Laura Ingraham’s Monday appearance on The View on ABC wasn’t well-reviewed by the Huffington Post, where Rachel Sklar whacked Laura’s knuckles for daring to ask Barbara Walters if she supported victory in Iraq. She condemned the question as an irresponsible rhetorical trick, a conservative canard, “Slightly accusatory, more than a little condescending.”
On Thursday’s Laura Ingraham show, Laura and Rachel faced off over what you can ask Barbara Walters. Sklar insisted this kind of who-wants-victory question was a “debate-ending question,” meant to stifle discussion rather than promote it. Ingraham was quick to disagree, insisting that she wanted the discussion about the war to go on, but The View gang changed the subject to a more important topic: Heather Mills and her nasty tabloid-pleasing divorce from Paul McCartney.
Here's what Sklar wrote on Eat the Press:
[R]ather than grapple with what is really happening over there — complicated progress, hobbled by steps back with every stride forward — Ingraham turns it into an issue of patriotism. Hear the tone in her voice as she responds to Barbara Walters, who makes the legitimate point that the "I think this is a country that is still unhappy about it." (For evidence of same, see: Election 2006, House and Senate.) Responded Ingraham: "But could it change, Barbara? Do you want to win in Iraq?" Again, the tone: Slightly accusatory, more than a little condescending. The "Do you want to win in Iraq?" canard is oft-used by Conservatives in these debates, explicitly making it an us-versus-them equation, where the only answer is "yes" which means the only alternative is to support the war. The real question is not "Do you want to win?" but "What is the best and safest way to end the war, to keep our troops and nation safest?" but that's a much more difficult question, and one which has to acknowledge the patriotism of both sides. Ingraham, of course, is not interested in such discourse.
It's a tired argument, one that should really be obsolete in 2007, after so many false promises and hoped-for-corners-turned and six-more-months and obfuscations and scandals. But it's the kind that Ingraham has been putting forth for literally years, back when she claimed that journalists in Iraq weren't bothering to go out with troops because it would mean leaving their hotel balcony. This, of course, fed straight into the "media ignoring good news from Iraq" meme — even though journalists in search of a feel-good story would either find it cut short by a murder or be injured before they could even get there. Is it important to note that there have been improvements in Iraq? Absolutely. Is it just as important to do it responsibly? Yes. But that's a "View" Laura Ingraham has much less of an interest in taking.
Asking Barbara Walters if she supports victory in Iraq is not a debate-ender (as Lynne Cheney did nicely to Wolf Blitzer months ago). It might be seen as a brushback pitch in a hostile forum. But it's really a rhetorical question for the liberal media elite. Journalists are profoundly uncomfortable rooting in a nationalistic way. In my two years in the White House press corps, there were a lot of dropouts when it came to patriotic rituals in the East Room or the Rose Garden: You could have turned a camera phone on many journos avoiding the hand on the heart, avoiding any repetition of the Pledge of Allegiance alongside the president. They don't like the state-media feel of it.
What conservatives hate about that is that these same journalists don't have the same discomfort rooting for the historic breakthrough of a black or female president. That's a rooting interest just as well.
Also, liberals do this debate-ending stuff all the time – what is "you think the war could eventually go well, you're not in touch with reality." That's not a debate ender? Not to mention the domestic version: "Bush wants more money for bombs while denying health care to kids." That's not an attempt to end debate?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Who
November 15, 2007 - 19:30 ET by ChaitealoverWho is Rachel Sklar and why ahould I care what she says?
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
Sklar's Patriotism ends with her stopping the First Ammendment
November 15, 2007 - 19:55 ET by Lame CherryIn an amazing turn, I never received one bit of help from Sklar when Huffington Post banned me from commenting on that site. Apparently her "silence because they came for someone not like me" is akin to the Nazism excuse in herding up Jews who challenged social order.
Sklar's social order is no different. She in Freudian state reveals it is all about "patriotism" when Ingraham never mentioned patriotism, but was asking about winning a war and security for America. None of which has to do with patriotism.
Sklar belongs on Huffington as the majority of ilk there were found in Moscow gardens while the KGB beat the bajesus out of "non patriotic comrades". Sklar and her crowd who speak of murdering most in the GOP with a Letterman chuckle would not raise one word if Laura Ingraham was carted away tomorrow..........there would be cheers if Rush Limbaugh was jailed and they would open the doors of friendship with the Chicoms, Putin, al Qaeda and Chavez if they could just have gotten the cartel's impeachment of Bush completed in the Plamegate coup.
Ortega of Nicaragua was her wet dream during Reagan and is now her orgasm of all that is right with the west...........a west Amerika where Sklar lies that Bush is denying healthcare for anyone.
Sklar should check out the pedophiles in her crowd who make children an issue........an issue of "adult rights for children" for their sexual molestation........of course Sklar just pimps and whores children for political ends.
Sklar is no different than any debaucherous leftist from the Islamocommunist buying Indian children to Stalin burying millions of them. Her package just comes in a pretty package with internet lights.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
The real question is not
November 15, 2007 - 19:57 ET by CortillaenThe real question is not "Do you want to win?" but "What is the best
and safest way to end the war, to keep our troops and nation safest?"
but that's a much more difficult question...
Keeping our troops and nation safe are often conflicting interests, something liberals need to learn. Thankfully, the soldiers understand from the first day that they are in a profession defined by the possibility of injury or death, not some cushy job writing about how mean-spirited people are for disagreeing with you. If Sklar can't understand that keeping the nation safe against people who want us dead involves both putting soldiers in harm's way and *GASP* winning, she needs some remedial history courses ASAP.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Maybe the question should be
November 16, 2007 - 11:00 ET by pbanks7Then what is more important - ending the war or winning it?
We could have ended WWII on Dec. 8, 1941 if we wanted to. We could have avoided thousands of deaths during Roosevelt's war and saved the money for healthcare for the children....
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Just Pilin' On
November 15, 2007 - 20:39 ET by ThisnThatShame on Laura -- more piling on "the girls". Barbara should never have to answer such a question -- besides, who the hell would ever want us to win in Iraq anyway? That's so yesterday, dontcha know?
Gotta go now -- don't forget to vote for Hillary, everyone -- our Man-Girl, 2008.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Rediculous
November 15, 2007 - 22:24 ET by sovereign-nationTypical stuff. It is truly amazing to me how times have stayed the same.. When I was a kid, most malcontents disliked the "establishment", they claimed free love and drugs, give peace a chance, live and let live, come together with the band, come on down to the demonstrations where we all can have a common cause..
Lets hate the predominant religion (Christianity), its ok to steal if you need it worse than someone else, those who make money represent greed, those who get ahead are evil, those who wont share represent the devil, anyone older than 25 is old and represents the outsiders..
Funny how those are the thoughts my 5 year old makes. I now hear those same people propagandizing to the children in schools because they have a political foothold there. What do they say? We have progressed from having an "establishment" to an entire country that is "evil"
I love my country. Even with all the a**holes that tell me if I say something against them that I am "mean" and therefore should be sued or re-educated". Even with the jerks that say even though you are just breaking even - you are rich therefore you should pony up more in taxes so we can give it to those in need around the world. Even with the people who chose to ignore history, or worse yet re-write it regarding war and why it is waged.
To those who hate this country - go somewhere else where you'll be happier. You'll live longer with less stress. I hear there are great opportunities in Iran...
BTW, disagreeing with you does not mean I hate you. Thinking for yourself is how new things are created. Free your mind - you a** will follow..
"BTW, disagreeing with you
November 15, 2007 - 23:29 ET by ckc1227"BTW, disagreeing with you does not mean I hate you"
They were projecting. What they mean is they hate you if you disagree with them.
I agree that it is a debate
November 15, 2007 - 23:30 ET by ckc1227I agree that it is a debate ending question. Once you ask it, if the person is unable to, or refuses to answer it, there's no point in continuing, or even beginning the debate, thus ending it, in some cases before it even began. Further debate would just be a waste of time.
The only folks who have a problem answering this question don't want to win, but they're too afraid to admit it. Man up and just say no, cowards. While I would disagree completely with your opinion, I would at least respect you for being honest.
"The real question is not "Do you want to win?" but "What is the best
and safest way to end the war, to keep our troops and nation safest?"
but that's a much more difficult question, and one which has to
acknowledge the patriotism of both sides. Ingraham, of course, is not
interested in such discourse."
Typical lib perspective. "I don't like your question because answering it would show my true feelings on the issue. My question is better because it allows me to bloviate, shuck and jive, hem and haw, and pretty much anything else that can be done without actually answering the question. Plus it acknowledges my patriotism despite my hatred of the military, this country and everything it stands for."
You want to know the safest, best way to end the war? Win it. Ending it on our part just for the sake of ending it ends nothing, and will cost more lives in the long run.
Agreed
November 16, 2007 - 02:37 ET by KC MulvilleMeryl Streep said this was an unfair question, like when did you stop beating your wife? The problem with that question is that it makes two assertions, yet only allows you to address one of them. But the way to counter that kind of question is to unpack the hidden assertions, not to refuse to answer. Liberals think there are two assertions in the "Do you want to win?" question.
They argue that since the war is not legitimate, we're don't have to try to win it. We only need to end it. The liberal myth is that the Bush administration offered one single reason to go to war (weapons of mass destruction) and that turned out to be false. Therefore, they argue, the war is false.
They hate the "Do you want to win?" question because it forces them to explain why they think the war is illegitimate. They don't want to revisit the question, they want to bury it. They want America to agree with their conclusion through the Big Lie, not through honest debate.
Saddam was no different
November 16, 2007 - 11:06 ET by pbanks7Saddam was no different than any other dictator in the world.
I actually heard that from an otherwise and allegedly intelligent liberal.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
That's part of the myth
November 16, 2007 - 11:53 ET by KC MulvilleLiberals constantly botch the plan, then complain that there was none. For instance, it's almost common knowledge (known to everyone except liberals) that we didn't have to attack every other dictator in the world. If we took out Saddam, it would alert all those other dictators that we meant business, and that we wouldn't tolerate their misbehavior. But what do the Democrats do? They devote all their energy to undermining our attempt to oust Saddam, and then demand that any military move in the future has to be proven in an international court of law. Instead of promising to retaliate, the Democrats have signalled these dictators that they'll undermine any retaliation.
And yet, how do the Democrats explain it? They offer the ridiculous claim that the war has stripped us of our "moral authority" and that's why the dictators are acting up.
And it gets even worse! Now the Democrats claim that to repair the damage and to regain our moral authority, we have to start talking to the dictators again! The Democrats want to go begging for the dictators' forgiveness, and maybe the world will admire us again.
Jeez. These people want to bring a wallet to the Pickpocket Convention. They're just unbelievable!
Excellent post KC!
November 16, 2007 - 11:59 ET by MightyMouthLike I've said before liberals are idealists and conservatives are realists. What do you think dictators are? Who better to deal with a realist than a realist? Idealists will get their butts kicked all day long by dictitorial realists.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Let's also examine why the
November 16, 2007 - 08:45 ET by fosstenLet's also examine why the question even comes up. You ever hear the phrase, "...begs the question..."? If somebody asks, "Don't you want to win the war?" that means the question was begged based on the recipients prior statement or behavior.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
To answer her question...
November 16, 2007 - 02:07 ET by i was just thinkingTheir question:
The Answer to their question: Victory.
The criticism of Ingraham
November 16, 2007 - 11:59 ET by mattmThe criticism of Ingraham is just more liberal obfuscation. They refuse to answer basic questions because the answer would expose their anti-Americanism.
They do this by falsely claiming that the question is invalid. They go to great lengths, using many words, and twisted phraseology to make the claim. But it's bogus. The question is simple. Do you want us to win? Yes or No.
'No?' O.K. That explains your rhetoric, so now viewers can take your comments with that particular grain of salt.
'Yes?' Well then, how do you explain your anti-war stance?
They deny the validity of the question in order not to have to answer it.
Freedom is Never Free I
November 16, 2007 - 03:54 ET by PershingSirFreedom is Never Free
I would like to remind everyone that the War is a much larger picture than the Battle we are now in in Iraq.When we do Bring the Troops home, Tomorrow,or Ten years from now, do really think the Terrorists,those who HATE us, are going to go home too? As if it was over because the Americans Left Iraq? Do we remember what The President said following our first strikes on Afghanistan?He said,and i paraphrase "this would be only a battle in a much larger war,mostly unseen by cameras,with sacrifices anddeath spanning the Globe".This war would be fought "TO PROTECT US" from those who would "DO US HARM",like that which we witnessed on 9/11....
Iraq is not a War. It is but a Battle Western Civilization is fighting for its very survival.We need to remember that there are those who Call it Bushes War,or War for Oil.Dont fall for their mindless Babble,its what they want you to do,forget the Reality of the situation we are in.The Left will say anything, do anything to be in Power.Whether we like it or not,it is Our War,a war started on September 11,2001. A war we need to Win,period.
Well said. The current
November 16, 2007 - 14:58 ET by PeskyDaneWell said. The current front in Iraq is simply part of the larger war on this current version of Facism which will likely last into the next century. The libtards remind me of moms who tell their kids to "ignore" or "make friends" with the school bully... as if.