Talk about damned-if-you-do . . .
On this morning's Today show, Matt Lauer discussed with Tim Russert the Middle East peace conference that began today. After years of MSM criticism of President Bush for not getting more involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, how does Lauer react when the president undertakes an historic initiative bringing together leaders of all the area's countries for the first time? You guessed it.
View video here.
MATT LAUER: What about the risks, Tim? Because doesn't history show us that when something like this, an event like this, a summit, comes up empty, doesn't the region become more volatile in the wake of that summit than it was even going into that summit?
Russert was happy to oblige.
TIM RUSSERT: That has happened in the past; you're absolutely right.
You'd think that, on today of all days, Matt might be modest about his powers of prognostication. As I pointed out here, it was exactly one year ago today that Matt and NBC formally declared to the situation in Iraq to be a "civil war." Unsuprisingly, in light of promising developments in Iraq, Today didn't see fit this morning to note the anniversary of its declaration.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I thought we needed more
November 27, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Free ThinkerI thought we needed more diplomacy. What did Matt suggest would be a better way to handle this? Did he say or just give a hit and run critique? I'm sure he thinks the US should send in troops to stop the aggressions of the Palestinian terrorists.
What do we do?
November 27, 2007 - 13:05 ET by kbworkmanCut and run of course.
Unbelieveable
November 27, 2007 - 13:11 ET by iveseenitallSometimes I just can't believe how obvious the "liberals" are. They got their marching orders today. Where I live, the local guy interviewed Sam Donaldson who bashed the peace talks, President Bush and Dr. Rice, while praising Ted (the murdering souse) for his new memoirs. This is a constant battle -- keep fighting.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
the primary process
November 27, 2007 - 13:38 ET by TruthMongerthe primary process is:
1. find out what Bush is doing now
2. oppose it, make up lies if you have to - and remember to have fun with it, too - be festive!
This is a legitimate
November 27, 2007 - 13:12 ET by balboaThis is a legitimate question to ask, even if you don't like it.
And the answer is
November 27, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Gat New YorkTha answer is that these leaders cannot be force into anything as Clinton attempted to do with Arafat and Barak. That did result in mass suicide bombings in Israel.
The Bush administration has engaged in a slow and methodical path that has led to an historical meeting in Annapolis and a commitment from Israel and Palestine to have an agreement before the end of 2008.
Absolutely,
November 27, 2007 - 13:18 ET by AgnosticBalboa,
You are absolutely right, this is a valid and intresting question and if matched with evidence, opposing views and data would be journalism. However, I believe the pertinent point is the relatively few questions from any other perspective.
The question is legitimate
November 27, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Dan The Man 2The question is legitimate but they ignored the one about how it may help the region. The question as asked is a very remote possibility on par with getting struck by lightning. In this instance they made it the premeir feature of the talks. So in essence even though the question is legitimate it is stupid and manufactured to bash Bush.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Balboa
November 27, 2007 - 13:30 ET by iveseenitallThe MSM lost its "legitimacy" a long time ago, Bal.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Brilliant Observation
November 27, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Gat New YorkUnfortunately for the Democrat duo from NBC they came up a little short:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313104,00.html
What is most striking about this summit is that it is happening. This is the first time that these enemies of Israel have appeared in public with Israel for a meeting. That is essentially recognition which has always been the biggest obstacle for peace.
What Bush and Rice have understood about MIddle East peace is that you cannot force the leaders of these countries to do anything. They must have time and the will to do it. What Clinton did was to strong arm Israel and Arafat into committing to a peace agreement they were not ready for which did result in mass suicide bombings in Israel.
So does this mean these two
November 27, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Clear thinkerSo does this mean these two chuckleheads would rather have in-action and the administration ignoring the issue?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
If Israel and Palestine
November 27, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Gat New YorkIf Israel and Palestine have a peace agreement in place in '08 before the next election in it would be an even worst nightmare than the current progress in Iraq that will only get better over the next 10 months.
Gat...nearly dead on
November 27, 2007 - 13:51 ET by ConservativeRexGat...nearly dead on perfect! THAT is the issue with these knuckleheads...ANY good news out of the ME would mean Lauer and bunch would have to report GOOD news..and heaven forbid anything that would cast GWB in any kind of good light. They have to be wringing their hands in agony..I know they are not in the least honest..but they could admit that. HaHa, I for one love, to see 'em squirm..
To Hell With Lauer & Russert
November 27, 2007 - 14:02 ET by BourbeauThere is nothing this President can do to satisfy the liberals and the main stream media, so to hell with them. All you ever heard from these people, post invasion, was there wasn't enough diplomacy. So now, you have representatives from forty Arab countries, willing to sit down and express their views on what it will take to get the Palestinians & Israel back on track, and all they can do is dump all over it. I personally don't care what any of them say; talking is better than fighting, and I'm glad the President and Ms. Rice made the effort. I'd rather be a has been, then a never was (did you hear me Mr. Gore?). Go George!
Concensus?
November 27, 2007 - 18:07 ET by acumenIt's official - dialogue between enemies makes things worse.
Can't wait to see Laur and Russert backpeddle on that position when the stalemate concerning UN Inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities comes to a head.