NBC's Meredith Vieira actually seemed disappointed that a Republican senator wasn't running for re-election, of course that Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, is a noted war-critic. On the Thursday "Today" show, a crestfallen Vieira asked the RINO: "Senator, very quickly now, this, this week you announced you that you are not running for any office in 2008. Why quit now, given how impassioned you are about this war?...But why did you decide not to run for president? That surprised a lot of people."
Just before the Hagel interview Vieira plugged NBC News's primetime coverage of the President's speech tonight but didn't exactly give it a hard sell as she wondered if anybody would even care: "Meanwhile we're gonna turn now to President Bush addressing the nation tonight about the future of U.S. troops in Iraq but his words may fall on deaf ears."
In fact Vieira's first question to the Nebraska senator emphasized the view the President speech wasn't worth watching. The following tease occurred on the September 13 "Today" show:
Vieira: "And you can watch the President's address to the nation tonight at 9pm Eastern time, right here on NBC. Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is a vocal critic of the President's policies in Iraq. Senator, good morning to you. Let me ask you right out of the bat. When the President speaks about Iraq tonight do you believe that he will have any credibility?"
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wow Meredith! Tell us how
September 13, 2007 - 10:54 ET by rbosqueWow Meredith! Tell us how you really feel.
Why would anyone care about her views? These liberal lunatics go out of their way to demonize Fox News as not being "fair and balanced", but here we have a talking head from the left being anything but "fair and balanced". Why would they interview Hagel if not to show yet another anti-war nut?
unbelievable (well, maybe not)
September 13, 2007 - 11:00 ET by SouthJersey1953She doesn't even try to hide her bias anymore.
No RINOs in '08
How dare she acknowledge
September 13, 2007 - 11:11 ET by rwestHow dare she acknowledge that some people are concerned about the war! She might as well grow a beard, strap on a bomb, and blow up a church preschool.
Glad you get it. There's
September 13, 2007 - 15:49 ET by KhyrisGlad you get it.
There's a difference between informing that people ARE concerned about the war... and preaching that people SHOULD be AGAINST the war.
That is exactly what she does when the first thing out of her mouth is imply there's a reason to doubt the President's credibility... and the only reason offered is because she said so?
I'm so sick of the circular logic... They tell themselves Bush lies, so they think everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, so that somehow justifies them for suspecting him of lying, which causes them to find the next thing to be a "lie."
The idea that every armchair punditt who regurgitates talking points from the DailyKos is somehow more informed about the "Truth" of the situation than a president who gets daily intelligence briefings... is just laughably conceited.
Here's breaking news... 50% of the nation has an IQ below 100... Do we really want them deciding what the "right" foreign policy is when they blindly accept what talking heads tell them is "right"? We want to make "doing what is in the nation's best interest" as sophomoric as a prom queen popularity contest? No I don't think so, that's why we elect representatives. This is not a Democracy, this is a Constitutional Republic.
It has been ADMITTED and PUBLICIZED by terrorists that they are emboldened to commit further atrocities by what they see in American media. So yes, she might as well grow a beard, strap on a bomb, and blow up some soldiers because although the "intent" may even be naively noble, the effect is exactly the same.
Meredith Meredith Meredith
September 13, 2007 - 11:31 ET by ForeverOnTheRightWhen you talk about deaf ears, your talking about liberals, like yourself, who don't want to hear anything different than what they want to hear. When your talking about creidiblity you are again talking about liberals, who want to discount or dismiss anything a conservative says. You are becoming increasingly biased and you aren't fooling fewer and fewer people.
...the truth always falls on
September 13, 2007 - 11:36 ET by TruthMonger...the truth always falls on deaf liberal ears...
2 Timothy 4:3 (The Message
September 13, 2007 - 11:55 ET by ForeverOnTheRight2 Timothy 4:3 (The Message Bible)
3-5 You're going to find that there will be times when people will have no stomach for solid teaching, but will fill up on spiritual junk food—catchy opinions that tickle their fancy. They'll turn their backs on truth and chase mirages. But you—keep your eye on what you're doing; accept the hard times along with the good; keep the Message alive; do a thorough job as God's servant.
This is especially true of liberals.
Click...
September 13, 2007 - 11:35 ET by ThalpyThe only way to stop Vieira's mindless drivel is to turn her off- along with the rest of her cronies in the progressive press.
Why Quit?
September 13, 2007 - 11:50 ET by allanfVieira: Why quit now, given how impassioned you are about this war?...But why did you decide not to run for president? That surprised a lot of people."
Well Hagel does not have a prayer of being re-elected. He would not be able to win the primary in his state. He'd be left to run as an independent or Democrat.
It is a fate he richly deserves.
As usual
September 13, 2007 - 12:02 ET by KC MulvilleVieira is simply arguing that Americans shouldn't listen to the president. She does, however, want them to listen to Hagel -- and she implores Hagel to remain in a position to be listened to. (By the way, does Vieira feel the same when Hagel talks about abortion? Hagel is a solid pro-lifer, with a 0% NARAL rating. She skips over that, of course.)
Let's see. The media insists that the American public shouldn't listen to the commander in chief about a military mission. Hmmmm. And why is it that we can't question their patriotism?
He speaks sense.
September 13, 2007 - 17:26 ET byNot one person mentioned what he said. No one in their right mind can argue with what he said.
"Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure?"
He's a Republican. He's a Vietnam vet. He knows that General Petraeus is just doing exactly what General Westmoreland did 40 years ago. He designed a troops buildup in Vietnam, and went there to inspect it some months later, only to return and say "the troop surge is working".
Petraeus couldn't really say anything else. If he said it wasn't working, then he'd need more troops, and that won't happen. I hope it's the beginning of a 'face saving' withdrawal. The US is worried about withdrawing and looking like they have lost. That's not true. It's an unwinable war, and the Coalition tried at least.
I'd be happy if the Administration uses this as a respectable way to withdraw. We don't want Vietnam II, and we have to separate ourselves from this theory that the Iraq War is because of 9/11, because clearly, there wouldn't be too many people who think that anymore.
I think it's an opportunity.
Eye
September 13, 2007 - 17:31 ET by BlondeWhat the hell do you mean "we" Kemosabi?
Speak for yourself.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hello!
September 13, 2007 - 17:49 ET byI mean "we" as a collective term. "We" are the allies. I am a British and Australian citizen, and I'm therefore part of the alliance; the coalition, etc. I care for your soldiers as well as mine (Australian) and mine (British).
Wrong, Eye. We don't
September 13, 2007 - 17:53 ET by BlondeWrong, Eye.
We don't want Vietnam II, and we have to separate ourselves from this theory that the Iraq War is because of 9/11...
Don't you dare try to use the "we" line on that little statement. You're more than welcome to speak for yourself....but don't even try that here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
So you do, then?
September 13, 2007 - 18:03 ET bySo you; Blonde; want Vietnam II?
You; Blonde; really believe Iraq has anything to do with 9/11?
Then you; Blonde; are doing just what Hagel said; killing Americans because of politics.
Misguided politics.
You Eye
September 13, 2007 - 18:13 ET by BlondeKnow nothing about me, what I believe or want.
So take your euro-sensibilities, and apply them to someone else. How dare you apply your misbegotten notions to me?
Maybe you'll understand this....bugger off.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Same back
September 14, 2007 - 19:43 ET byIf you're going to throw a wobbly over that, what have I said that you haven't?
You know nothing about me. You don't know what I believe in, and can you please explain "euro-sensibilities". It sounds like an inside American joke, like "Freedom Fries".
The way you talk about Europe, I get the impression you'd like to attack it next.
1.) Do I want a rerun of
September 13, 2007 - 18:24 ET by BD1.) Do I want a rerun of Vietnam on the battlefield? Yes, with many improvements.
2.) Do I believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?
Yes. For most of a decade Saddam fostered a climate of suicide attacks by subsidizing them in the West bank, Gaza, and Israel proper thus further radicalizing an islamic public in the middle east much of which began seeing the notion of dieing in a suicide attack as glorious. Or at least MORE glorieous than they had prior to his support financed them.
Note that the suicide attack in Israel quickly subsided following two conditions. The US occupation preventing the Saddam subsidy, and Isreal building a series of walls to cause seperation of the populous.
Please prove either contention wrong.
Easy!
September 13, 2007 - 18:37 ET byI hope that you are a WHO fan.
"Though I know that the hypnotised never lie"
DO YOU?
Are you insinuating that I
September 13, 2007 - 18:42 ET by BDAre you insinuating that I am lying?
Please prove to me the folloiwng assertions false:
1.) Saddam paid substantial moneys to the families of SUCCESSFUL suicide bombers and it was used as a recruiting bonus for participation.
2.) Suicide attacks in Israel have gone down post Iraq invasion.
Saddam
September 13, 2007 - 18:54 ET by Free StinkerIn fact,
I have a link to back up item #1: Saddam Ordered 25,000 Dollars for Each Suicide Terrorist Against Israel
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
Thnks for the back-up....
September 14, 2007 - 09:28 ET by BDThnks for the back-up....
Not that you needed it.
September 14, 2007 - 09:53 ET by Free StinkerNot that you needed it. :-)
I just enjoy piling on . . . the facts . . . ;-)
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's
conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners
have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
Eye think The Who are ijits
September 13, 2007 - 19:12 ET by"Though I know that the hypnotised never lie"
is a lie eye
or is someone flapping their arms going tweet really a bird?
You ain't a teenager but are you still wasted?
Support our Troops
1.) We do indeed want a
September 13, 2007 - 18:18 ET by BD1.) We do indeed want a re-run of Vietnam - on the battlefield.
2.) We do NOT want a rerun of Vietnam in the press or on the campuses.
1.) We do indeed want a
September 13, 2007 - 18:22 ET by balboa1.) We do indeed want a re-run of Vietnam - on the battlefield.
I'm assuming you're not actually advocating for the tens of thousands of American deaths that would go with that "rerun"?
1.) At the endo fthe US
September 13, 2007 - 18:33 ET by BD1.) At the endo fthe US involvement the following conditions existed.
What I am saying is that WE PAID FOR IT, BUT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO COLLECT THE GOODS.
Same thing has essentially happened in this war so far. We have paid for it, but are being hurried out of country before final victory.
I respect you, and cannot
September 13, 2007 - 18:44 ET byI respect you, and cannot possibly argue with someone who was there.
I withdraw.
I was not there, will defer
September 13, 2007 - 18:49 ET by BDI was not there, will defer to Bassndude and others who were present regarding that.
I am currently serving, was trained by all Vietnam vets in the 1980 timeframe and did my thesis on the US incursion into Cambodia and its aftermath.
My approach to this question is not emotional per se, rather purely analytical.
Most of what is known about the War in Vietnam is just purely incorrect by design.
BD -- I'm sure he was
September 13, 2007 - 18:56 ET by Jack BauerBD -- I'm sure he was taking the piss out of you. He knows you did not claim to have served in Vietnam.
It's a shitty little leftoid technique you see used often to try to shut down those who dare relate the true narrative about Vietnam.
It was a genuine reply.
September 14, 2007 - 19:37 ET byBelieve what you want, Union Jack. It won't make it true.
I'm not going to rant and rave about my views to someone who was there. I believed BD was there. No one is offended. I think BD is cool with it, and I respect the fact that BD is serving.
You're wrong, again, Union Jack.
what up eye? Support
September 14, 2007 - 19:40 ET bywhat up eye?
Support our Troops
botg -- our waltzing
September 14, 2007 - 19:49 ET by Jack Bauerbotg -- our waltzing matilda has a beam in it.
hey Jack
September 14, 2007 - 19:55 ET byin regards to your post below there were many here at NB who disagreed with the story in the NYTimes written by Iraq vets as a cherry picked minority viewpoint.
isn't it always the dems who claim the genetic fallacy as truth?
Support our Troops
Hey Matilda, I don't
September 14, 2007 - 19:45 ET by Jack BauerHey Matilda, I don't believe one word you say. About just about everything.
People who rant and rave their views seldom prove to be discriminating.
Though if you point out the passage which made you "believe" (sic) BD served in Vietnam, I'll stand corrected. Until then I will continue to assume you just made a shitty little sarcastic comment.
Because as a matter of fact, it is perfectly possible to disagree with someone who served anywhere. That's a none issue, don't you agree Matilda?
Yes, we can argue, and will ...
September 13, 2007 - 22:50 ET by KC MulvilleHagel's a vet, and in my view, that protects him from any accusations of treason or of intentionally placing his personal agenda above his country. Service buys you that presumption, and it should. But being a vet doesn’t make you an expert on every military situation. A grunt who served as a logistics officer (Kos) may not be a traitor, but that doesn’t make him Omar Bradley, either.
If Petraeus honestly concluded it wasn’t working, he could have easily said so. He wouldn’t have had to take the fall for it. He could have used the time-honored tactic of leaking gloomy reports. He could have called a few reporters and quietly whispered that he’d been dealt an impossible hand, and those reporters would have cleared his way. He could have recommended that he saw no progress in the foreseeable future, and no one in this country would have blinked. The idea that he was forced into anything is just a political projection – it’s using him as a backdrop to display your own assumptions.
As for the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, you’ve utterly missed the point. 9/11 taught us something – namely, that when terrorists threaten you, you have to take them seriously and you must respond. Bill Clinton bragged that as soon as he heard the report of 9/11, he knew it was bin Laden. He thought that made him sound clever, but the public’s first question was: if you knew this guy was dangerous, why didn’t you stop him before this? Saddam was the exact same problem. We went into Iraq because Saddam funded terrorists, acted as a terrorist himself, and he had the money to finance the same attacks as 9/11. Bush wasn’t going to allow a second bin Laden. We knew, after 9/11, that we couldn’t sit back and wait to respond to this guy. WMDs made the threat more urgent, but he was a threat anyway. There is a connection – not a direct one, but indirect -- between 9/11 and Saddam. 9/11 taught us why Saddam had to be taken out.
Her pleading and groveling
September 13, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Her pleading and groveling to Hagel not to quit was almost like she was begging him not to dump her as his date to the Junior Prom; "please Chuck, we can work it out, really just come with me one more time."
And this tidbit. (I know I'm knit picking)
"Let me ask you right out of the bat."
Well Meredith gotta run, got to go watch some baseball players hit the ball "out of" the bat....
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
ridiculous proverb
September 13, 2007 - 17:44 ET byThe second bird would get the worm too, in your ideal world covered in traps.
You don't happen to be an anti-personel-mine supplier?
Eye
September 13, 2007 - 20:43 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Uhhhh, there is no second bird...
I could really care less what you think. If that's your interpretation, oh well, shows your limitations. For libs like you EVERYTHING is a vast right wing conspiracy.
Not gonna waste anymore keystrokes on you, I know the stupid little games you guys like to play. You need a new playbook the old one has been DOA for years now. So for now and for good, bye bye Eye guy.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
"Let me ask you right out of the bat"
September 13, 2007 - 22:02 ET by RJNice catch. That's as funny as her fawning and groveling was sickening.
Thanks RJ, after I read it
September 14, 2007 - 00:05 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Thanks RJ, after I read it again, I thought it might be a new form of "Today Speak." But then I realized, nah, its just Meredith being Meredith.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
"But why did you decide
September 13, 2007 - 19:11 ET by Jack BauerSure, it's a complete mystery as to why a guy who had zero chance of getting the Republican nom would decide not to run. Total friggin' puzzle.
Meredith Vieira marched in
September 13, 2007 - 19:34 ET by nythatesusaMeredith Vieira marched in anti-Iraq War protests a few years ago. If you do a search on this sight you will probably find the pictures. It must not count as a conflict of interest at the networks if it doesn't involve those evil corporations.
Here you go: Viera
September 13, 2007 - 23:42 ET by stratmanHere you go:
Viera marching against the Iraq war PLUS Viera saying everything the Iraq war was based on were lies here.
Viera saying that she stands behind all her words but is able to put it aside as a journalist here.
Riiiiiight.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.