On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez discussed Barack Obama’s foreign policy goals with foreign correspondent Lara Logan and asked about Logan’s July interview with the president-elect: "...he said many times during the campaign, that Afghanistan, and not Iraq, needs to be our central focus in this war on terrorism. And this morning in the Washington Post we're seeing that's he's already tackling strategies in Afghanistan. What do you think? How important will this be for him?" Logan replied: "Well, there's no question that Afghanistan is a very pressing and immediate problem because the gains the U.S. made during the invasion seven years ago have been slipping away more...You really cannot separate Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama understands that, that's one of key things that he said to me."
Later, Rodriguez asked about Obama’s policy towards Iran: "...what I thought was interesting in this article in the Washington Post, is that President-elect Obama is reportedly considering talks with Iran as part of this new Afghanistan strategy. Do you think the two will go hand in hand?" Logan followed Obama talking points: "Well, he said from the beginning he has no problem sitting down with Iran if it is in the United States’ best interest, because he believes that dialogue is important...it's absolutely critical that the United States reaches some kind of understanding. They've been losing ground to Iran inside Iraq since the invasion of Iraq and that is really a very, very serious problem that has not been dealt with to date."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:04AM SEGMENT:
RODRIGUEZ: With so many pressing issues here at home, will President-elect Obama make foreign policy challenges a priority? Joining us to discuss some of those issues is CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan, who back in July, we remember, sat with President-elect Obama in Afghanistan, for his first overseas interview. And I remember, Lara, back then, that he told you, as he said many times during the campaign, that Afghanistan, and not Iraq, needs to be our central focus in this war on terrorism. And this morning in the Washington Post we're seeing that's he's already tackling strategies in Afghanistan. What do you think? How important will this be for him?
LARA LOGAN: Well, there's no question that Afghanistan is a very pressing and immediate problem because the gains the U.S. made during the invasion seven years ago have been slipping away more and more each year, and part of that problem is Pakistan. You really cannot separate Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama understands that, that's one of key things that he said to me. And one of the mistakes that the U.S. has made in it's foreign policy is trying to deal separately with Afghanistan, Pakistan. You know, I pose this question to every commanding general there, every single year, how do you win an insurgency when you have no access to its base, and its command and control, and its resupply, it's financing, its weapons, et cetera, et cetera, which is all over the border in Pakistan. And what is really critical here is Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It has more known terrorists than any other country on the face of the Earth. It's in a very fragile political and economic state right now. And Obama knows that, that is really a ticking time bomb. He has to deal with that, and deal with it effectively, or we really face problems in that region.
RODRIGUEZ: Lara, in the last 30 seconds, what I thought was interesting in this article in the Washington Post, is that President-elect Obama is reportedly considering talks with Iran as part of this new Afghanistan strategy. Do you think the two will go hand in hand?
LOGAN: Well, he said from the beginning he has no problem sitting down with Iran if it is in the United States' best interest, because he believes that dialogue is important. Iran, right now, has Iraq and Afghanistan on its eastern and western borders. Both efforts where the U.S. has troops on the ground and they do not want to see this happen. And this is not just about Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran in isolation. It's about the entire region and it's absolutely critical that the United States reaches some kind of understanding. They've been losing ground to Iran inside Iraq since the invasion of Iraq and that is really a very, very serious problem that has not been dealt with to date.
RODRIGUEZ: CBS's Lara Logan, thank you so much for joining us this morning.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ya think Bush doesn't strategize on Afghanistan?
November 11, 2008 - 12:54 ET by Gary HallMy goodness. What forsight - what grasp of foreign affairs He must have? How blessed we are that He is.
Well, gee whiz. It probably just never crossed their little shallow biased minds, that President Bush meets with his national security and military strategists in his daily diligent effort in tackling strategies in Afghanistan. (;~/ gary
I wonder what is going to
November 11, 2008 - 12:58 ET by TD in FLI wonder what is going to happen when Obama quickly shifts the troops from Iraq over to Afghanistan? I seem to recall that some Iraqi officials wanted most US troops out sometime in 2010. To me that indicates the passing of the torch is not quite ready to happen. I am worried that this strategy will leave a window open to the insurgents, who are now weak in numbers and morale, to strike during a hastened transition. The last thing we want is for chaos to ensue yet again in Iraq; diminishing the value of the sacrifice of our soldiers. While none of us truly know the long-term outlook for Iraq, if we can get a least a relatively peaceful couple of decades out of the country, many in the world would benefit.
This is big picture thinking, which seems to escape Obama's grasp often. I can foresee Obama making it his personal mission to catch bin Laden, not to give closure to our country, but to spite the Bush administration. Even if I am off base on his reasoning, Obama needs to understand the importance a stable Iraq lends to creating a stable region. You can win the battle (catch bin Laden), but still lose the war if you are too short-sighted and one-track focused. Of course, if Iraq does indeed fall back into a state of chaos, Obami can just blame the Bush admin for not securing the country properly in the first place. The MSM would be complicit in this. Must be nice to have a whole stack of "Get-out-of-jail Free" cards.
In terms of Logan regurgitating Obama's talking points, did we expect otherwise?
Like I'm sure these two
November 11, 2008 - 13:01 ET by R D HelmLike I'm sure these two bimbets know what Barry-O's foreign policy actually is in the first place.
Hell, I don't even really know what it actually is, other than the usual dem MO of appeasement, retreat and surrender.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
That idiot Logan
November 11, 2008 - 13:11 ET by UnsaneDave, in my four months deployed I saw ONE reporter. That was during the VP visit we got.
And did Martha Raddatz of ABC report on the Bronze Star recipients the VP honored there? Nah. The only thing she was there to do was to find military personnel who couldn't WAIT to vote for the Shahinshah.
So I hope the NB readership can forgive me if I say that the stupid b$!#h Logan doesn't know what the f$#k she is talking about. She was too busy...entertaining...in Baghdad to do any sort of investigating about what was REALLY going on in Iraq.
There is a reason why when I got back from the deployment, I requested three things: 1) don't wake me early, 2) do not slam doors, 3) no, I will not be watching the news with ANYBODY.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
I guess Chris Matthews was
November 11, 2008 - 14:42 ET by motherbeltI guess Chris Matthews was more right than even he knew.
Apparently it's the job of all of them to make sure Obama's Presidency is a success!!
Didn't Joe Biden say during
November 11, 2008 - 13:12 ET by dscottDidn't Joe Biden say during the VP debates that the surge wouldn't work in Afghanistan (he missed quoted a general)? btw- Joe Biden's the man Obama picked to fill out his lack of foreign policy experience. Afghanistan will not become the central front, Obama doesn't believe in the surge either so why would anyone believe as Commander in Chief would commit more troops to do the job when he already dismissed the idea? NOT! He will negotiate a fragile peace with the Taliban, with winks and nods, declare victory and then when Afghanistan plunges into civil war, say there is no room for America in this fight. It will be Vietnam all over again.
Obama is planning to demobilize the military in a significant manner to have money for his National Civilian Security Force. There will be no military option save for pin prick actions to demonstrate how feckless America can be just like with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Iraq v Afganistan
November 11, 2008 - 13:36 ET by DirjjObama and the media are such idiots, and I'm not shocked that the media doesn't explain why Afghanistan has suddenly become more violent. It's because all the "Scum" from Iraq has fled back to Afghanistan, and all the scum that had planned on going to Iraq, have replanned their vacations to the Afghanistan theatre.
That's it in a nutshell.
ab
Dead on Dscott
November 11, 2008 - 14:43 ET by IamTinmanJoe Bidens expertise in foreign affairs was why Barack claimed he chose him, yet the first major international activity is a surge that Obamas "expert" claims won't work! Now you know what the Messiah thinks you're worth, Joe.
I haven't figured out yet what will be Baracks Test that Biden talked about but I'm guessing that cutting and running in Iraq will be first soon followed by doing the same in Afghanistan and claiming a twofur. As a vietnam vet this seems all too familiar and sad.
Sadder still is the larger war we will fight when we have to go back to those countries.
I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Thomas Jefferson
Real Afghanistan Assessment
November 11, 2008 - 16:37 ET by Lame CherryLook cut the crap here, Logan wouldn't know foreign policy or tactics, because this adulterous tramp thinks with her legs open as her policy on foreign soil.
Obama has one policy and that is to follow Zbigniew Brzezinski's disruption of China.
For the facts on Afghanistan, America cleaned that cesspool out completely.
America then left it to the British, the same British who had southern Iraq and almost lost that hole area by being inept.
The Germans once said in 1940, "The worst of two worlds, British generals and American soldiers".
American soldiers are the best now thank God, but British military leadership is so bad they issue white flags for surrender and not tea.
The Brits had control over Afghanistan and couldn't contain 800 lunatics who were coming out of the Pashtun. These idiots ran this area of the world for 100 years, know every pass and they still couldn't do a thing no more than in Iraq.
There was a time in Afghanistan that British soldiers would demand that British RAF not fly missions because the BOMBED BRITISH FORCES as much as terrorists.
These British suck the hind tit period!
America took back operational control of Afghanistan a few months ago as Gordon Brown slummed around being a bigger political whore than Lara Logan.
When America cleaned up Iraq, the terrorists went back to the Pashtun and regrouped as I stated they would. I was surprised that Pan Arabia has been this quiet which means most terrorists are dead in Africa. This is a plus for Bush policy.
So America now faces a mob of grubby Islamocommunists in the Pashtun which are nothing.
I might lay out a policy on my blog in how to deal with this situation as it would be easy and cheaper than what is going on now and a whole lot better than what Obama has planned.
OK, we know bin Laden has stated he is going to make a mass murder hit on America.
Where is Obama focusing? Yes Pakistan in the Pashtun.
So where is Obama going to strike? Not Iran which is the logistical backing of the attack, not China which is the transportation, not Russia which is providing intelligence, but Pakistan.
When America or Obamerica has 100 thousand to several million dead voters from an al Qaeda blamed attack, Obama can invade Pakistan, but that is not the mahdi wonders choice even if he hates the military.
Obama has stated he will nuke the area which will pollute by radiation poisoning the Pashtun problem.
That dust cloud is either going to Russia or China. I believe they will wait for a Chinese wind storm and then all that radiation from cobalt bombs (one uses cobalt and plutonium for lethal perpetual killing) will fall on China and cause it to implode.
Imploding China in a short time will then explode in an invasion of west Asia.
Oh and Lara Logan, stock up on baby milk supplies as you and your liberal whorish ways are going to have Obama nuclear dust clouds with al Qaeda blamed radioactive dust clouds with the warning: Do not breast feed your babies liberal mothers as your milk is radioactive contaminated like a great deal of the milk in America and Asia.
Ain't foreign policy wonderful with mahdi Obama in charge and ain't it informative when it isn't being asked by a Hispanic tramp and English tart answering so you get the real answers.
It certainly is not the most sympathetic, but as world communism which Obama is in bed with is going to mass murder United States citizens, it would be fitting if the Obama voters who created this disaster are the ones who are dead and watching their Letterman cocktail crowd children die of radiation poisoning and later cancers than the people who saw what was coming.
Let the innocent be saved in God's Grace and those who brought nuclear diplomacy to America's death be the ones glowing in the night.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS