On Tuesday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Harry Smith talked to "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric about Barack Obama’s trip to Iraq and asked: "He's had a very full plate here the last three or four days. Is it -- is there a way to sort of gauge what the Senator has been able to accomplish thus far?" Couric, who along with the other network anchors is following Obama on the trip, responded: "Well, I think in his time in Iraq, and as you know, Harry, he's still there, has been very, very productive."
Couric then went on to describe the Obama’s good fortune: "And let's say simply serendipitous that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, after some clarification over the weekend and going back and forth, virtually endorsed Senator Obama's plan to have a timetable for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, U.S. combat troops by the year 2010." She also pointed out that Maliki’s "endorsement": "...was somewhat surprising, disconcerting, and embarrassing to the Bush Administration." Couric concluded: "So in terms of a withdrawal strategy, he [Obama] and Prime Minister Maliki are definitely on the same page."
To her credit, Couric did point out Obama’s opposition to the troop surge, which she described as successful:
He also raised some eyebrows, by the way, when he said knowing what he knows now he would still not support the surge, the addition of some 36,000 additional troops last year. And that is largely being credited with bringing the level of violence in Iraq way down and ironically that's one of the reasons Senator Obama can even think about proposing the addition of up to three military brigade to Afghanistan, which he calls the front line in the war of terror.
At the end of the segment, Smith asked Couric about her upcoming interview with Obama: "You have your interview with Barack Obama a little bit later on today there in Amman [Jordan]. What's the most important thing on your mind?" Couric replied:
Well, gosh, Harry, there are so many things to talk to him about. Obviously I'm going to push him on the fact that he still opposes the surge despite evidence that it has been extremely effected. I'll talk to -- effective. I'll talk with him about this balancing act he'll have to perform when he is in the Middle East and about visiting what Donald Rumsfeld once called 'old Europe,' France and Germany, and what he hopes to achieve in Great Britain as well. I mean we have so many hot spots to talk about and to delve into. I'm really looking forward to it.
Despite the unwarranted shot at Donald Rumsfeld, Couric seemed to be prepared to ask some challenging questions, though the interview will speak for itself.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASER:
HARRY SMITH: Withdrawing the troops. Barack Obama says he and military commanders can make his plan work, but is it realistic? We'll talk to Katie Couric, who's in the Middle East.
7:01AM TEASER:
SMITH: A lot of people paying attention to Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East. He's in Iraq now, heading off to Amman, which is where Katie Couric is going to stand -- is standing by. We're going to talk to Katie in just a sec. She's going to have a big interview with Barack Obama in just a little while.
7:04AM SEGMENT:
HARRY SMITH: Now back to Barack Obama in Iraq. Katie Couric of the 'CBS Evening News' will have an exclusive interview with the Senator this evening. She joins us now from Amman, Jordan. Good morning, Katie.
KATIE COURIC: Hey, Harry, good morning to you.
SMITH: He's had a very full plate here the last three or four days. Is it -- is there a way to sort of gauge what the Senator has been able to accomplish thus far?
COURIC: Well, I think in his time in Iraq, and as you know, Harry, he's still there, has been very, very productive. And let's say simply serendipitous that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, after some clarification over the weekend and going back and forth, virtually endorsed Senator Obama's plan to have a timetable for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, U.S. combat troops by the year 2010. Now, this was somewhat surprising, disconcerting, and embarrassing to the Bush Administration [inaudible] conditions-based withdrawal and General Petraeus agrees with that, as does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen. So in terms of a withdrawal strategy, he and Prime Minister Maliki are definitely on the same page. This also puts him at odds, of course, as you know Harry, with John McCain. He also raised some eyebrows, by the way, when he said knowing what he knows now he would still not support the surge, the addition of some 36,000 additional troops last year. And that is largely being credited with bringing the level of violence in Iraq way down and ironically that's one of the reasons Senator Obama can even think about proposing the addition of up to three military brigade to Afghanistan, which he calls the front line in the war of terror.
SMITH: And it's very interesting because John McCain has been very loud and clear back here saying, 'hey, these conditions wouldn't even be ripe for these kinds of conversations were it not for the surge.' Let me move to the challenges Barack Obama faces. You've just come out of Israel. Now you're in Amman. He's got a long road to go here. What challenges does he face in the next couple of days?
COURIC: Well Harry, as you well know, it is such a delicate balance for him. He has to show he has solidarity with Israel, with the people there, not be pulled into the domestic problems that are plaguing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. He also, when he travels to the West Bank, has to be open to the concerns of the Palestinians as well. I think what he'll be doing, mindful that he's there as a candidate and not as a president, he'll be doing a great deal of listening. He has to be careful not to side with anyone and to stay very impartial. But I think what both sides want to hear, or what most people we spoke to said, is that he is interested. He wants to engage in the Mideast peace process if he's elected and that he will in fact, hit the ground running.
SMITH: There you go. You have your interview with Barack Obama a little bit later on today there in Amman. What's the most important thing on your mind?
COURIC: Well, gosh, Harry, there are so many things to talk to him about. Obviously I'm going to push him on the fact that he still opposes the surge despite evidence that it has been extremely effected. I'll talk to -- effective. I'll talk with him about this balancing act he'll have to perform when he is in the Middle East and about visiting what Donald Rumsfeld once called 'old Europe,' France and Germany, and what he hopes to achieve in Great Britain as well. I mean we have so many hot spots to talk about and to delve into. I'm really looking forward to it.
SMITH: There you go. Katie Couric, live with us in Amman this morning. Will see all of that tonight on the 'Evening News.' Thanks for taking the time to be with us.
COURIC: Okay. Thanks, Harry.
SMITH: Alright, take care, Katie.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
Actually I would say its
July 22, 2008 - 11:27 ET by Cureboy675Actually I would say its much more embarassing for Mr 100 Years himself, John McCain.
He makes pains at every turn to say we need to stay until the job is done and we absolutely cannot surrender.
And now here's the Iraq government pretty much saying, "No offense, pal. But we'd kind of like you out of here in the next two years"
So what happens in 2010 when Iraq says its time for us to book and McCain is still saying, "Sorry. We can't. We haven't won this war yet and I absolutely will not surrender. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know you're a soverign nation now and all that. But really, its a pride thing. We're not leaving...Not until I have declared victory."
Would be kinda interesting
CB this is absolutely "He
July 22, 2008 - 11:36 ET by Dan The Man 2CB this is absolutely "He makes pains at every turn to say we need to stay until the job is done and we absolutely cannot surrender" correct. And if the government wants us to leave, Malaki has stated this many times but never a formal request, then they can ask us and we will leave. Waht you may not understand is some politician spouting off some pablum for his constiuents and what really happens. Of course the difference between an inquiring mind and a troll is the troll knows the difference.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Well with all due reference
July 22, 2008 - 11:41 ET by Cureboy675Well with all due reference to your pablums.
It sure sounds like John McCain has a different vision for Iraq than the Iraqis have for themselves. And given how John McCain rarely admits he's wrong. It would be interesting to see how this plays out.
If that makes me a troll...Then, oh well, I'm a troll.
CB if you look over the
July 22, 2008 - 11:56 ET by Dan The Man 2CB if you look over the past couple of years the USA has always said if the government of Iraq wants us out all they have to do is ask. To date they have not. BTW I did not call you a troll, but if you want to take on teh mantle of one ... that is a different matter.
And at least McCain can admit to being wrong whereas Obama is just mispoken or nuanced. Sort of like the New Yorker cartoon.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
cureboy ,actually i think you need a geography lesson
July 22, 2008 - 12:15 ET by larry on LIthis a.m. you made a comment on how easy it could be for mccain to withdraw from iraq.you stated "i mean it could be done pretty simply, just exit across that iraq /pakistan border." now, i ask you how do you accomplish that ?
Take a short-cut through
July 22, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Clear thinkerTake a short-cut through the ever friendly Iran of course.
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
LOL. Actually its John
July 22, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Cureboy675LOL. Actually its John McCain who needs the geography lesson. I was quoting his recent assertion that there is an Iraq/Pakistan border.
Swell!
July 22, 2008 - 11:36 ET by okiehawk44BO to Maliki: Would you like us out of here sometime?
Maliki: Sure.
BO: What about 2010?
Maliki: Sounds good.
BO to media: Maliki supports my plan to have all American troops out of Iraq by 2010.
Media to Americans: In one deft move, the Messiah has convinced Iraqis of the wisdom of his plan to withdraw from Iraq as he's been saying since 2003. We breathlessly await the Messiah's further amazing diplomatic successes as he moves through other areas with seemingly intractable problems. He has told the Iranian mullahs that he, yes Barack Hussein Obama, is the 12th Caliphate they have been waiting for. More on this after we wash the Messiah's feet after his long day turning water into wine and...
Despite the flowery verbose
July 22, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Cureboy675Despite the flowery verbose language. It sounds pretty accurate description of what happened.
After all it is Maliki's country...
Sorry - can't keep up - head still spinning
July 22, 2008 - 11:38 ET by KC MulvilleWasn't Mailiki the same guy that the Democrats excoriated as a failure just a few months ago? Boy that tune changed quickly, didn't it?
Mailiki's future failure
July 22, 2008 - 14:06 ET by needle“Wasn't Mailiki the same guy that the Democrats excoriated as a failure just a few months ago?”
At this point I think that we should all be concerned that Mailiki has just set up a timetable for his failure in the future.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
I trust Petraeus
July 22, 2008 - 14:23 ET by KC MulvilleYou know, there are good reasons why Petraeus isn't quite ready to hand over everything to the existing Iraqi government. When you hear that Petraeus, Crocker, and (last weekend) Admiral Mullen are not so quick to declare victory and leave - you wonder why? Probably because this whole thing could turn ugly, quickly, without more American guidance and patience.
Maliki, for whatever reason, was awfully quick to bite the hand that fed him. That doesn't make for long term stability.
you hear that Petraeus,
July 22, 2008 - 14:54 ET by Dan The Man 2you hear that Petraeus, Crocker, and (last weekend) Admiral Mullen are not so quick to declare victory and leave - you wonder why - Because the hunger for power and the oil in Iraq. Thye don't really want to leave because if they do then they lose power. Petreaus is hoping to be President one day and cant fdo that is Obama is elected El Presidete for life. I have been experimenting with various colors of tin foils and find that pink works teh best and was wearing a new pink model when I was tuning to the all Cindy channel all teh time.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
timetable
July 22, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Mulligan22So I guess if w'ed have done what Mr. Obama wanted in the first place we would have surrendered and left in 2006. Somehow I doubt he would be able to have taken this trip in that case.
well, actually, '...if w'ed
July 22, 2008 - 17:57 ET by crsheddwell, actually, '...if w'ed have done what mr. obama wanted in the first place...' we wouldn't have been in iraq to begin with.
Let's see, if I'm not
July 22, 2008 - 11:56 ET by athoughtor2Let's see, if I'm not mistaken just about everyone has said we will draw down our troops as our commanders on the ground see fit. Well except until recently BHO that is. He has even started to say as the conditions dictate. He is saying it so much, that he actually thinks that it was part of his original plan.
As President Bush has said we would leave the country if and when the Iraqies say to get out. I'm not on top of the news 24/7 but I do not recall ever seeing that sort of declaration from Maliki.
We all would like to be out of the country yesterday, but....Even the MSN's new BFF Maliki said as conditions improve we can see troop drawdowns and the Iraqi's can start defending themselves more and more. We do not want to loose what we have gained by pulling troops out pre-maturely.
Once again this is the media at work trying to make BHO seem like he has a cohesive startegy. And that startegy was cutting edge. They are trying to spin it like it's some major breakthrough in policy. Pres. Bush and others have said all along we will let the commanders make the decisions on troop strength.
CB's right, he is a troll!
July 22, 2008 - 12:09 ET by IamTinmanWhen are the left going to learn simple english. McCain has said time and time again that we are going to stay until the country is secure. That could be in two years or longer, but no military campaign has ever had a definate end date and it would be the height of stupidity to set one.
Like any other hack politician Barack is trying to take credit for something he was opposed to. It's not only tacky, it's offensive to the men and women who have been fighting to make the country secure enough that he would dare to show his face.
Yeah. But even Maliki
July 22, 2008 - 12:16 ET by Cureboy675Yeah. But even Maliki wants a definite end date now. So, following your logic, the Prime Minister of Iraq himself has also reached the height of stupidity.
Why is it troll-worthy to point out that John McCain's position isn't even the one shared by the people of Iraq who run the damn country?
Really, when is that end
July 22, 2008 - 13:34 ET by athoughtor2Really, when is that end date? Sept 30th 2010? June 28 2009? May 1 2011?
What is that end date based on?
Is this the end date you are refering to?
SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.
Still don't see an end date mentioned in there. And of course there is the covenant about positive developements. But other than that I guess we are out in 16 motnhs. Oh and it doesn't sound like all of our troops either. But...
'
The point is "But even
July 22, 2008 - 12:26 ET by buddycThe point is "But even Maliki wants a definite end date now" that the definite end date is possible only because of policies that liberals have opposed for the last 2 years. Conditions have changed and improved. Maliki didn't want a specific end date of 16 months 2 years ago and he doesn't want such a date now but he wants an end date because of changed conditions.
Hey. All McCain has to do
July 22, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Cureboy675Hey. All McCain has to do is also say the situation and his opinion on the whole matter has changed and I'll drop the whole thing. The last I heard, he was still dodgy about trying to have any kind of timetable for withdrawl. And he seems to be the only one. Even the President has his "Time Horizon" whatever that means.
CB, his response has been
July 22, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Dan The Man 2CB, his response has been always the same. We will leave when teh job is done or the government makes a formal request for us to leave. What part of that do you not understand? In the same interview where he said we will stay for 100 years if need be he clarified his position.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Where is it that Maliki
July 22, 2008 - 13:11 ET by athoughtor2Where is it that Maliki sets an end date? That's very sporting of you to drop it. You do not back up your statments people call you on it and now you want to drop it. McCain, not a big fan, has said quite clearly that conditions on the ground and commanders will determine troop withdrawls.
Time horizons would be guidelines for possible draw downs. Please don't be so blinded by BDS that you can't figure that out.
Hey cureboy, when is the next time you are leaving your house without your alarm on? care to tell us, so we can tell the bad guys to just hang out and wait. Might you be able to pick up on the analogy?
My bad. You want me to
July 22, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Cureboy675My bad. You want me to say End Year? The man said 2010.
I have it on very good authority that in the year 2010, the last day of the year will be on December 31. I am assuming Maliki knows that as well. And I'm assuming he was consciously aware of that knowledge when he said 2010.
So how about December 31, 2010? Does that resolve your coronary?
No coronary. Just asking you
July 22, 2008 - 14:16 ET by athoughtor2No coronary. Just asking you to back up your previous statement about Maliki having an end date. I have done some research and have not come across Maliki stating he has an end date. it looks like he has a "time horizon" that he seems to be comfrtable with, but it's far from locked in cememt.
OK. Well, just FYI:
July 22, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Cureboy675OK. Well, just FYI: 2010 is not open-ended. It will have a conclusion.
Its not much of a stretch to assume that if Maliki wants troops out in 2010, then he would want them gone by the time the calendar reads December 31, 2010.
I didn't need research for that. Just a calendar.
Where has he stated out by
July 22, 2008 - 14:23 ET by athoughtor2Where has he stated out by end of 2010? sounds like he would be comfortable with that date, but will base it on conditions...that is a time horizon
The fact that he stated it
July 22, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Cureboy675The fact that he stated it is the whole point of this thread!!
Do you want to read for yourself?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/22/obama.mideast/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh on Monday said the government's "vision" is that most U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 2010. Asked whether that stance is part of the current negotiations, al-Dabbagh said, "No. This is the Iraqi vision."
------------------------------------------------------------------
"By 2010". Are you really going to argue that "By 2010" isn't the same thing as "by the end of 2010" ?
he stated that he 'hopes"
July 22, 2008 - 14:42 ET by athoughtor2he stated that he 'hopes" they will be out. no concrete end date! he also states that it will be based on conditions on the ground. he also realizes that the iraqies need to do more to help reach that goal.
I hope they are out tomorrow.
BHO is back peddling from his original plan...b/c the surge has worked. he is now grabbing for "as conditions dictate,"which the administration and McCain have said all along.
why is the left so obsessed
July 22, 2008 - 14:46 ET by TruthMongerwhy is the left so obsessed about leaving Iraq?
we have about 700 bases around the world don't we?
b/c somehow regardless of
July 22, 2008 - 14:49 ET by athoughtor2b/c somehow regardless of the outcome, they will say it's a Bush failure. B/c they also will say that they finally got their way and we left.
If I say leave for 15 years straight and you finally leave, i will have finally been right. Regardless that it took me 14 yrs to do so
I want a permanent
July 22, 2008 - 15:04 ET by TruthMongerI want a permanent SERIES of bases in Iraq - Naval and Marine in Basra, Army and Air Force outside baghdad - out of 700 or so around the world we can move a couple there if we have to save the $$$...
We should have B1's, F16's and recon/surveillence platforms patrolling the ME on a daily basis - hell they fly about 30 or so F16's out of Luke AFB Phoenix all over the desert every day and maybe 20 damn B52's out of Barksdale Lousiana every day to the artic circle and back - we sure as hell can patrol the damn ME with 5 or 10 planes...
We'd buy a ton of fuel from the locals to keep them happy, Isreal would love it, and we could crop dust amad in a dinner jacket's palace every day as a friendly neighborhood jesture...
I rest my case. "hopes" =
July 22, 2008 - 17:34 ET by buddycI rest my case. "hopes" = shall and "most" = all.
To a liberal "time horizon"
July 22, 2008 - 17:33 ET by buddycTo a liberal "time horizon" = "time certian" = "end date" = "Obama was right" and "Maliki agrees with him".
That is liberal logic at its best.
Here is another:
it is warmer in New York that last few years= the worlds temp has change= the world is warming= the ice caps are melting everywhere on earth (and on Mars)=carbon generated energy is the cause of this world wide warming=man is the cause of world global warming.
That is how a liberal mind works. Logic, facts analysis is not their strong point.
OK. Please explain the
July 22, 2008 - 17:44 ET by Cureboy675OK. Please explain the difference to me. How does "time horizon" not mean that we are setting up a phased plan to get our troops out?
And please show me the source that says Maliki has refuted Obama's implication that they share the same view about the future of American troops in Iraq?
Iraq’s Prime Minister
July 23, 2008 - 06:46 ET by athoughtor2Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has not endorsed any specific timeframe for possible U.S. troops withdrawals, a government spokesman said Sunday.
The statement by Ali al-Dabbagh came after an article was published by Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine which quoted al-Maliki as favoring the 16-month withdrawal window proposed by Barack Obama.
The article quoted al-Maliki as saying “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”
Al-Dabbagh said al-Maliki’s views were “misunderstood and mistranslated” by Der Spiegel and that the prime minister backs a general vision of pulling out U.S. combat forces based on talks with Washington “and in the light of the continuing positive developments on the ground.”
Al-Dabbagh said statements by al-Maliki or any members of the Iraqi government “should not be understood as support to any U.S. presidential candidates.”
there are plans for a withdrawl, but nothing is written in concrete. once again the conditions on the ground will dictate. i'm sure you have future plans that you would like to implement, but there is a rough time line for you to do that. you m ight be planning on getting an mba. that could be completed in 2 yrs. however, something happens and that completetion is pushed back by 6 months.
For your edification CB,
July 22, 2008 - 13:08 ET by IamTinmanI must have been on vacation when Maliki called the white house and demanded that we get out.
Only when Obama said "Hey Mal, what do you think about a pullout in, say, 2010 or so" did Maliki respond with "Yeah, that sounds okay". If he'd have said 2012 or 2015 the answer would have likely been the same.
It's a win-win for Maliki. If Obama wins he has his good buddy Maliki to thank and if McCain wins, it's back to the status quo and Maliki still has the support of the US Army.
The US presidency isn't the only job up for grabs. Maliki's got an election coming up and he will likely say whatever is going to get him elected as well. You can bet that he won't want the troops to leave until he can be assured of having a secure country to lead.
Yikes. The situation in
July 22, 2008 - 14:14 ET by Cureboy675Yikes. The situation in Iraq is much much worse than I ever could have dreamed. Apparently their Prime Minister doesn't even have a mind of his own and can be persuaded at will by whoever comes waltzing in with an appointment.
You also make an excellent point. If Maliki is simply saying this to gain the support of Iraqis, then it stands to reason that most Iraqis want Americans out too? Wasn't that kind of the point of the whole war? For them to have their own democracy and make their own decisions?
you were right when you
July 22, 2008 - 18:10 ET by crsheddyou were right when you said '...it stands to reason that most Iraqis want Americans out...'
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=brme
also, back in may, a majority of the iraqi parliament signed a petition calling for troop withdrawl
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/
but the conservatives on this site are right. the iraqis have not said the magic word or performed the super secret handshake, so all this is moot.
Triangulation???
July 22, 2008 - 12:11 ET by VT Con ManThis seems eerily familiar to clintonian times. So, Obama, who has faught for an immediate surrender at all costs and has said the surge will not work, has now become the all knowing administrator of the war, according to these media idiots.
Specifically, he was AGAINST the surge. Now the surge has been successful, so Obama is right?!?!?
Very odd. And typical of the fawning dinks in the media.
It's even worse than that
July 22, 2008 - 14:15 ET by mbuelThey are now saying:
* That McCain is copying Obama's position on Afghanistan (that we need to send more troops over there.)
* That Bush is coming closer to Obama's position. (When he RE-ASSERTED that he'd like to start pulling SOME troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to get that nation under control)
Both of these are false. McCain pushed for the surge. The surge worked, and now somehow Obama is getting the credit for it?
This is a typical liberal
July 22, 2008 - 12:21 ET by buddycThis is a typical liberal argument. Here it is best case to liberals:
2-3 years ago liberals started demanding immediate withdrawl or in the alternative a timetable. Obama pushes this indicating he supports an immediate withdrawal and the Iraq war a failure.
1 year ago Bush endorses the surge. Liberals and Obama claim it is a wrong move, the war is lost and Bush a failure. Obama claims it will "make things worse" and Obam pushes for immediate withdrawal.
Now, the surge has worked. Terrorism is way down. Violence and deaths are way down. Iraqi forces seem to have made signficant improvement.
One, anyone with a brain, would congragulate Bush etc for making the right decisions and believe that with success comes withdrawal BECAUSE OF THE CHANGED CONDITIONS. Obama and the liberals continue to push for immediate withdrawl claiming that now everone finally agrees with them. They fail to mention that the withdrawal possibility is a result of policies they opposed for the last 2 years when conditions were bad and withdrawal would confirm our defeat. Only in a country where the press is not free and independent would the liberals get away with this deeply flaw and innacurate argument.
T
civil war
July 22, 2008 - 14:11 ET by mbuelyea... remember the media was calling it a civil war. Even the dope Michael Savage was saying the same thing. That the "Only way to save Iraq is to split it into three nations."
Now the Idea that McCain pushed for in 2004, and Bush grasped onto in 2006 (and early 07) is working, and working SO DAMN well, that Maliki is wondering when we are going to start pulling out!
Look at the amazing spin that the media is HELPING Obama put on.
Is it any wonder this guy has a messiah complex? The media grasps onto every word he says without ANY criticism, no matter how ridiculous his propositions are.
The surge is working says, Obama? FEH HE! It's gospel now.
But to appease his far lefties, he still wouldn't have voted for it, before he was for it.
How do these mind numb idiots keep getting elected?
The answer is clear. We (the conservative movement) are losing the media war. look at the recent poll, 49% of Americans think the media is being biased towards Obama.... ONLY FOURTY-NINE percent of Americans can finally see through the media bias when they are pouring it in on so thick it's disgusting?
And what does that say for the FIFTY-ONE percent who can't see through it?????
Look at the language they use.
July 22, 2008 - 12:38 ET by SchnikeysParticularly, notice their usage of words like "productive" and "achieve" to describe the Obama campaign, and the negative- SUBTLE, but negative- tone they take with anything remotely right-wing (example, emphasis mine: "somewhat surprising, disconcerting and embarrassing to the Bush administration.")
The bolded emphasis was placed because "somewhat" is a word with ambiguous meaning, used to save the reporter from accusations of bias. It could mean "very" or "a little", but neither is specified. Meanwhile, all the viewer remembers is the usage of harsh descriptive words like "embarrassing" and their association with the right wing.
The italicized emphasis was placed, because I noticed how each of these words is ordered from being of least negative consequence to the Bush adminstration to being of most negative consequence to the administration. Of course, these words are all used in speculation. They could have also said "Or, the Bush administration might very well not give a crap what Maliki thinks. Also, President Bush might have had a pastrami sandwich for lunch. But there's no way we really know this for sure."
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Couric's interjection of opinion
July 22, 2008 - 12:51 ET by Joe ShlabotnikI'm wondering exactly who it is from the Bush Administration that Couric is quoting that stated they are surprised, disconcerted, and embarrassed. She neglected to mention.
That's another good
July 23, 2008 - 00:49 ET by SchnikeysThat's another good point.
Nice screen name, by the way. Particularly the last name. Good use of the consonants.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Not listening
July 22, 2008 - 13:24 ET by iconoclastThe MSM is conveniently not listening to John McCain. He has been saying all along that we'll leave when conditions on the ground permit it. I do believe that is the postion of the Iraqi government as well. In other words, if the ground condtions are in a secure and victorious state in 16 months, we'll leave. Obama is basically saying he wants to be out of there in 16 months. The conservative news media neeeds to pick up on this statement. McCain needs to exploit it. He needs to explain what Obama is saying vs. what he is saying. The big difference is, McCain isn't telling the enemy, "Hey guys, just hold back, we plan to be out of here in 16 months and once we're gone, you can raise hell" He's saying "We'll leave but only when we've kicked your butts. If that's in 16 months, great. If not, we continue on until you are eliminated." Now, who's more qualified to be Commander in Chief? One who's not willing to show his cards, or one who does?
Another good
July 23, 2008 - 00:53 ET by SchnikeysAnother good point.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
New to me
July 22, 2008 - 14:11 ET by americaneagleI have never heard the Iraqis clamoring for any definite withdrawal date and I still don't. It seems to me that al Maliki is just reiterating what he has said time and time again; he doesn't want a permanent American/Coalition military presence in Iraq, but he doesn't want to see the troops pulled out before Iraq is stable.
But I suppose that since he said it in the presence of "The Pope of Hope", it magically means something different than it has meant every other time he said the exact things!!!
I've come to the conclusion
July 22, 2008 - 14:48 ET by TruthMongerI've come to the conclusion that the left just needs stuff to bitch about - otherwise they don't have any conceivable relevance to the world
I agree
July 22, 2008 - 16:10 ET by mbuelLiberals love having something to complain about, that's the way the polls play out, with liberals typically having lower happiness ratings.
:)
haning themselves
July 22, 2008 - 14:57 ET by CatherwoodI wonder if all these media mavens realize that their adoration of Obama and their fawning political support of him isolate them more and more. Without the readership support and the viewer support of the conservatives they are dooming themselve. How can the msm exist and be viable businesses with only the support of half the available audience. We can already see the effects of this as more and more workers are laid off from major liberal newspapers and major liberal news outlets. Yet, they actively campaign for Obama and actively ignore John McCain. It's like saying to half of America that we don't need you and we certainly don't think like you. How long can the msm last with only support of the liberal left and without the support of so many very rich members of the conservative right. I think I and my conservative friends are good examples of what the msm has lost. Ten years ago we all watched the network news, read newspapers, had subscriptions to Time and Newsweek. Now none of us would even consider a subscription to local liberal newspapers and our subscriptions to Time and Newsweek ran out years ago. None of us EVER watch the network news. Several of us, for example, we discussing just the other night that we had yet to see Katie Couric on CBS. The msm sycophants like George Steph and Katie can bask and enjoy themselves all they want but they're not making as much money as they once did and they're losing viewers everyday. No, take that back, they are not losing viewers, they are alienating viewers with their own naive behavior.
Network News Ratings Plummet
July 22, 2008 - 15:37 ET by deerjerkydaveNetwork news ratings have seen a steady decline for many decades now. Some of these programs are now on life support. Going this hard for Obama may be like pulling their own plug.
The War in Iraq is Won
July 22, 2008 - 15:33 ET by deerjerkydaveThe Bush administration has been drawing down the troops since last year, and wants to draw down more troops this year. This is because we have won the war in Iraq. The liberal press is doing their best to rewrite history and state that Obama got us out of Iraq because it was a failure. The line we're getting from the media is that Maliki agrees with Obama, when in reality he agrees more with Bush since the Bush withdrawl plan is not unilateral.
lets bring the troops home, never to send them anywhere ever!!
July 22, 2008 - 18:55 ET by JIMMY1660allow me to love America
we can leave the middle east-tomorrow-guess whom the next tenant will be? how about or Chinese trading partners?
they have a great land mass, and no natural resources!! no nothing!!
we ship them, scrap whatever, they need it all.
after we leave, they TAKE the oil. who will stop them?
not us, we do not have the guts! Korea/Vietnam/Iraq ring the bell.
Chinese will kill all who get in there way. pretty simple. lets leave Iraq and see what happens.
Hey Obama whats to give all illegals health care, we can cut the military, and get some illegal free meds. oh what are they doing to my America.
Chest Bumping
July 22, 2008 - 20:15 ET by namronPrime Minister Maliki is just doing some political chest bumping. He is talking to his base. He knows that his people want us out of Iraq, he is not stupid. He doesn't want us out of there until the job is done, which it is not. But he did take the time to pump up his base and signal them that he working toward their sovereignty. Unfortunately the same way most of us don't understands Iraqi politics, he not understanding American politics. Giving a tool like Barry any opportunity to spin is a huge mistake. As eL-Rushbo would say his 300 press sectaries hard at work for him.
I really didn't think I
July 22, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Free StinkerI really didn't think I would see the MSM actively campaigning for a presidential candidate in my lifetime.
These so called "news" organizations have become sad jokes.
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
Since Katie has so much
July 22, 2008 - 21:46 ET by cocodrieSince Katie has so much love and admiration for Barack Hussein maybe they should go off and enjoy a good cigar together.