Sorry I didn't make that clear. what I meant was is there a way to take on these videos so they'll play after the TRMS show all through the downloadable player instead of the one on MSNBC's site since I can't get that to work.

I find that it is easier to play video from the blog than the MSNBC site. Freezes up frequently over there.

Ya I worded it stupididly I was trying to say that I can't get the player straight off MSNBC's site to play and was asking if they could put these videos into the podcast. That's what they ended up doing so it was pointless for me to say anything but I was fighting with the player for about a half hour and was like F this lol. Drives me nuts. =/ O well tomorrow I"ll get to watch the show, so I will be far less disgruntled then. =)

Co-sign.

Ditto!!! Congrats on this exclusive. Very proud of you and MSNBC!!!

My sentiments also. Very dangerous place p Please be careful Rachel. GOOD WORK

Way to go Rachel, Keith, Chris and MSNBC!  Safe travels.

Awesome coverage and scoopage on Fox..... come home soon Rachel!

Fox only shows up when the wars are starting, they don't like to be there for the finish. They have to instigate new wars, they don't have time for peace.

I can already hear the anti-Obama crowd's battle whine on the winding down of combat in Mesopotamia: "Now we are going to have to fight them over here." Rachel, et al., make me proud to be a Real Liberal and a True Progressive.

Yeah I turned on Fox Noise just to see how they were covering the return of troops. They were talking about the EMILY's List spot and how SP was just so cool because ...oh nm...it's just not worth repeating...

And CSI dominates all the programs on Faux Noise. So does that make it better than Beck and the rest of the buffoons? Big Macs sell far more than filet mignon, so does that make them better? The rationale that ratings are what validates what is actually good and bad on tv has been shown to be a crock over and over again. If you think Faux has the best news because it has the most viewers, you are deluded.

By the way, Faux is part of basic cable on most systems, while MSNBC is only available on packages that cost more than basic cable. In other words, ANYONE can get their propaganda, while you have to pay extra to get the quality reporting on MSNBC. Well, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. If you are only willing to pay a couple of pennies a day for your news, you get Faux, and their penny-ante "reporters".

By the way, Faux is part of basic cable on most systems, while MSNBC is only available on packages that cost more than basic cable.

I knew it!! Could not remember that's how I get MSNBC...I pay extra...

Big Macs sell far more than filet mignon, so does that make them better?

That's a good analogy, Uffdaguy.

I watched it twice..DVR'd it the second time..great journalism, great TV. really thoughtful important stuff. Thanks.

MSNBC's coverage of the Victory in Iraq was an absolute disgrace. Maddow asked the question to Richard Engel...I'm paraphrasing " Does the Military feel a sense of humility considering they are leaving without a government being established?" Implying that the Military should feel a sense of defeat. If the goal was to leave Iraq with a government intact then why did the Obama Administration pull the troops out? What does Iraqi's being unable to establish parlimentary procedures have to do with combat troops leaving Iraq? Why did she have to take that moment away from that young Officer. Watching the coverage on MSNBC was like watching footage of defeated Soviets retreating from Afghanistan. That was the context and that was the tone of the entire broadcast...constantly referencing Vietnam. This is absolutely nothing like Vietnam and with all due respect to the LTG (RET) emphasis on RETIRED...you are a dime a dozen and a dinosaur. Stop talking about your days in Vietnam. The Obama Administration, MSNBC, and liberals in general manifest a losing mentality with everything they do. Say the word Victory! See how it feels. Accept the fact that we won the war in Iraq and freed a people, what they do with that freedom is up to them. It's OK to win...ask FOX, the OReilly Factor re-run probably had better ratings then MSNBC's coverage. Thank God President Clinton is taking over from here.

Dave, how can you define this war as a victory, when victory conditions were never specified? Was victory the defeat of Saddam? If so, then victory was achieved back in 2003, and there was no reason not to pull the troops out then. Was it to stop Saddam from developing WMD? Once again, that was done in 2003, and no need for further troops. Was it to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq? According to the Pentagon several years ago, when Rumsfeld was still in power, Al Qaeda was down to less than 100 operatives in Iraq, and all indications are that they were never a large force there to begin with. Therefore, no need to keep the troops there.

So why were troops there still? The reason we were given was that we wanted to establish a stable democratic government there. Does that exist today? Anyone there will tell you it does not, and months after their most recent election, they still have been unable to form a new government under Alawi. So, if the victory conditions were to establish a stable democratic government, we have failed to meet the criteria to claim victory. Saying "victory" feels great....unless you know that you haven't actually done that. The Indianapolis Colts could have cried "victory" over and over again after losing in the Super Bowl, but it still wouldn't have been true. So, go right ahead and claim victory if you like, but realize that it is a lie.

If victory in Iraq is dictated by the US military's ability to support and establish a "stable" government, then why did President Obama withdraw troops? For political collateral in NOV? Because President Obama is content with an incomplete mission if he appeases the left and our European and Middle East "Allies"? That was the point of my post. MSNBC and the Obama Administration omit an aura of defeat and weakness. Last nights broadcast was somber when it should have been nothing short of celebratory.

There are many degrees to our victory in Iraq so please take the time to read my post. It may be long winded but I want to explain. There is a military victory which is proven by our absolute defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq and any other robust insurgency within Iraq. There is the operational victory and that is evident through our prolonged but successful training and arming of a police and military force while securing what was a lawless country. Remember the United States was lawless though out the progressive era which was a period of roughly 30 years after the civil war and before the turn of the 20th Century. This is the jist of my argument...there WAS a strategic victory. During the Bush Administration and our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya ceased all nuclear research and development, while very provocative internally Iran was folding and the rest of the worlds dictators were on their heels...including North Korea (they destroyed one of their most productive reactors). The most important aspect of this victory which is the strategic aspect is being lost due to the weakness and apologetic Obama Administration and therefore President Obama's biggest supporters at NBC displayed that very attitude of weakness and frankly a loser mentality. A mentality that its OK to lose as long as you tried your best. That was the message Maddow and Olbermann were getting across to the audience.

Political and military goals must be in concert for absolute victory. "The Surge" was a perfect example of pragmatic political goals being achieved with military savvy. Afghanistan will fail under this administration because you have GEN Petreus saying we will not pull out for sure next summer and an administration that says it will. You had GEN McChrystal (a true warrior/hero) conducting a text book counterinsurgency while a VP saying we should manage Afghanistan and the Taliban with Predators. This is not going to work and according to Rachel Maddow the military should leave these missions with a sense of "humility"! Absolutely not. President Obama should feel humbled and slightly defeated because he chose to withdraw troops while his objectives were not met.

Thoughts?

Dave, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that the US won a strategic victory in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. While Saddam was a brutal dictator, his very existence helped provide a counterbalance to Iran. This was most evident in the Iran-Iraq war, where the US actually helped Iraq and Saddam in order that there would be a rough balance, and end up with both sides exhausting each other without either making any gains against the other. As long as Iraq was strong, Iran was bottled up trying to defend itself against them. Think of Iraq as the cork that kept Iran in the bottle.

Now, Saddam is gone, and Iraq is a chaotic mess. There is sectarian violence, the inability to even form a government, and with an infrastructure so damaged that power and water are still only available for a few hours a day, even in Baghdad. Iran no longer has to worry about defending itself from Iraq; it can actually work behind the scenes to mold it into a nation that is strongly tied to Iran.

Yes, we won the war, no great accomplishment since the Iraqi military never recovered from the pounding it took in the Gulf War. In fact, most of the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran, where it stays to this very day, bolstering the strength of their own air force. If troops have to stay in Iraq simply to support the government, that is nothing short of a supreme failure, for a government that relies on an outside military force to survive isn't much of a government. What would you think of the US government if it was only able to stay in power with the help of large numbers of NATO troops?

The objectives, as poorly defined as they were, were simply not acheivable. Should Obama feel humbled and defeated because he couldn't achieve the unachievable goals that the Bush administration set and also failed to achieve?

It is apparent that you wouldn't be making the same comments if Bush or McCain or some other repub were still in the Oval Office and had made the same decision. No, you see this as just another excuse to continue to level the unsubstantiated view of repubs for decades now, that repubs are strong on national defense, and dems are weak. As I had noted in another thread, "strong" repubs have a historical trail of running from conflicts. Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Imagine the repub outrage if a dem president had done the same. Repubs forced Clinton to pull troops out of Somalia after the Blackhawk Down episode. That's right, time to run away when ONE HELICOPTER is shot down. What if dems had forced Bush to leave Iraq when the first helicopter went down, or the the convoy with Jessica Lynch was captured? True, repubs have shown they are truly brave warriors by defeating mighty Grenada and Panama under Reagan's rule! On the other hand, they also opposed entry into WWII, and if the Brits had fallen before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it would have been the US alone against the Axis.

The only loser mentality I see is from the right wing, which continues to delude itself into equating a bully mentality with a true warrior mentality. They are chickenhawks that are eager to attack countries that have no real ability to fight back, and send someone else's kid to do the job. Attack Iraq over non-existent WMDs? Sure, their military is no better than Third World, and they do have oil. Attack North Korea, which has actual WMDs, and has a dictator even more brutal than Saddam ever dreamed of being? Oh no, repubs dont' want to take a chance on that, especially because there is no oil there. There are no absolutes in repub ideology...it's all situational relativity.

Dave to quote you:

“Remember the United States was lawless though out the progressive era which was a period of roughly 30 years after the civil war and before the turn of the 20th Century.”

So Presidents Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson presided over a lawless country. As to the Progressive Era

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/progressivism/index.cfm

You must think child labor, trusts political corruption, unsafe working conditions, and unsafe food are good things. And direct elections of senators, primaries, the ability to recall and have referendums are bad things. It seems many laws were passed during what you say was a lawless time.

“This is the jist of my argument...there WAS a strategic victory. During the Bush Administration and our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya ceased all nuclear research and development”

There more to it than that:

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Libya/Nuclear/index.html

“while very provocative internally Iran was folding and the rest of the worlds dictators were on their heels.”

Really Iran is not a threat? Al-Qaida was quaking in their boot during Bush’s administration?

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Nuclear/index.html

“..including North Korea a(they destroyed one of their most productive reactors). “

Not before North Korea detonated two nuclear devices and some long range missile tests

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/NK/index.html

China had more to do with North Korea than Bush.

“…This is not going to work and according to Rachel Maddow the military should leave these missions with a sense of "humility"! Absolutely not. President Obama should feel humbled and slightly defeated because he chose to withdraw troops while his objectives were not met”.

Dave an agreement was signed by Bush that US troops had to leave Iraq by a certain date. It just coincided with what Obama wanted to do. You confusing Bush’s objectives with Obama’s Iraq is a sovereign nation and it up to its government and its people to make it work. We could not stay forever nor did the Iraqi people wanted us too. As to our troops having humility; humility has been part of a warrior code going back to the knight’s code of Chivalry. Please see here.

http://jjuriaan.com/The_Code_of_Chivalry.htm

I hope our troops embody everything the Code of Chivalry embodies. Our troops left Iraq quietly, orderly and with their heads held high. At least that’s what I saw. It wasn’t like leaving Vietnam chaotically, vociferously and in disgrace. I am very proud of what our troops have done and will do in the future for our country.

You’re a really mediocre military historian and I know so really good military historians.

Relatively speaking...it was an unlawful country with local decentralized justice systems and a weak federal government. Nothing like Iraq but the point I was making was that it takes time to evolve. The Iraqi people have been oppressed for a generation, its difficult to break that mentality.

I don't deny that our strategic interests played a role in the Iraq conflict, ie. oil etc...Every President from both parties has sent troops to fight for interests, it can't always be black and white, good guys and bad guys.

The context of the question about "military humility" was not in reference to what you were referring to. She asked the question in the context of should the military be humbled by the state in which they are leaving the country of Iraq? I don't think the military should. Bush's Status of Forces Agreement had us pulling out in the summer of 2011, not August 2010. Coincidence, I don't think so.

You are absolutely correct in that I am a mediocre military historian and most of my post was my opinion as I saw it. I don't have references readily available. But when you say something like the Iraqi people didn't want us there I have to ask the question, how many Iraqi's have you spoken to? I've lived this history. In 4 1/2 years in the US Military as an officer with Army Special Operations Command I've spoken to many Iraqi Males/Females ages 18-45 and what they want is there kids to be able to go to school and the ability to get a job. If that means Americans have to be there forever so they can experience that safety then they would have it despite the shame they feel when they know their countrymen and leaders don't have their best interest in mind. I care more about Iraqi's then their own leaders.

P.S. It would be easy for me to post links with a version of history that supports my points of views. BLUF...ask yourself this question and if you can answer it honestly then you have principals and I can respect that. Is Barack Obama and his administration doing more to make you feel secure? Not just at home, because we don't live like Israeli's...yet. But are our interests abroad and allies safer today? I don't think they are and I hate the analogy of the Obama being like Carter because I didn't live through the Carter administration but the more I read about him the more I see our country heading in that direction, demoralized and not proud to be an American. I just don't want that.

Thoughts?

Dave

Actually I do speak to an Iraqi every workday because he is a security guard where I work. In fact he was a Batthist party member and knew Saddam, but that was many years ago. As to current Iraqi population no. But in 2008 the Iraqi parliament did request that US forces leave as part of a Security pact. The Iraqi parliament is as much a repsenative of the Iraqi people as our won Congress is. A time table was agreed to and signed by President Bush. Obama is honoring that time table. I believeif a person agrees to do something they should do it especially if it is in writing and a legally binding agreement. I also beleive that person's word should be thier bond.

Do I feel safer with Obama and his administration's policies. I did live during the Carter administration and it wasn't as bad as you think. Bush just pissed everyone off and it made cooperation with other countries very difficult. We had to buy our allies instead of getting their willing cooperation.

Buying allies is not good policy as we have seen ally after ally pull out of Iraq. Let me put it this way IMO if you treat people with respect they will respect you back. Bush didn't treat people with respect therefore the Coalition of the Willing fell apart. Obama treats people with respect and our standing in the world has improved.

As to posting links well I work in a research library that specialises in American & British history, literature and culture so I have a lot of referencebooks to look at but not the time to type it all in a post. I am proud to be an American. I may not always agree with what is happening but I love my country. I think of the US as a relative that may do thing what I consider wrong but I love dearly nonetheless. Just because there is criticism that doesn't mean there isn't love. also I think a person can be demoralized only when a person let's it happen (I am paraphrasing Eleanor Roosevelt on that).

We may disagree on things but let us respect each other as human beings. I am sorry I called you a mediocre historian. That was rude of me.

I understand this issue stirs emotions so I understand and appreciate the apology. That is why I avoided bringing my military status into the issue for as long as possible because this is extremely emotion for the veterans of Iraq. We can go back and forth but when it's all said and done Iraqi's may not have electricity but they are free to determine their fate. They are free to stand up to fanaticism themselves. Obviously you're an educated man so let me pose you a question...do you predict that moderates within Iraq are going to stand up against extremism to ensure their country stabalizes? Or will secterian differences get the best of the country?

Does anyone remember the REAL reason we went to Iraq? Does anyone remember how quick the war was going in Afghanistan? Bush and his coterie all look at eachother in amazement and said "This is EASY! Why I bet we could take out Iraq in two or three weeks!" So they tortured captives til they got the lie that would backfill their invasion of Iraq: WMDs, conspiracy between Al Queada and Saddam Hussein. Bush made a deal the the British Prime Minister that there was going to be war in Iraq, all that was lacking was an excuse. Downing Street Memo, remember?

I remember when I heard the news that Saddam Hussein had been captured, the first question out of my mouth was, "What's that got to do with 9/11?" And what DID that have to do with 9/11? If Saddam Hussein was a check on Iran, he was also a huge check on any sharia/taliban nation because his was a secular nation who's laws centered around him. Theocratic rule was a threat to him and he was a rival to theocrats. Him and Osama bin Laden were enemies. I'm just an a$$hole who lives in Tulsa, Ok and I knew that!

Why should the troops leave with a sense of humility? Maybe because they had just participated in history, that they were involved in the longest war in America's history? Because they participated in something that will be immortalized in textbooks problably as long as there are textbooks? Dave, are you upset that they didn't leave swaggering with giant hard-ons, giving eachother high-fives and bragging about how they kicked ass like a winning football team leaving the field? Maybe, just maybe, they were glad that they didn't have to die any more. At least not there.

Lastly here's a thought experiment that occured to me early in the Iraq War. What would it take to stop the violence in the Middle-east, between Israel and Palestine? The ONLY way you could quell the bloodshed, short of annihilation of one or the other, whould be to force a gov't on both of them, putting them as equals under one law - squelching any of the hitherfore long running rivalries and vandettas. Making them both citizens of the same state. And just how effective would that be? Only as long as that state lasted. And if the state that controlled Israel and Palestine collapsed, what would the aftermath look like? It would look just like the Balkans after the Soviets withdrew. It would look just like Iraq after Saddam Hussein was deposed. Let us hope it doesn't look like that now that we are leaving.

So much for easy.

As far as them leaving with a swagger and with "hard-ons" no that is not what I expected and if that is happening then its certainly not for the cameras because god forbid we gave the public the idea that we actually enjoy what we do. The military personnel acted exactly how I expected and hoped. I already answered this question but I'll answer it again. The military personnel should not feel any humility because every military objective they were given they achieved. If political objectives weren't meant then shame on the politicians for failing to follow through. You're so dramatic "Maybe, just maybe, they were glad that they didn't have to die any more. At least not there". You have no idea what you're talking about. As a 23 year old Army Officer I led 45 Army Special Operations Soldiers into Iraq on a 8 month tour and brought all of them home and do you think we all left saying "phew...thank god we didn't die over there". We saw first hand the positive impact of our work and many were willing to extend their tours but I wouldn't allow it for their families sake. I'm upset that Maddow linked political failures to the military.

Dave

Please note my name is Maria therefore not a man. Yes I am educated but for the most part self-educated as I couldn't afford to go beyond my BFA. As to stability in Iraq I suggest you read Understanding Iraq by William Polk. This part of the world has a very long history.

I get tired of people trashing Carter. Was he a great president? No, I doubt if anyone would claim that, but he was a darn sight better than many, including Bush. Where would we be now if his push for energy conservation and alternative energy hadn't been cancelled by Reagan and the repubs? Maybe we wouldn't have gone into Iraq to fight for access to oil. Maybe we wouldn't be looking at the destruction of the Gulf by BP. Maybe we would in fact have well-paying jobs in America that produce green energy. Instead, we hear about how he made Americans ashamed to be Americans. It is Bush that made me ashamed to be an American, and the idiocy of the right has only made that worse. Carter is far smarter than any of the dolts protesting against the muslim community center.

Dave, you know there is a difference between having humility and being humiliated, right? The troops may have left with humility, they had certainly not been humiliated.

Shouldn't journalists be journalists and not pundits? I don't mind that NBC/MSNBC in enjoying increased market share and appeal by the progessive populace. It is a good counter balance to Fox's appeal to conservatives.

However, true journalistic integrity is objective, informing the people to make their own choices.

Your comments are contradict each other.

I think Rachel can be pretty objective and calls them how they are, we need more like her in this country and a lot less High School drop outs like Beck, Hannity and the lot.

ATTN: Army Major.

Your rhetorical question "Shouldn't journalists be journalists and not pundits?" ho-hum truism and your somewhat condescending acceptance and mild praise followed by the "However" platitudinous reference to journalistic integrity which belies your prior praise aside, your closing conclusion is false. My comments do not contradict each other. You erroneously think they do because your concluding criticism does not apply the distinction between news and commentary, between journalism and punditry, that you point to earlier in your post and that I made in my post by referring to both "news and commentary." Keith for one makes a point of this distinction when he introduces Countdown with the line, "And now all the news and commentary."

MSNBC's "shows" with a permanent regular host (e.g. Ed, Chris, Keith, Rachel) have various segments. Some segments are straight news with little or no commentary and meet the criteria of serious journalism - Rachel and Keith are outstanding at this, Ed and Chris somewhat lesser so but not significantly lesser, often asking a guest expert if their characterization of the facts are fair and accurate, willing to admit and correct mistakes, and insisting on factual accuracy. Some segments are all or nearly all commentary reflecting the personal or professional opinion of the commentator or the guest. Some are humor using satire, parody, and farce to point out various absurdities, sometimes with and sometimes without a strong point of view beyond just making fun of something or someone. ("Every joke has its victim." –John Cleese of Monty Python.) Still others are just funny stuff without any purpose except harmless amusement.

If you can't see the difference between the different roles the MSNBC regular hosts play in different segments and recognize the journalist in some and the commentator or comedian in others, your opinions on those points are not trustworthy; and if you cannot see the difference between the approaches FOX and MSNBC take to the facts, news, and commentary and recognize the integrity and honest treatment of facts by MSNBC and the utter lack of same at FOX, your opinions of both, particularly their differences, are useless.

And if you are not more careful in characterizing what others write and in expressing yourself, your criticism is not credible.

Bremer was incompetent, in way over his head. He was one of those "Great job, Brownie" appointments.

Co-sign.

The Neoconservative wing of the Republican Party permanently changed our nation for the worse when they took control of the Party after Nixon's fall, made a Faustian bargain with and highly enhanced and legitimated the political power of Southern reactionaries and radical religious evangelism, and put their first puppet, Ronald Reagan, in the White House. Their influence in the Democratic Party as well was enabled by the rise of the Neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party with the election of Bill Clinton, and continues now with Obama surrounding himself with Clintonists and other Neoliberals. Putting George W. Bush in the Presidency and giving Cheney the power sealed our political fate for generations to come.