NBC Tries to Immunize Obama from Criticism After Bombings in Iraq
On Thursday, as NBC's Today show covered the eruption of more than a dozen bombings in Iraq just days after the pullout of U.S. troops, correspondent Richard Engel argued against the view that the Obama administration should have been more effective in negotiating an agreement with the Iraqi government for an extended U.S. troop presence which might have helped ward off such attacks. (Video below)
As Engel appeared on set, co-anchor Ann Curry posed:
Let's talk about that because the U.S. troops left just days ago. ... and you reported extensively about that. The U.S. really did not have a choice but to leave because they were essentially kicked out.
Engel complained about arguments he has heard criticizing the recent pullout of U.S. troops:
This, I've seen this debate from afar, and I've often listened to it when I'm waiting to come on live shots, and some of your guests will say, well, if we'd stayed in Iraq this wouldn't have happened. We did not have a choice to stay in Iraq. The Iraqis threw us out.
First, there were supposed to be 20,000 American troops. That was unacceptable to the Iraqis. Then 10,000. Then 5,000. Then 3,000 who were going to be staying without immunity. So that really was no option. This is a false debate. The U.S. was leaving. The Iraqis wanted us out, and now they are fighting again over the real character of this country.
Ignoring the argument that even a small troop presence might have sent a message of American commitment to Iraq, Engel concluded: "And I don't know if that, if the 3,000 American troops who were going to be there without immunity who weren't wanted anyway, I don't think they were going to stop that."
Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment of the Thursday, December 22, Today show on NBC:
CARL QUINTANILLA: But we begin with that breaking news, a deadly wave of violence in Baghdad overnight. NBC's chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel is here with some details. Fill us in first on what happened, Richard.
RICHARD ENGEL: There was a series of bombings, many of them car bombings. In one case, there was a suicide bomber in an ambulance. All these attacks were in Shiite districts. And that's the key takeaway here. This was a sectarian attack. It was designed to undermine the government, and I think we're going to see a lot more of these.
ANN CURRY: Okay, well, let's talk about that because the U.S. troops left just days ago.
ENGEL: I was there.
CURRY: I know you were, and you reported extensively about that. The U.S. really did not have a choice but to leave because they were essentially kicked out.
ENGEL: This, I've seen this debate from afar, and I've often listened to it when I'm waiting to come on live shots, and some of your guests will say, well, if we'd stayed in Iraq this wouldn't have happened. We did not have a choice to stay in Iraq. The Iraqis threw us out.
First, there were supposed to be 20,000 American troops. That was unacceptable to the Iraqis. Then 10,000. Then 5,000. Then 3,000 who were going to be staying without immunity. So that really was no option. This is a false debate. The U.S. was leaving. The Iraqis wanted us out, and now they are fighting again over the real character of this country.
CARL QUINTANILLA: You can already hear the critics using this attack to say that the U.S. left too soon, no?
ENGEL: I think you can use - I don't know how you can claim credit for Iraq, for anything in any way. What you have is there's violence has once again started. Now if you want to say, well, this is a result of us pulling out or us going in, there was a civil war in Iraq from 2006 to 2007. The surge slowed it down, almost stopped it. Now, U.S. troops left just a few days ago, and they're starting to fight again. And it goes back to a basic problem in Iraq. For 1,400 years Sunnis ruled the country. There's two groups in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites. For 1,400 years Sunnis ran the country.
Saddam Hussein was a Sunni. The United States toppled the Sunni regime and put in a Shiite government. That's who's running the country now, and the Sunnis don't like it and are carrying out bomb attacks. And I don't know if that, if the 3,000 American troops who were going to be there without immunity who weren't wanted anyway, I don't think they were going to stop that.
CURRY: Richard Engel, your perspective always valuable. Thank you so much for getting up early on this breaking story.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
But....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:03am.
We could have reached a deal to stay. We weren't in Iraq because of an invitation by the Iraqi's.
Think about what they just said, MA.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:24am.
"We were kicked out of Iraq."
Let's see. Bush I invaded and our military kicked their asses, then he pulled out. Big mistake to stop and leave, but we weren't "kicked out."
Clinton didn't even try to straighten them out when they attempted to kill Bush I. He didn't have to get "kicked out" because he never got in.
Bush II's military forces cleaned their clocks in short order, and then he decided to stop, then he decided to start again, after the brass explained it to him real slow. Big mistake to slow down, but he eventually did something almost right.
Under Obama, "we got kicked out." That's on him, not the military, and not "WE.". That's all his chicken shiite play.
NBC will be rephrasing that statement before too long today.
But listen to expert Ricahrd Engel . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:03pm.
ENGEL: "Saddam Hussein was a Sunni. The United States toppled the Sunni regime and put in a Shiite government. That's who's running the country now, and the Sunnis don't like it and are carrying out bomb attacks."
The US didn't "put in a Shiite ogvernment." The US, with international help, supervised Iraqi elections. The Iraqis voted for their candidates (remember the purple thumbs?), and the winners of the many parliamentary elections formed a national parliamentary government. The fact that a Shiite is currently president is the product of political negotiations and portfolio sharing among the factions.
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was in fact a Sunni, and the Sunnis dominated that government. But to describe it as a "Sunni regime" implies that it was a sectarian government, which it was not. It would be more proper to define it as a Ba'athist regime.
Engel's description is both incorrect and intellectually dishonest.
Nice point, Galvanic
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:24pm.
Same logic as "The Supreme Court elected Bush as President in 2000".
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
No Doubt It's Bush's Fault!
Submitted by scottyusmc on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:07am.
These useful idiots will protect BOB until the cows come home!!! Don't believe or better listen to a word coming from their pie-holes!!!
Was wondering how long it would take
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:12am.
I noted this in the OT just a bit ago, but I'll say it again, I was wondering how long it would take before the bombings would take place. This is just the beginning and I would bet that it's going to get worse from here on out, just like anything that Obambi gets his hands on.
I wonder how fast that will happen. The Jihadists(notice the lack of identification of the bombers in this?) got an early Ramadan present from the Muslim in Chief.
-Jon
Ain't it amazing, Jon?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:31am.
Nobody in the MSM, including FNC could see this coming!!! What a bunch of morons.
Hemmer on Fox this morning asked the reporterett, "Why the attacks now? Is there something about the timing?"
Then something like, "Could this be the work of Al Cootie? Are their fingerprints on it?"
And last but not least, "Could this possibly be the resurgence of the fighting between the Shiites and the Sunni?"
Honestly, do these people smoke dope on the air?
The answers are YES, HELL YES, AND YOU BET YOUR F-ING A$$ YES, you dip stick.
... but none of them could have possibly predicted this coming, right?
Bring her back
Submitted by Franksam on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:06pm.
Where is Miss Cleo when we need her so badly?
Great Leader
Submitted by jpalm32 on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:19am.
Thought you might like this quote, from 2,000 years ago:
Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so
enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss
of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions.
… Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the
“new,wonderful good society” which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to
mean “more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the
expense of the industrious.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
History is amazing, ain't it?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:33am.
?
Yeah, it repeats itself.
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:51am.
Yeah, it repeats itself. Twice even. :)
Thank you Yogi Berra! :-)
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:48pm.
Thank you Yogi Berra! :-)
Cicero spoke presciently
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:35pm.
Cicero spoke presciently because he understood the past and his present:
Great Leader
Submitted by jpalm32 on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:19am.
Thought you might like this quote, from 2,000 years ago:
Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so
enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss
of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions.
… Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the
“new,wonderful good society” which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to
mean “more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the
expense of the industrious.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
That quote is so good
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:01pm.
....it deserves to be posted twice!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Iraq
Submitted by Jersey Girl on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:20am.
There go O's bragging rights. Eventually all his failures are going to come home to roost.
Pray for America and our allies.
Some slack for Bambi, JG.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:35am.
It was Bush's fault, then the military failed him in his greatest moment.
It's everybody's fault who voted for him, but no way will it EVER be his fault.
Kind of like the economy.
So now the left wing media says we were kicked out of Iraq?
Submitted by povertypimpin on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:26am.
Where was that commentary on the day Obama was on his campaign tour taking credit for the withdrawal from Iraq at Ft Brag?
NBC Tries to Immunize Obama...
Submitted by Conservator on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:40am.
...from Criticism After Bombings in Iraq - now that's a shocker. I was waiting to hear Engel blame it on Speaker Boehner. I guess I'll have to wait for Chris Matthews to return and get this story correct.
I will bet that they will
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:46am.
I will bet that they will blame it on the racist Tea Party.
Chris?
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:37pm.
Did "Tingles" go somewhere? I wondered why he's been absent from the NB site for days now...
You can't "end" a war. You
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:49am.
You can't "end" a war. You win it, lose it, or withdraw from it.
We withdrew.
Do you have any thoughts on how it might have been "won"
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:58pm.
given that the duly elected Iraqi government wanted us out?
Jer
No matter,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 3:04pm.
We are out now, only question is, how long before we are required to go back?
What do you think would had happened in Japan, Germany, or Korea if we had left in about 5 years after offensive conflict had ended?
Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 8:39pm.
We remained in Iraq for eight years after major combat operations were ended and during which the Iraqi military was being trained for security purposes. As far as the other nations you mention, their governments generally supported our continued presence.
Jer
I have
Submitted by Bob K on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 12:48pm.
been saying for years that Iraq would begin falling apart moments after we departed that Third World Toilet. I was right. What a total waste of lives, time, and money.
You're so right, unfortunately.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 3:43pm.
If you ain't going to win it or die trying, don't start it.
I don't feel it was in any
Submitted by ray johnson on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:09pm.
I don't feel it was in any way a waste of time, lives and money. Sure, war is tough...people die and things get broken. Total dead was for us around 4-5000, but we've lost many more than that in one battle. Clearly, withdrawal from there is a disaster, and any thinking person could have seen it. Obamao is a total disaster and his spouting off about how great he is, and that the war is over, blah blah blah, is only proof of his ineffectual leadership and pathetic "leading from behindness". Having troops in Germany, Korea, and Kosovo proves how you keep the victories that were achieved. The Dems have wanted to desperately lose this for 10 years and are now we'll witness all of what we accomplished put at danger.
Ray, I'm having a little trouble following your thinking.
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 3:11pm.
I'm reading your comments as being a little cavalier about the US losses in Iraq. When you write that "Sure, war is tough... people die and things get broken" I have to wonder if you've ever fought in a war? Do you have any idea what it's like to experience "sure, war is tough..." first-hand?
And your comment that the total US dead in Iraq was "around 4-5000, but we've lost many more than that in one battle" makes me think you view that as a relatively insignificant loss - kind of a throw-away amount. That 4-5000 people died is terrible enough on its own, but if you think that each one of those people had mothers and fathers and many had siblings and spouses and children, the toll of their loss extends way beyond "around 4-5000".
I hope I misunderstood what you were saying in your post and wanted to ask your help in making sure I'm reading your comments correctly.
Scurrilous
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 5:43pm.
Your reply to Ray is, indeed, scurrilous and repugnant. People are allowed to discuss wars in an historical context, including number of casualties, property damage, outcome, and costs, without actually having fought in one.
How dare you insult Ray Johnson. He has/had a father and mother, too, you know!
You have to love that "father and mother" argument. That's a gem.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish17
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 7:58pm.
Thank you for sharing your comments. I have given them all the consideration they deserve.
My comments did, indeed,
Submitted by ray johnson on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 6:25pm.
My comments did, indeed, reference the historical factual accounts of losses in terms of soldiers from our side. My problem, often, with discussions about war, in general, is that the person I'm having the discussion with is always trying to assume the position of "caring" more about the troops. This is of course insulting, and is unnecessary. I care every bit as much or more about each and every loss. The point is, as an example, at Antietam, we lost that and more on one friggin' day. Open a book.
Well, Ray,
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 7:56pm.
I asked for help in making sure I understand correctly the point you're trying to make and offered some of my own perspective. If you take that as an insult, I assume that's a personal problem you'll have to reconcile on your own.
While I don't necessarily claim to hold the higher ground because of it, my experiences as a Vietnam combat veteran perhaps give me a different perspective than yours, which is why I asked about your statements.
I can say without reservation, though, that your arrogance is appalling.
One Simple Question
Submitted by IrateNate on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 4:14pm.
You feel the conflict in Iraq was not in any way a waste of time, lives, or money. I would ask one question - what did we actually achieve in Iraq?
"Good Wars" vs Wars of Prevention
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 6:10pm.
IrateNate: You pose a great question. "What did we actually achieve in Iraq?" The answer of course, is that it will be up to history to decide. So the answer to your question is totally subjective.
Many people consider World War 2 to be the last "Good War". If you Google World War 2, and have "auto search" turned on and type in "World War 2 the g", it will automatically give you a "good war" option. Was World War 2 necessary? I suppose so, but only because the free world let it get to the point where it was necessary.
Sure, Nazism and Fascism were defeated, and a great evil was destroyed, but at what cost? Fifty to one-hundred million dead? What's good about that? If Roosevelt had armed America in the early 30's and along with France and the UK, invaded and occupied the Rhineland and booted Hitler out of power and prevented WW2 in Europe, would Roosevelt had gone down in history as the "war monger" that many want to label George W. Bush?
So we'll never really know what was prevented by the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003. It wasn't the actions of one man, George W. Bush, that led to invasion of Iraq. It was the culmination of decades of United States international political policy that included the aproval of the legislative branch of the federal government.
The "goodness" of wars like the 2003 Iraq War are never truly decided. Whether it was wise to invade Iraq in 2003 is going to be argued from both sides a hundred years from now. But Obama's ineptitude in allowing the hasty withdrawal of our ground forces may end up swaying the argument against the "United States's" involvement in Iraq from 2003-2012, but that's going to depend on what happens in the future.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
American lives are wasted once again
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:20pm.
Iraq will now descend into chaos, and the Muslim Brotherhood will end up in control of the country.
And just like Vietnam, thousands of brave Americans will have made the ultimate sacrifice for nothing.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave, They will be massacred by the MILLIONS
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 3:43pm.
Why is the Left Opposed to American Victory? - Newt Gingrich
You Didn't Build That.
further consquences
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:26pm.
Don't think our Afghan 'allies' aren't watching this retreat of American forces in Iraq.
Not just Afghans.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 3:50pm.
ALL of our friends, and all of our enemies.
Our enemies recognize an opening when they see one, and the Obama administration is an invitation to do anything they please.
Too bad our military will have to die in droves trying to get it all sorted out when we get rid of this sorry excuse of a RBFSOB we have now. God, he makes me ill.
There was good reason to establish---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 9:08pm.
Occupation Forces in both Japan and Europe at the close of WW II.
It wasn't to provide overseas vacations for our military personnel.
MD
And we laugh at North Korea.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:48pm.
.
Wait a minute
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 1:49pm.
Thrown out that is the first I have heard of that being reported . I thought Barack Obama had an orderly withdrawal and he got us out of Iraq to keep his promise. Which is it NBC they can not both be true. Engle caught in a lie.
I'm sure he just slipped up.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 3:52pm.
They already have him in "reeducation camp" teaching him how to restate what he really meant to say.
What he really said was "it was Bush's fault," but somehow it got scrambled in the airwaves.
Eventually . . .
Submitted by DoktorFranken on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 2:41pm.
. . . . even Teflon wears out.
In NBC's mind...
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 3:26pm.
getting kicked out of Iraq might -- just might -- vault o'bama into 2nd or 3rd place in the "I'm the greatest president since...." sweepstakes.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
new dictator
Submitted by Dukehoopsfan on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 5:21pm.
There will be a new dictator in place before Spring. He will likely be picked by AQ.
Coach K learned a heckuva lot
Submitted by ray johnson on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 6:29pm.
Coach K learned a heckuva lot from one Bob Knight ( Buckeye).
Cautious of reporter-to-reporter interviewers
Submitted by MinneMike on Thu, 12/22/2011 - 6:22pm.
They tend to be particularly prone to propaganda.
President George W. Bush always set a caveat to his decisions, "it depends on the conditions on the ground."
President Obama's caveat is "it depends on my poll ratings"
Obama's theme song before retirement in 2013.
Submitted by Tater Salad on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 5:11pm.
Barack Obama's theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiGg8D4hFLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CulYIQ-ItY
Move over Jimmy Carter, America has now found your replacement!
Hay Tader If we get a 3 rd party running
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 2:53pm.
The song will sound like this
You Didn't Build That.