Mark Shields Wrongly Claims 'There Was a Plurality of Democratic Senators Opposed to Iraq War'
There was some fascinating historical revisionism that took place on Friday's "Inside Washington" as almost the entire panel made the case that Democrats were largely opposed to the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002 and that the decision to invade was mostly George W. Bush's.
This included PBS's Mark Shields who completely misrepresented the historic vote in the Senate that month (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: [Donald Rumsfeld] says, he says President Bush asked for a plan on going to war with Iraq just two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, even before the invasion of Afghanistan which is where Osama bin Laden was. Afghanistan. He wasn’t in Iraq.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Why wouldn't you ask for a plan? Of course you would. Two weeks after 9/11 you’d want a plan about all of our enemies in case of contingencies. He had no idea there was an alliance. There was not between al Qaeda and Iraq, but you did not know that at the beginning and you want to have a contingency if there were. So, I don’t think you’re going to attack an administration for having a contingency. You can attack it over its decision in the end, but I would add that at that point there was pretty wide national consensus in favor of it. It was not one man who took America into war…
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Ooh…
PETERSON: I don’t know about that.
MARK SHIELDS: There was not a national consensus.
TOTENBERG: I don’t think there was a wide consensus.
Really? Well here's what USA Today reported on March 16, 2003, days before the invasion began:
By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."
Some polls showed even stronger support at the time, in particular a Pew poll taken shortly after the invasion finding 74 percent believed it was the right decision. A Washington Post/ABC News poll also taken that April found 70 percent support.
Now, years later, Peterson, Shields, and Totenberg would like people to think there was no such consensus. In fact, with each passing year, the number of liberals claiming there was no consensus concerning the invasion approaches the number of liberals claiming there's a scientific consensus concerning global warming!
But Krauthammer pushed back:
KRAUTHAMMER: It passed the Congress.
PETERSON: It passed the Congress, that’s, but…
SHIELDS: I would be happy…
KRAUTHAMMER: Every presidential candidate except Barack Obama, among the Democrats, had supported the resolution to go to war…
SHIELDS: And Barack Obama was in fact the nominee of the Democratic Party…
KRAUTHAMMER: But he wasn’t in the Senate at the time.
SHIELDS: …largely on the strength of his having opposed…
KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, two years later, three years later. It was even…
SHIELDS: …having opposed it…
TOTENBERG: At the time.
SHIELDS: There was a plurality of Democratic senators in the United States Senate opposed to going to war in Iraq…
PETERSON: Led by Ted Kennedy.
SHIELDS: …led by Ted Kennedy and a whole bunch of others, but Charles is right about the presidential candidates.
There certainly was not a plurality of Democrat senators that voted against the war resolution. Even the liberal Wikipedia admits that on October 11, 2002, 29 Democrats voted Aye with 21 Nays.
How Shields got away with such an egregious error is beyond me.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What do you expect?
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:37pm.
Liberals aren't even connected to the reality of the present. Do you think they are going to have any concept of what actually happened a few years ago.
Let's pretend
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:58am.
Liberals make it up as they go along. If Osama gets caught in Iraq, they will say that the Democrats planned it that way all along.
→ Shields is lying
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:35pm.
Hillary Clinton, John Kerrey, and Ted Kennedy, led a mad dash of Democrats to the microphones declaring the existence of WMD in Iraq, and America's duty to effect immediate regime change in Iraq.
Maybe little Ronnie Reagan thaought Mark Shields was his daddy.
This is an example...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 3:40pm.
of why I will never vote for another Democrat. No, not even for dogcatcher. Dogs are our faithful companions, and deserve better.
Wow! Now that is some real
Submitted by Zippy on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:02pm.
Wow!
Now that is some real balls. But, I am sure Chuck took care of the Jerk.....
This is why these show need a referee with a whistle...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:11pm.
...to throw flags when misstatements/les are said as truth. Without a ref these shows are a waste of time because the Libs just make up stuff as they go along.
Don't watch any of these shows anymore. Waste of time.
I'm sure Shields will have enough integrity to admit his error
Submitted by krendler on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:22pm.
I'm sure Shields will have enough integrity to admit his error on next week's program, and say that, yes, the majority of Democrats are on record as having voted in favor of the resolution. Then it will simply be a matter of Shields saying they were tricked into voting that way, and "remind" everyone that Bush "lied" to them.
Sorry, but liberals are just flat-out idiots. It's nauseating to watch the media spin things to suit their own liberal viewpoint day-after-day, mont-after-month, year-after-year. At leat liberal politicians (generally) don't pretend to be something they're not. The media constantly tells us that they're impartial. Utterly laughable.
Bob Novak is no longer with
Submitted by Clemenza on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:24pm.
Bob Novak is no longer with us. Yet this decrepit left wing piece of $hit is still remains. Go figure.
Maybe God doesnt want
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:55am.
Maybe God doesnt want Shields?
WEOIUASFLKHAFSHSA
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:25pm.
Makes about as much sense as that bunch of blather.
I DO have a serious question, though.
How can these so called "pundits" spout such nonsense, when they KNOW there is a record, a very visible and easily searchable (is that a word?) record, to discount their selective memories?
The fact that the revisionists continue to spout their nonsense, in light of the FACTS, blows my mind.
Truly.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Because...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:35pm.
To answer you question about “How can they…”
Because they know the majority of their viewers will not take the time to research that spouted nonsense… Of course they just might not care what anybody else thinks.
Maybe the rest of the population are brain dead zombies....
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:38pm.
But I kind of REMEMBER things.
And I don't take kindly to idiots telling me my memory was wrong.
Seriously, am I going to believe THEM, or my lyin' eyes and ears?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You know what else, Grump?
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:45pm.
It just occured to me.
We (i.e., the NB community) merely accept this shit, yes I said that word, as an everyday occurance of the media hyperbole.
We need to get off our butts, and scream to the rafters, go after the idiot networks that allow this kind of propaganda, and MAKE IT STOP!
It's half the problem.....half of us understand it's all crap, and lies, but we haven't stopped it!
Wow.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That's some rightful indignation you got there! :o)
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:58pm.
But in all my 30 plus years in the Navy I never heard such “salt.” ;o)
Of course, I share your frustration but I think we are standing-up and shouting through our association with NB!
And if I may be so crude as to direct you my latest “rant” about the MSM, perhaps it will help with the frustration (hopefully not the righteous anger): http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/05/open-thread-sarah-palin-speaks-ronald-reagan-ranch-center#comment-1430954
Saw that, Grump.
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:47pm.
Sometimes, I just need to spread the wings of my righteous indignation...what can I say?
Nice rant, tho....no worries, that's what the OT is for. The "Forums" are for a more sustained rant....or a rant where you'd like to carry on for a few days, like that.
Sorry if I shocked ya! That's a new one, shocking a 30 year Navy vet! Even for me, I mean, HELLO!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Let's not leave out Sen Rockerfella
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:28pm.
The only Senator to say Saddam Huessien had nukes, and would use them. Apparnetly the poor Senator was so embarrassesed he had the remarks expunged.
Shields, your such a tired
Submitted by Van Halen on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:45pm.
Shields, you're such a tired old Liberal with tired old arguments.
Look, if you REALLY want to argue the Iraq war, defend why your man in the White House has kept it going two more years, raised the death toll in Afghanistan to record levels and expanded the wars into Pakistan and Yemen.
You know why. Standard Liberal reply.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:49pm.
Why? Bush's fault. Bush screwed things up so badly,...well you know...don't you...so it's not really our guy's fault...he cleaning up the mess Bush left, after all, Gee whiz.
Facts Never Interfere With Leftist's Propaganda
Submitted by Conservator on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:47pm.
Saul Alinsky, the Communist/Marxist community organizer, would be so very proud of his comrades in the MSM. Then again, this is to expected from PBS' "Inside Washington."
Who are you going to believe,
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 4:58pm.
Who are you going to believe, Mark Shields or the lying official record???
In what universe is less than half a plurality when there are only two choices?
Plurality?
Look, Shields also claimed...
Submitted by Prester John on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:18pm.
.....that it was the Democrats who were the abolitionists.
What more can one really say about him?
The unconfronted lying has got to stop.
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:43pm.
How those who say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 is beyond me also. Osama Bin Laden was clear about his multiple reasons for declaring war upon this nation and her people. Actions in Iraq, containment strategy, troops based in the region to monitor and enforce it and sanctions all had everything and then some to do with Al Qaeda's twice declared war upon us while Clinton was President. Saddam fronted up 300 grand to Ayman Al Zawahiri, not many besides soldiers pay attention to that tidbit.
Oh, you mean we can only talk about Iraq in terms of direct terrorism? OK, Resolution 687 dealt with international terrorism. Abu Nidal was gaining safe harbor In Iraq, until he shot himself in the head 7 times. Leon Klinghoffer finally got justice. Abu Musab Al Zarqai found safe harbor there, after he fled Afhganistan (Ahem ricin) and Saddam himself openly funded bombings and shootings in Israel. Oh, and a little something about an attempt on a former President's life comes to mind also.
Wait, we can only talk about WMD's? Just as Hans Blix was about to give a passing grade, (roughly the same time Scott RItter was becoming Mr. Apology) a nuclear program come out of a turkey farm. Imagine that. It is no surprise that after the 2003 invasion more of that program, which was hidden since 1991, was found in, well, under, a rose garden. Untold numbers of drums in ammo dumps called "pesticides", known truck convoys that went to Syria and on to Bekkaa all aside - close to 500 binary chemical munitions Saddam had claimed were already destroyed were found. I recall a couple that were attempted IED's and I remember Dutch soldiers, I think, got a dose of sarin. "Old" WMDs are still WMDs . Period.
That is aside yet from Saddam draining the marshlands and setting some 780 oil wells on fire to burn for like 8 months. And then there is that little incident in Halabja.Iranians? Yeah that too.
The numerous proscribed items, like scud launchers, scud fuel, those truck that didn't exist - but then did exist (just not for weapons purposes uh huh, sure) strains in privaet homes, missile bodies and engines, purchase of playstations for attempted use as guidance system hardware and on and on and on.....The rape rooms, Uday and Kusay hoarding the unicef foodstuffs, I ain't going any further with those two pukes. Oil for food scandal stands on its own too.
Yeah go ahead Democrats, say how wrong it was to put an end to all of that. And that is just off the top of my head.
Obama was wrong about Iraq, he was wrong about the surge there and he has even since admitted it. I am left to wonder when the lefties start asking him "when is he going to be done there in Afghanistan? " That is what Obama put to Bush all the time.
I know that Bush got seven of the top ten Al qaeda leadership. How many has Obama managed to capture? Hmmm? Where is Osama, Obama? I am so sick of Democrats and their media shills outright lying about something so many have died because of and fighting against. Disgusting.
As for congressional declaration of war - the JRFUOF was but the first. Every funding bill after that has been further declaration of war. And that has taken place with one party in control of congress and then the other and nowa combination of both. Yeah and all that stuff Gadaffi had was all his too, yeah, uh huh, sure it was, right, Yup. Ok. I suppose Saddam shooting at us every day has a place in this rant too.
Is there anything Democrats and the media shills supporting them will not lie about? Anything?
don't forget yellowcake too...
Submitted by dmacleo on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 5:51pm.
along with the chemical weapons we all know saddamn would never ever ever use there was also yellowcake found.
no wmd's my a$$.
The title should be...
Submitted by iacta alea est on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 6:10pm.
Mark Shields FALSELY claims.......Shields was lying and he knew it. He's been doing this crap since CNN's Capital Gang. He taught Bill Press everything he knows about making the outrageous lie.
Bwahahahahahahaha
Submitted by donabernathy on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:04pm.
I LUV DA INTERNET
rOfLmMfAo
"I was for the war before I
Submitted by DWoSD on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:25pm.
"I was for the war before I was against it."
John "avoid paying tax on my luxury boat" Kerry
Uh huh
Submitted by Doktor Riktor V... on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 7:28pm.
They were against it before they were for it, until they stuck their collectivist neomarxist fingers in the wind and found out the the AMERICAN PEOPLE were actually for it. So fearing electorial retribution they voted AYE, YAY or Yes. It was only a loss of their power that influenced them, not a feel for their constitutional oath or to defend the nation.
That is why....
Submitted by Prester John on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:33pm.
...W should have asked for a DECLARATION of war, not an AUTHORIZATION to go to war. By voting to "authorize" W to take us to war the Congress (read Democrats) could pass the buck to him. If things went well they could say they were behind him all the way. If it went bad, well, we heard what they said as they rejected any responsibility for what was going on i.e we voted for it to give Bush leverage on the diplomatic front, we never thought he'd take us to war without another vote etc.
A declaration on the other hand would've meant that the Congress, in the name of the American people, was taking the country to war with the president, as commander in chief, to decide when and how to do it--there would've been no doubt as to what they were voting for. No one who voted for a declaration of war against Iraq could've ever flip flopped like Kerry, Biden, Clinton, the Breck Girl, Rockefeller and all the rest did when things went bad--they would've had to defend their vote instead making excuses and blaming W, otherwise they would've exposed themselves to be the spineless weasels we all know them to be.
A lot of people will say this is nitpicking, but I disagree. We can never again go to war by authorizing one man, no matter how right we think he is, to decide by himself if we go to war or not. Either Congress declares war or we just don't go to war (short term operations like Grenada, Libya etc., excepted).
Excellent
Submitted by Doktor Riktor V... on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:12pm.
Great point.
There is no difference
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:09am.
There is no difference between a declaration of war verses an authorization to use force. Any reasonable person understands a congress authorized a war and fufilled its Constitutional requirement. All references are to the Afghanistan War or the Iraq War so the authorization was for making war on another nation. Why else would or the President have to seek authorization to send our military into a situation?
This is what passes for journalism in liberal land:
Submitted by WarEagle01 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 8:39pm.
just make it up on the fly. Mark Shields is a partisan Democrat and an absolute disgrace (but then I repeat myself).
Middle East Freedom
Submitted by Scott Trent on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:42am.
Look at Tunisia. Look at Egypt. The middle east is changing and it started with Iraq. Freedom. Elections and choice by the people. These people in the middle east see what has happened with Iraq and they are saying they want some of that Freedom too. Freedom from dictators and tyrants. What Bush did was brilliant. He opened up free elections and free markets in Iraq and the people over there can see with their own eyes how great it is living in a free society. Let freedom ring and let it spread in the middle east! Thanks W for having the guts to open some eyes to people who never knew freedom. Kudos...