NBC's Guthrie to McCain: Do You Retract Foreign Policy Criticism of Obama?
Updated [11:34 ET]: More analysis and full transcript added. Guthrie takes swipe at GOP 2012 field.
On Friday's NBC Today, fill-in co-host Savannah Guthrie grilled Arizona Senator John McCain on his criticism of Barack Obama's foreign policy positions in the 2008 campaign and urged: "Bin Laden is gone. Anwar al Awlaki, who was the rising star in al Qaeda, is gone. Qadhafi is gone. Drone strikes have intensified greatly....Given the track record now in office, would you change your opinion, sir?" [Audio available here]
Prior to that, Guthrie pressed McCain on his early criticism of Obama's handling of Libya: "You were an early supporter of U.S. intervention in Libya, and yet, you harshly criticized the President for how he went about it. At this moment, given that Qadhafi is gone, are you willing to give the President credit, unqualified credit, for how he handled this?" [View video after the jump]
Update:
In response to Guthrie's push for him to retract some of his criticism, McCain explained:
The fact is that we're leaving Iraq and Iran's number one priority is all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Every military leader has said the President's plan for withdrawal is a greater risk. There is perception around the world that the United States is weakening and withdrawing. So, I would say that the report card is incomplete. But I do give them credit for some of their significant successes, but there is certainly, as far as Iraq and Afghanistan is concerned, I think I'm very worried.
In her final question to McCain, Guthrie jabbed at the field of Republican presidential candidates: "Here you have President Obama who's politically vulnerable to not winning re-election, even he has acknowledged it. When you looked at that stage, are you confident that the Republican Party's best and brightest are running for president right now?"
McCain declared: "I'm totally confident that the Republican Party's best and brightest are running for president right now..." Referring to himself, he joked: "...maybe with one exception, but he lost."
Here is a full transcript of the October 21 segment:
7:06AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Arizona Republican Senator John McCain was a vocal and early supporter of U.S. intervention in Libya. He visited with Qadhafi two years ago, and just last month traveled to Libya to meet rebel leaders. Senator McCain, good morning, thank you for being with us.
JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning, Savannah.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: McCain One-on-One; Is Death of Khaddafy a Victory for U.S. & Obama?]
GUTHRIE: As we just saw, the scenes of Qadhafi's final moments are quite graphic. He was shot from a convoy, pulled out of a drainage ditch, beaten by a mob and then shot multiple times. One rebel leader was quoted as saying, "We were serious about a fair trial but God had other plans." Do you think Qadhafi got what he deserved or should there have been a trial?
MCCAIN: Well, I much rather would have preferred to see him in an international criminal court for the crimes that he's committed for all the world to see. Obviously, that's not going to happen. I do believe that it's important as the Libyan government, the Transition National Council announced that they would treat his body with respect. I think that's important, but it would have been much better if we had hauled him before the International Criminal Court to be held accountable for his crimes.
GUTHRIE: And of course, now these rebel leaders are in charge of Libya's future. Do you have confidence that they will be able to stand up a responsible government and that this won't dissolve into a lawless state where terrorist elements now within Libya could rise to power?
MCCAIN: I have great confidence in the leadership of the Transition National Council, but there are a lot of things that we could do. The first thing we can do, Savannah, is to provide medical help for their 30,000 wounded. They don't have the capabilities to treat these wounded people, and I'd love to see our hospital ship there, fly some of these wounded to our military hospital in Germany, we can help them there.
The second thing is, they've got a bunch of militias running around. They have to be integrated into a national army. As you know, there are all kinds of weapons spread all over. They've got to get those secured. And finally, we really do need to help them build a democracy in a country that's never known it, and we can do that.
GUTHRIE: You were an early supporter of U.S. intervention in Libya, and yet, you harshly criticized the President for how he went about it. At this moment, given that Qadhafi is gone, are you willing to give the President credit, unqualified credit, for how he handled this?
MCCAIN: Well, I give the President and the administration credit. The fact is that we could have ended this conflict a lot earlier if we had used the full weight of U.S air power instead of leading from behind and we wouldn't have the 30,000 wounded and thousands – hundreds, if not thousands – who were killed. I especially appreciate the leadership of the British, the French, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, who played a key role in making this happen. But I certainly give the administration credit, but it could have ended a lot sooner.
GUTHRIE: Take a step back. I mean, you look at the President's term. Bin Laden is gone. Anwar al Awlaki, who was the rising star in al Qaeda, is gone. Qadhafi is gone. Drone strikes have intensified greatly. I remember during the 2008 campaign you saying of the President that he was, "naive," and that, "the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe." Given the track record now in office, would you change your opinion, sir?
MCCAIN: Well, look, Savannah, the fact is that they've done some very good things. The fact is that we're leaving Iraq and Iran's number one priority is all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Every military leader has said the President's plan for withdrawal is a greater risk. There is perception around the world that the United States is weakening and withdrawing. So, I would say that the report card is incomplete. But I do give them credit for some of their significant successes, but there is certainly, as far as Iraq and Afghanistan is concerned, I think I'm very worried.
GUTHRIE: At the same time, many Republican presidential campaigns have actually taken the position that there shouldn't have been intervention in Libya, they want to see a faster exit from Afghanistan. And I know you watched the debate the other night. Here you have President Obama who's politically vulnerable to not winning re-election, even he has acknowledged it. When you looked at that stage, are you confident that the Republican Party's best and brightest are running for president right now?
MCCAIN: I'm totally confident that the Republican Party's best and brightest are running for president right now, maybe with one exception, but he lost.
[LAUGHTER]
GUTHRIE: Okay. Care to name names?
MCCAIN: Oh, no, we – I wouldn't want to do that.
GUTHRIE: Okay, Senator John McCain, it's good to have you here. Thank you, sir.
MCCAIN: Thanks, savannah.
GUTHRIE: It is now 7:10 and here's Matt.
MATT LAUER: I think we can connect the dots there.
GUTHRIE: Yeah.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
But she'll never ask Obama if
Submitted by kareling on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:08am.
But she'll never ask Obama if he'd retract his opinion of the Iraq surge he opposed.
What a question.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:27am.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, she asks if McCain is going to give credit on HOW he handled it. The answer should be NO, he should not be given credit because of the way he handled it. The ends do NOT and WILL NOT justify the means.
-Jon
jon_trolin, Well said! AND
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:34am.
jon_trolin,
Well said!
AND if it was Bush in office the Left would be talking about how Bush murdered Gaddafi insteado f giving him a trial.
Also, as I was reading a report from a general, he said that when the Gaddafi's convoy was attacked....NATO was clueless that it was Gaddafi's convoy.
But again, I have to ask, where are the Left wingers, the Liberals, the Democrats who demanded, while Bush was in office, that all should be given a fair trial? Many on the Left were outraged when Hussein was hanged in Iraq. Are they equally outraged now that Gaddafi was killed under Obama? I know, rhetorical questions, but the Left wing hypocrisy for the mere purpose of gaining power would be laughable if it wasn't for the Left ideology being so dangerous.
twisted ideas of justice
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:18pm.
It's real telling when you see how justice would be pursued versus outright animalistic killing. As you said, people were outraged at Hussein getting hanged even though he was tried and convicted, but bin Laden and Kadaffi getting killed on the spot, they rejoice over that. That's some seriously twisted ideas of justice and really speaks of the animalistic nature of the libs in this country who approve of that.
This is a bunch of people who hate to consider consequences of actions, saying it's dangerous is just a big understatement. With the actions that have occurred, things are far more dangerous than ever before.
And where are the calls from the Nobel Peace Prize committee? As I recall, the prize was for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between the peoples." What pray tell are those "peoples?" And if everything that's happening was strengthening international diplomacy, hm, that's at the point of a gun, or in this case, predator drones? Methinks the Nobel Committee either spoke too soon or just don't really care as long as it's a Democrat or at least a Marxist type of person. After all, they gave it to at least two well known terrorist leaders, Yasser Arafat and Nelson Mandela. A pox on that group.
-Jon
summery executions?
Submitted by Injest on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:28am.
So Savannah I take it your four square behind summery executions?
The American Media are such
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:29am.
The American Media are such Obamabots! So, hmmm...does anyone remember a MSMer asking a critic of Bush's foreign policy if they would retract their criticism of Bush's foreign policy when Saddam Hussein was captured?
and Obama's foreign policy is so good that thanks to Obama Iranian kids have been murdered by the Iranian regime. Iranian kids are rottening in Iranian jails and tortured day in and out.
Egyptian Coptic Christians are being mass slaughtered. And what does Obama do? Applaud the so called Arab Spring.
Obama's foreign policy supported and aided a "wanna be" dictator in Honduras.
Can an Obama supporter please explain to me why Obama stayed quiet about the college kids who were begging him to stand with them against the Iranian regime. Obama claimed that it was an internal situation, nothing to do with USA foreign affairs. Yet, when the Honduras president attempted to become a dictator and the supreme court and military of that nation stopped him from doing so with the support of the people, Obama and his administration did everything within their power to support the "wanna" be dictator?
I can guarantee you that in a year or less, Lybia will be a complete and utter mess.
If Bush were the one in office I can guarantee you how the MSM would be doing story after story of how the rebels are torturing black Africans, raping women, etc, etc. But since it is Obama in office, these stories do not have a place in the American media.
Much like the fall of the monster Mubarak is now tearing Egypt apart and causing horrific persecutions and mass slaughters by Muslims against Christians, the same thing will and in fact IS happening in Lybia. I guess this is what the MSM calls success.
Guthrie's a slut. Check out
Submitted by buddyc on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:29am.
Guthrie's a slut. Check out her bio. She probably fantacizes about a three way with the Barack and Michelle. I hear she has a thing for cigars.
BOB is becoming a very effective killer!!!
Submitted by scottyusmc on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:30am.
Our liberal media is happy as a clam to report the killing of a tyrant like this when he is killed by a Democrat...
If GW had simply had a "D" by his name instread of an "R" he would have been hailed as a hero.
The Liberal media has no moral clock or sense of decency - only the narrow mind of self-interest.
The double standard front and center
Submitted by Kuso Jiji on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:39am.
If it were a Republican president the entire left wing press would have been calling the POTUS a war criminal for (1) violating Pakistan's sovereignty going after Bin Landen, (2) assasinating an American citizen with a drone (3) violating the war powers act in Libya.
Its amazing what our military can do when its not restricted by cheap political posturing back home.
The irony is that it was Obama, Reid and Pelosi and their foot soilders in the Democratic Media Establishment which prolonged the wars in Iran and Afghanistan that got a lot of our sons and daughter killed and maimed.
Fuck you Savannah Guthrie you liberal piece of shit!!!!!
Where are the calls from the
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:04pm.
Where are the calls from the left accusing Obama of being a war criminal? Where's Amnesty Int'l calling for his arrest? The protests? Obama has not closed GTMO and has not ended the wars but expanded them. And now we're in Uganda!? They certainly have not attacked us ( to use a mindless left-wing litmus test).
Because in the end, it's not about war, it's WHO is conducting it. War is evil if a Republican is in charge. When a Dem like Obama is in charge, then all's quiet on the Western front. Besides, the left is encouraged that Obama's objectives are global Socialism and what appears to be an Islamic Empire that is certain to attack Israel.
guthrie
Submitted by east tennessee john on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:09pm.
Let's see, drone strikes and civilian deaths caused by them are the basis for the assholes wanting to have Bush tried as a war criminal. OK if someone has acted in such a way that those figures are now 4-5 times what Bush is beingscoriated for, does that person also deserve to be tried as a war criminal? It's simple logic savannah, should they be or shouldn't they be? Are you sure your name isn't Jane and Matt's Dan?
Sure, Savannah, we'll give
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 12:51pm.
Sure, Savannah, we'll give him credit. As soon as you and your cronies acknowledge that the reason Qadaffi didn't have dangerous WMD to use against the rebels, and possibly the West, was because he surrendered them upon watching the U.S. led invasion of Iraq.
Are you willing to give BUSH credit for that?????
You mean NATO, don't you?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 1:28pm.
"At this moment, given that Qadhafi is gone, are you willing to give the President credit, unqualified credit, for how he handled this?"
Ahh, excuse me, but Obama "handled " this by transferring full control to NATO. You do remember that, don't you? Shouldn't NATO get credit, the unqualified credit, for how THEY handled this? I'm willing to give Obama credit for starting a civil war in Libya, for unilaterally turning peaceful demonstrations into armed combat, if you think he deserves any credit at all. The rest of the credit goes to the rebels who did the fighting and to NATO who gave them air support. Obama forfeited credit when he forfeited control.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The brazen, partisan shamelessness of Savannah Guthrie -
Submitted by greggy on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:41pm.
yet another charter member of the Democrat-media-complex, whose "journalism" is completely indistinguishable from that of the White House press office.
"are you willing to give the President credit, unqualified credit, for how he handled this?"
Seriously? In Savannah's eyes, mere "credit" is insufficient, and ONLY "unqualified credit" will suffice. "Unqualified" credit (credit W/OUT qualification) means ALL of the following:
a) You cannot even mention that Obama's indecision, foot-dragging and belated action made the removal of Qadhafi that much more difficult, increased the cost of "rebel" lives, and increased the amount of destruction (which WE will pay to rebuild).
b) You cannot even mention that Obama was utterly indecisive and had to be dragged and forced into acting by Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the real actors in the American action.
c) You cannot even mention that it cost us over a billion dollars (so far), and that the American taxpayer is now on the hook for rebuilding and "nation building" costs for far more than that.
d) You cannot even mention that some of the "rebels" and their leaders, KILLED American troops in Iraq etc., that a significant number of them are hardline Islamists, and that we really don't know how this whole thing is going to turn out and won't know, for quite some time.
e) You cannot even mention that the leader of a foreign nation was captured ALIVE, was beaten, and then shot to death - without even the most perfunctory sham trial, in total flagrant violation of International Law and the Geneva Conventions and UN mandates. If Bush had been President, Savannah Guthrie and her ilk in the state-run media would be howling over the brutality and illegality of it. Since Obama's President, they love it.
f) You cannot even mention that members of the President's own party threatened to introduce articles of impeachment over the President's illegal handling of this - you cannot even mention that the President failed to properly consult with Congress, let alone obtain Congressional approval.
e) You cannot even mention that the rebels coordinated with us, served as an extension of American and NATO airpower, and that since they assassinated Qadafi, we might have any complicity in his assassination without trial.
f) You cannot even mention that Libya had not acted against or threatened the US or its vital interests in any way in many years.
You cannot mention ANY of these things to Savannah Guthrie, because Savannah Guthrie is a White House press flak masquerading as a so-called "journalist", and for Savannah Guthrie, only "unqualified" credit for the man she represents and advocates on behalf of, will suffice.
Savannah Guthrie, as a "journalist", let me state WITHOUT "qualification" that you are a failure -a shameless propagandist auditioning for a job in the WH press office.
Not bad!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:29pm.
Now that was an impressive summary, I like the way you put that together.
Very nicely put!
-Jon
Thanks
Submitted by greggy on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 11:31pm.
I'd like to see someone with connections and sufficient reputation, get Savannah on the phone to be interviewed and confronted with these facts. Laura Ingraham would do nicely. These people need to be held to account, the MRC and other parties of sufficient standing need to start calling them on the carpet for their demagoguery and shamelessness. It's good and it's helpful and necessary to run the story on Newsbusters, but these people need to be confronted - and I think I've provided a pretty good point for point outline for such a confrontation.
The head of the network's news department should also be similarly confronted.These people are destroying this country, and there is no limit to how disingenuous or partisan they are willing to be in order to serve their Democrat masters. A total disgrace to what journalism should be about..they're nothing more than propagandists.
I've certainly changed my opinion...
Submitted by krendler on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:43pm.
I'm even more impressed by the organizations, policies, and procedures established by Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, and Gates.
And I missed the calls for Reid and Obama to apologize
Submitted by krendler on Fri, 10/21/2011 - 3:46pm.
...for declaring the Iraq War was lost and the surge wouldn't and hadn't worked.
And remember Matthews screaming at his guest "THE SURGE DIDN'T WORK! THE SURGE DIDN'T WORK! THE SURGE DIDN'T WORK!"
Drone strikes have
Submitted by Injest on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 4:24am.
Drone strikes have intensified greatly.
Considering we didn't have a lot of armed drones (zero jun. 2001) its not impressive that with more armed drones there would be more drone attacks. Obama's use of drones is the same as Bushes. This is why the Bush admin bought so many drones after they were proven in combat.
Drone strikes have intensified greatly. Trying to make a point that Bush didn't use Drones that had not been built is a little stupid.
IT'S akin to criticizing Gen. Custers at the Battle of the Little Bighorn for not whipping out his cell horn and calling the nearest Air-force base and request close in air strike from an AC130 gunship!