week' anymore, and I don't know why they insist on bringing her back all of the time.

  •  Cokie's got her talking points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and by God, she's sticking to them!  (Public opinion be damned.)

  •  Cokie Roberts is irrelevant... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SME in Seattle, potownman

    ...out of date and unimaginative. Whoever is paying her at ABC is getting ripped off. She continues to shill for Hillary. Worse, she gets on her haughty high horse, starts fluttering hey eyes in that condescending Marie Antoinette manner, spouting 90's cliches.

    "Damn it, baby, you've got to be kind"__Kurt Vonnegut

    by Texasblue on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM PDT

  •  Corporate Media Is Dems Strongest Opponent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman, CParis, tabby

    The battle in the GE will mostly be about : can Obama overcome the MSM's choice to avoid facts and real issues and to place McCain on a crticism free pedestal.

    Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George

    by frandor55 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM PDT

  •  McCain's Win in Iraq = stay in Iraq for 100 years (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's Win in Iraq = withdrawing troops from Iraq and to move policing Iraq from US hands to Iraqi hands.

    The American and US population is behind Obama's plan.

  •  Cokie has now thoroughly been (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, Brooke In Seattle, Hope08

    corrupted by the corporatists. It is so nice to watch her melt into an angry puddle.

  •  This is how to say it to the public. (4+ / 0-)

    We won when Saddam was deposed and elections were held.  This is now an OCCUPATION.  How do you win an occupation?  A new colony for the US?  We win by militarily leaving and allowing the country and its neighbors work out their stability.

  •  C'mon, 5 or 6 more surges and this thing is won! (0+ / 0-)

    This ball will eventually fall upwards if I drop it enough times, I just know it!!!

    "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

    by Skid on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:06:25 PM PDT

  •  Cokie on Morning Edition (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, potownman, karateexplosions

    today said Mark Penn was fired and, by way of comparing to Penn, insinuated that David Axelrod's firm is in conflict with its clients over his participation in the Obama campaign.  Both at best sloppy journalism.  She's a waste of time unless you're into misinformation.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM PDT

  •  Cokie (0+ / 0-)

    Every time I hear her name, I think... why

  •  Brava, mcjoan, brava! (3+ / 0-)

    The "electorate" - that's Cokie's waffle. Not Americans but those who get off their asses and go vote. Americans know the difference between winning and losing can not be applied to the US occupation of Iraq.  If only more Americans would vote...

    And Katrina Vanden Heuvel deserves the Medal of Honor for always being there, on point, relentless, unselfish (all those appearances on Hardball and Matthews' mistreatment of her). I applaud Katrina Vanden Heuvel and hope she knows she's an American hero, a lone voice for justice. Her persistent, coherent calls for the best of the non-corporate American way puts her cohorts in a dimmer and dimmer light.  

    HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

    by kck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM PDT

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bwintx, kck

      I freaking LOVE Katrina Vanden Heuvel. She is unapologetically progressive, unbelievably articulate, and has a knack for framing things in exactly the right way over and over again. I wish any of the House or Senate Democrats were half as badass as she is.

  •  You Lose (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman, Leap Year

    When you cite Lindsay Graham as a source for anything, that's an automatic DQ.

  •  Never Confuse Words With Beliefs (0+ / 0-)

    You'll only hurt your brain trying to project logic and reality across MSM or conservative messages.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM PDT

  •  Cokie was on her game yesterday (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gaspare, bwintx

    Amongst the seemingly legions of  Washington insiders, Cokie is sure a purebred. Yesterday she was at her annoying best. Her sneering at Katrina, who was the only one making any sense at all, was a world class example of what is wrong with the MSM.

  •  Insider (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bruin1815, naltikriti, potownman, brein

    Cokie Roberts personifies "beltway insider". Her father was a Congressman, her mother temporarily took that slot when he went missing, and her brother heads Patton Boggs, one of the the top lobbying firms in DC.

    •  Her father was the great Louisiana Representative (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hale Boggs, who was a major figure in the House of Representatives in the 1960s-1970s until he died in a plane crash (in Alaska?) -- a legendary Louisiana politician.

      Lindy Boggs, Cokie's mother, didn't take that slot temporarily -- she held it for what must have been well over 20 years.  She also is a hero to many in New Orleans.  

      That seat should be the same one held by William Jefferson today.

      I'm sorry that Cokie Roberts is shilling for Hillary Clinton -- so many of us fans of her parents wish she'd come back from this warmongering dark side.

      As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

      by naltikriti on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:55:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I know someone who named (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    their Pug "Cokie" after you know who. Now I think she insulated the Pug.

    the shane life The story of a boy alone in New York City. God help the city.

    by Shane Hensinger on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:15:19 PM PDT

  •  Thank you mcjoan...good catch because... (0+ / 0-)

    This comment from Cokie was the low point for me in the Sunday Talk Show Trifecta I tend to watch (Reliable Sources, This Week with George, and Meet the Press).

    I also hated how you heard the other panelists snicker everytime Katrina talked.  Sorta like "oh, here comes the crazy liberal opinion again."

    I will say, Katrina has to step her Talk Show game up.  She's always making solid points, but seems scared or awkward or something bizarre when she talks.

    I just want her to smooth out her way of talking so that when others try to slide in their little jabs, like Cokie does here, she can ably hit back.

    •  Heard that, also (0+ / 0-)

      I also hated how you heard the other panelists snicker everytime Katrina talked.  Sorta like "oh, here comes the crazy liberal opinion again."

      Yes, Cokie Roberts in particular. That was really annoying.

      Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

      by bwintx on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Winning in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    First we had Mission Accomplished.  Just last week we had Defining Moment.  It's what this ad-hoc administration calls a Win-Win situation.  


  •  Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    aka Cokie Roberts

    Born Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs, Roberts graduated from the Stone Ridge School outside Washington, D.C. in 1960 and then Wellesley College in 1964. She is the daughter of former Ambassador and Representative Lindy Boggs and Hale Boggs, a long-time Democratic Congressman from Louisiana who was Majority Leader until his presumed death in 1972 after the aircraft he was flying in disappeared without a trace over Alaska. Her sister, the late Barbara Boggs Sigmund, was mayor of Princeton, New Jersey and a candidate for U.S. Senate from New Jersey. Her brother Tommy Boggs is a Washington, D.C. attorney and lobbyist.

    Hardwired for Beltway BS

    Saying the Iraq "Surge" worked is like saying Thelma & Louise had a flying car.

    by JML9999 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM PDT

  •  dumb statement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Americans would prefer to win

    This is about the dumbest statement that I've ever heard.  Well of course you'd like to win.  Duh!  I with they hadn't taken Arrested Development off, but they did and it ain't coming back, so I got over it and moved on to The Office.  

    I mean seriously.  Just because you want to win doesn't mean you are going to win or that it's even possible to win.  It's like the end of a basketball game (NCAA finals is tonight, so it's fitting).  You're down by 10, you have the ball, and their are 5 seconds left.  Sure, there is time on the clock... you have the ball... in theory, you could win... however, it isn't going to happen... so you dribble around and hand the ball to the other guy and go home.  

  •  Thanks, I just singed up as an endorser. (0+ / 0-)

    If man was created with Free Will, why create Religion to take it away? Weise

    by hideinplainsight on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM PDT

  •  Roberts is among the most horrid journalists (0+ / 0-)

    and that is saying a lot considering the contempt I have for all journalists/pundits..  

  •  And Like "Nuke" LaLoosh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Maybe we could "win" in Iraq if Dick Cheney wore a garter belt too.

  •  WE should WIN the war in IRAQ?? (0+ / 0-)

    You CANnot win another country's civil war!

    Unless you pick a side.

    Like we might pick the Sunnis,
    the same side WE just deposed,
    the same side that were minority oppressors
    of the majority of their own country for decades, YEAH, RIGHT.

    Like we might pick the Shia, co-religionists with Hezbollah and Iran,
    who would make the new state even MORE theocratic than Iran
    and roll women's rights back to the stone age, YEAH, RIGHT.

    Or unless you define "winning" as winning FOR
    the multi-national oil companies, as establishing
    a stable government that will guarantee that the oil
    wealth under the country benefits THEM INSTEAD OF
    the actual people of the country.  If that's your
    agenda then all Americans need to know is how
    that same original sin in IRAN in 1953 led to
    the Shah and the torture-based regime of HIS secret
    police, SAVAK.

    The only kind of winning these people can be
    talking about is the kind talked about in
    this book.

    "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

    by ge0rge on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM PDT

  •  I would prefer to win the lottery. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Poor Koookie (0+ / 0-)

    Koookie Roberts is the one who said that W was plenty smart enough to be president.

  •  Bring the plan next time, Katherine (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tonyfv, bijoudesigncom

    One of the strongest elements of the plan is that it is concrete, coherent, well-written. Advocates should bring along a copy to these shows.

    When Cokie sneers and laughs, it's helpful to have a prop to wave around, saying "There's a plan for disengagement here, with clear objectives, and actions the United States as opposed to other countries or Iraqi factions, can take to reach those objectives.

    "For five years, we've heard the same mantra from people who support the occupation. 'We've got to win.' or 'We have an obligation to [some people who have been killed] by our involvement not to quit.' or 'We won't wave the white flag or surrender'.  From none of these people have  we heard any kind of plan, any set of mission objectives, any conditions for ending this occupation by force, following this needless and counter productive war of choice.

    "So where's your plan, Cokie?"

    Come see John Gorenfeld talk about Bad Moon Rising on Thursday at Virtually Speaking

    by JayAckroyd on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM PDT

  •  Peace with honor! (0+ / 0-)


    Vote for Hillary, dump Howard Dean, bring back McAuliffe, end people-powered politics and restore triangulation.

    by expatjourno on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM PDT

  •  No, pulling out IS winning. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Train

    Until we start framing the answer in terms people understand, it's going to be the Republicans' talking point.

    Winning means allowing a country to stabilize and flourish, it means fewer people getting killed in general, it means re-establishing some level of respectability to our nations leaders.

    The phrase "War on Terror" was coined because it gives legitimacy to military-focused strategy. Will people always have something to fight, kill, and die for?  If you say "yes", you understand that the Neocons realize an endless war is always going to be good for business, and that we will never "win" this war.

    So at least in my opinion, enough with allowing the idiots who got us into this mess to begin with, to frame the definition of "win" and "lose". They've proven they don't know what effective governance means, why should they be allowed to define the terms of success and failure?

    The Neocons' biggest mistake was in allowing the Internet to happen.

    by pakaal on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM PDT

  •  Cokie Roberts doesn't speak for me... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    never has, never will.  She needs to sit her hate for Americans aside and just go away.

    Learn knitting or something.  She just needs to go away.  

    O 4 O: Oregon for Obama!

    by smugbug on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM PDT

  •  Cokie (0+ / 0-)

    I heard her on NPR the other day and she was asked to analyze the potential harm that a protracted primary might do to the Democrats.  She didn't really answer the question or give any meaningful analysis at all.  It was really sad. I guess I never really hear much from her as I don't have cable, but she does not seem all that bright or informed.

  •  Fingernails on a chalkboard (0+ / 0-)

    That's what listening to Cokie Roberts now feels like.

    She's OK -- and just OK, really -- when talking about history. It's the present she doesn't grasp.

  •  shifting sands (0+ / 0-)

    It's a problem of the administration's own making. After "mission accomplished" BushCo kept changing the reasons why the US was in Iraq, refusing to characterize anything as a failure, and identifying everything as a success no matter how absurd. Bush lied so often he forgot how to identify reality, and now there is no way to know when anerica has won or lost. It's all a fog; all a dream.
    Except for the dead. They know what is real...

    Government didn't get smaller under the Republicans; it just lost its stature.

    by Andhakari on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:00:15 PM PDT

  •  WE WON THE WAR-We lost the occupation. (0+ / 0-)

    Progressives need to stop saying we lost the war. We won the war. In May of '03.

    We have been occupiers since.

    Senator Webb was on one of the chat shows on Sunday. He made this distinction. He said we won the war five years ago. The occupation is the problem.

    Repeat after me. We won the war. We won the war.

  •  Katrina (0+ / 0-)

    knocked it out of the park. She commanded respect from The Three Cons. Will looked like a geek crybaby ready to head for the exits so as to not deign to debate a liberal.  

  •  The Occupation (0+ / 0-)

    The Iraq occupation was designed for the sole purpose of securing the black gold in Iraq for the US.  Since the war was bungled, we now have an occupation that BushCo (Corporate America) is capitalizing on to further increase their wealth. The longer we are in Iraq, the wealthier the rich become.  There's no incentive for corporate America to pull out.  It must hurt Cheney's ears to hear that the dems want to pull out of Iraq and take care of the poor/middle class.  Spreading the wealth is not in the elite's DNA.  By the time this occupation is all said and done, we will have spent $5 trillion for Iraq's black gold at a time when it will be obsolete. Our only hope is that Obama wins the election.  It will prove that we live in a democracy and that the grass roots have the power to overcome the corporate greed we've suffered through for several decades.

    •  Cheney must be nearly insane with frustration (0+ / 0-)

      He started off 7 years ago with no troops in Iraq, and the Iraqis getting increasingly close to shaking off the oil embargo, and entering into contracts with several non-American oil companies.  From that low point, he managed to stage an invasion of Iraq, and occupy the place -- he now has 140,000 American troops sitting on at least 10 trillion dollars worth of oil.  The Iraqi parliament is debating (endlessly) an oil bill that would allow the privatization of significant chunks of the Iraqi oil industry, and the payment of royalties north of 20% to some of his favorite American oil companies.  Note that 20% of 10 trillion dollars is 2 trillion dollars.

      But he can't close the deal!  He's 10 months away from leaving office, probably to a Democrat who has no patience for this bullshit.  He can see all that money, he can smell that money, and in his dreams, he can probably touch all that money.  He's never cared, I'm sure, about Iraqi lives, American lives, or the financial cost of this war.  And now it is all slipping away....

  •  "Winning" requires permanent occupation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Winning" this war, as far as I can tell, is defined by the Republicans as our staying long enough to privatize the Iraqi oil industry, and guarantee, as best we can, that some very well-connected companies get a chance  to collect 20-40% royalties on Iraqi oil production.

    Unfortunately, there are few groups in Iraq willing to let us get away with theft of that magnitude.  The Kurds probably would trade such a deal in return for our protection, at least for a while, but that's about it.  The Sunnis clearly will not, nor will the Shiite Sadrists -- both have made it clear they want the occupation to end.  The Iraqi government depends upon us for its survival, but if the price it pays is giving away over a trillion dollars in royalties, they'll be viewed as bigger pawns than they are now, and they already apparently have very little popular support.

    So, we're stuck there, pursuing a greedy fool's errand,  until more people have the balls to say that our mission there is morally flawed, and must end.  I'm hoping Sen. Obama, as President, will do just that.  I have no such hopes that a dim bulb like McCain will recognize this flaw.

    •  You Are .... (0+ / 0-)

      correct at every observation and assumption . One thing is for sure . Some of the Iraqi government will have to change hands and that won't happen until the Bush regime is out of the picture . Read my post below . I'm looking for ways to pump this up .

  •  Vanden Heuvel was awesome (0+ / 0-)

    So glad you posted this.  Her and Will were a riot.  Is it me or has this campaign already brought the level of public discourse up a notch or two?  She finished by referencing the free market strength of the Obama campaign as evidence of his broad, true, and deep support.  All Steph could do was listen and nod.  

    Drug wars are stupid

    by Danny Boy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM PDT

    •  she was great on style, AWFUL on substance (0+ / 0-)

      I respect Katrina Vanden Huevel for not taking any crap from Cokie, George and the other Corporate Media whores. But apart from her vigor, she blew it when it came to message.

      Iraq apologists like McCain have a simple message: America must win the Iraq War, and must stay in order to win. Anything else is retreat & defeat that will embolden terrorists.

      This message is simple, has a logic to it, and is easy to understand & remember.

      It is also false --a point Vanden Huevel and most other progressives still fail to acknowledge.

      As therub notes below, Iraq is an occupation, not a war.  We won the war against Saddam's military in about three weeks, his regime collapsed, and we executed him.

      As there were no WMDs nor any Saddam-Bin Laden partnership, the mission was a failure. Everything since has been a military occupation, and you can't "win" an occupation.

      Nor can we "win" the search for WMDs that never existed.

      Vanden Huevel blows it every time she advocates "withdrawl," which indeed sounds like retreat and plays right into the neocons' bogus frame. We must argue for ending the US occupation, finding and killing bin Laden, and turning Iraq over to Iraqis.

      •  I hear you, there is so much to do. (0+ / 0-)

        I guess in some ways I'm just glad she is at the table.  Shrieking harpy Roberts was unmasked in her moderate centerleft neoliberal warwongering.  VH is on her own out there.  In front of millions she is trying to discuss issues with people who are coming from such a completely warped perspective they have very little common ground.  I thought she did a pretty good job of refuting alot of their basic assumptions.  You are right though, we need to deleat the word withdrawl from our minds.  Her big point seemed to be that these people kept saying that Americans won't like this, or feel that, and she would call bullshit, cite a pol, and then say something reasonable.  

        I feel your passion.  This endless occupation can not continue.

        Drug wars are stupid

        by Danny Boy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No way to win an Occupation (0+ / 0-)

    That is what a majority of Americans have come to realize.  There is no way to win an occupation short of the total and complete subjugation of the populace.  We do not have enough boots on the ground in Iraq to do that and we do not have the moral authority to do that.  If we leave Iraq, we will not be "losing" or "quitting", we will simply be withdrawing our occupying force.  This is something we should have done years ago.  We have absolutely nothing to gain by the continued occupation of Iraq.

  •  ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI .. Rec's Obama & Out (0+ / 0-)

    MR. BRZEZINSKI:  Well, first of all, it is a question: how do we get out?  I don’t advocate simply packing our bags and just clearing out.  I think we have to bite the bullet on two issues that the president has been unwilling to bite.  Namely, we have to go the Iraq leaders and say flatly and unambiguously, we intend to leave, let’s talk together – I emphasize together – about setting a date, and then simultaneously tell all of the neighbors of Iraq that we have decided to leave, that we are setting the date for departure with Iraqis, and that it is now in their interest to start consulting together with us about creating a framework of security upon our departure.  But that requires a decision to leave and the president, I think, wants to bequeath the war to his successor.  

    And as long that war goes, we’re going to be tied, handcuffed, in dealing with foreign affairs.  Our relations with China, with Russia are deteriorating.  We’re despised worldwide and therefore the president really is historically at fault here.  


    MR. BRZEZINSKI:  I think Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand.  He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.  He recognizes that the challenges, a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world.

    This time it's personal.

    by apostrophe on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:56:17 PM PDT

  •  Cokie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Train

    I watched her say that about Iraq, she is an idiot, what the flock constitutes winning? Someone out there needs to tell me what winning consists of. I am a diehard Democrat and a political junkie, and I am confused as hell when an idiot like Roberts talks about "winning". Are we a nation of slogans? Thanks for that Frank Luntz. The inside the beltway media are the scourge of this country IMHO. Bush and the neo-cons still haven't learned the lessons of invading Iraq.NO ONE IN CHARGE GETS IT.!I am beyond frustrated.

    •  Cokie ..... (0+ / 0-)

      has always been a GOP mouthpiece . She acts like she gives way to that to seem unbiased , but you can see through her .
      Read my post [two down] and see what you think , and why does the media suppress it . I will stake my life that this will be the inevitable solution .Sooner or later , or we may be there for 100 yrs.

  •  i want my hair in ringlets and a ball gown (0+ / 0-)

    Cokie regressing to anti bellum America. it was so good back then. Everyone knew their place,the blacks,the military the haves and the have nots.

  •  Are We All In The Media Pocket ? (0+ / 0-)

    I sent the " Responsible Plan " folks a message . Without reiterating the 100 word theme I simply stated that their plan only demonstrates the last five year talking points and is a bandwagon for war protesters . There was not one plan of action , you know , like in a specific move to bring about an immediate end to the war . Responsible Plan is building a consensus to gain more opposition to the war and that is good . There are however , responsible people in Congress that have been working very hard at bringing about a "true" end to this war . A true end means a final political solution and the end to the harboring of resentment  by our occupation . If the consensus builders would get behind them we could bring about an peaceful end and disengage . The solution I am referring to is S.CON.RES. 37 which is in the Senate for deliberation . It passed the House as H.RES. 688 . The proposal was rejected by the Bush Administration and "misrepresented " to the Iraqi government by Ambassador Crocker at a time when some were previously ready to sign on to it . It is not a complicated issue to determine the Bush rejection . It would mean an end to the war with NO occupation , and NO direct control over the oil supply . Read the plan . I hope "Responsible Plan " folks will too .
    Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Leslie H. Gelb - Federalism, Not Partition -
    S. Con. Res. 37: A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress on federalism in Iraq (

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site