You don't suppose NewsBusters has become Matt Lauer's guilty pleasure; one having a salubrious effect on his thinking? The Today co-anchor this morning suggested an MSM double-standard on the Dem and GOP races and acknowledged the success of the surge.
Matt's guest during the first half-hour was Tim Russert, impressively fresh despite red-eyeing to NYC after moderating last night's Nevada debate. Lauer, after playing clips of the candidates' take on Iraq, suggested that the war is no longer the winning issue the Dems once thought it was.
MATT LAUER: How much of a tightrope are they walking with the apparent success of the surge over the last couple months, how difficult is it for these Democratic candidates to score points on Iraq right now?
View video here.
TIM RUSSERT: They have to keep playing to their base, which wants immediate troop withdrawal, and yet they also want to be responsible, that they're not going to leave Iraq in a more chaotic situation.
Did Tim Russert just imply that the Dem base favors an irresponsible position on Iraq? Sure sounded like it. He continued.
RUSSERT: But you just seized on a real dividing line this coming November. The Republican candidate's going to say "the surge has worked, keep the troops there, we must protect Iraq well into the future." John McCain said perhaps the next 100 years! The Democrats are going to say "troops out soon."
Lauer then offered that candid kernel on the MSM double standard.
LAUER: No front-runner on the Republican side; no front-runner on the Democratic side. And yet when you listen to the press coverage of this, you hear them say "the up-for-grabs race on the Republican side signals a party in disarray. The up-for-grabs race on the Democratic side signals a party with an embarrassment of riches." Why is that? Is it the media?
RUSSERT: We have to be careful. I remember in 1992 it was the Democrats who were the party in disarray [remember the "Seven Dwarfs"?] and Bill Clinton finally emerged and beat George Herbert Walker Bush. But what the Democrats point to, Matt, is money -- Democrats outraising them dramatically. Last night in Michigan, half the Republicans said they're angry or dissatisfied with the Bush administration. We found the same thing in Iowa, and the same thing in New Hampshire. And there are still five viable candidates on the Republican side; only two, two-and-a-half, three on the Democratic side.LAUER: Mr. Edwards would be really happy that you called him half a candidate.
RUSSERT: I said three at the end, didn't I? It was a long flight!
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ya think?
January 16, 2008 - 08:31 ET by OldSailor88You know if the realization that the surge is working and the war in Iraq is important for the region is seeping into the lefty bastion of the Today Show, we may just be seeing the first wave of the turning tide. I'm not holding my breath, but the hope is there.
Faciem durum cacantis habes
Remember, Homefront support
January 16, 2008 - 10:17 ET by BDRemember, Homefront support is the key to the war effort.
Tim just couldn't help
January 16, 2008 - 08:41 ET by Conservative in the ArtsTim just couldn't help himself. On a direct question of how the Republicans are lost and the Dems are going strong when they're the same, he just had to prove Matt's point! Tim's hole is just so deep and he keeps digging. MSNBC's web page has this very story tease, Matt's very question!
Analysis: Romney's win in Michigan points to a Republican party that is adrift. Full story
Mark, I have a question
January 16, 2008 - 08:54 ET by LeonMark,
I have a question for you.
The surge has clearly worked in the sense that it has lowered daily violence and provided some much needed stability to dangerous areas in Iraq.
Big surprise.
NYC showed us that this works with their police force, more cops on the street = less crime. It's not rocket science.
But, in your eyes, what is the ultimate goal of the surge? How would we be able to definitively say that the surge is an overall success?
Lowering violence is only half the battle. If we don't get this Iraqi government up and standing on its own and we don't finish these painfully inefficient reconstruction jobs, 6 months from now the 'success' of the surge will be old news and we'll be right back where we were before the surge.
How can we call this surge a success when it's only accomplished one of our goals? What is the plan going forward?
Are our troops just going to be the Iraqi police force for the next few years? Sounds like a waste of resources to me.
Why you might think this way
January 16, 2008 - 09:14 ET by FastEdPart of the perception is what is NOT reported in the msm(Lsm), such as, hand-offs, civilian tips, military cooperation, citizen police.
So, if these things are NOT reported, then the impression is that the Iraqi's are just sitting back and waiting for hand-outs - similar to libs in this country. It will take time, and the US is making progress, it's just not being recognized nor reported. Just look to the demolib campaign - no real mention of the war, other than the occasional bone to the FAR left, that it's Bush's fault. Notwithstanding that we live in a far more advanced age, but how long did it take the US to become a nation? Me thinks we have become way to hurried and expect immediate results, we forget that the problems, of a much older culture, cannot be fixed or guided, based on our perception of time.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FastEd, I don't care how
January 16, 2008 - 09:19 ET by LeonFastEd,
I don't care how long it takes, I just want to see a plan in place.
As of now, it's piecemeal. Let's try this. Let's try that.
There's no comprehensive strategy.
Take the surge for example. Ok, so we've lowered the violence and provided some stability.
Now what? What are we going to do with this peace?
I was talking to a Marine friend of mine who will be heading back to Iraq for his 3rd (and hopefully final) tour this spring. He's seriously concerned that if there aren't political gains to accompany the surge, Iraq is just going to descened into violence once again.
So this isn't about how long it will take Iraq to become a country (even though this whole it's going to take a long time bs didn't come out until we were already there, realized we made a huge mistake by ignoring a thousand years of sectarian strife, and accepted that Iraq was a total mess).
If it takes 10 years, fine, but I want to see a reasoned, rational, step by step plan. I'm tired of this shot in the dark strategy. Surge is working, but we aren't supplementing it. If we don't enact some political gains, Iraq is going to deteriorate rapidly.
As mentioned
January 16, 2008 - 10:02 ET by FastEdthe non-reported sets the preception - what follows is the freedom WE have of reporting two sides, which includes the agenda of the "cut and run" crowd. This then is "reported" in Iraq, where people can see the "disarray" of the US govenment, not having any experience in democratic principles, and therefore don't want to stick their own necks out, for fear of losing it. Add to that, the non-plans of the democrats, who will stop ANYTHING that the Bush admin proposes, as it DOESN'T fit their own agenda. Our 'problem' isn't that we don't have a plan, it becomes one of not allowing a "bi-partisan" plan to be be put forward. So far, things have been getting better, they could always be better, but the restraints and the bad mouthing from the left side of the asile don't support confidence (and the reporting of same) in either the tax payers or the newly formed government in Iraq. Mixd signals will beget mixed results.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
No plan in place? Ooops, I
January 16, 2008 - 10:29 ET by BDNo plan in place? Ooops, I better tell my friends on the Military Training teams in Bagdhad they have no plan because they seem to think they are following a plan.
BD, What do the Military
January 16, 2008 - 17:43 ET by LeonBD,
What do the Military Training teams have to do with Iraqi Government Planning?
I said we have half a plan - more troops, lower violence.
During this time however, we need also need a political plan to be successful. I clearly stated this in my post, you just chose to ignore it.
What's the political plan? What are we doing to ensure that the Iraqi government is using these relatively peaceful times to solidfy themselves and move closer to being an independent nation. As far as I can see, not much.
Just my opinion....If
January 16, 2008 - 17:55 ET by BDJust my opinion....If improved security is acheived, then the speed at which these politicla changes occur is largely immaterial. (If no one dies, who cares if there is no bill authorizing a holidy in conjunction with the "annual anniversary of iraq's first oil well, etc.")
As stated elsewhere, if you are worried about the speed at which diplomats and politicians work, then you will never be satisfied. Particularly when the US State Department is involved.
In my opinion, the US military is taking up the slack by training the Iraqi military (By all accounts either at projected speed or slightly better than originally antifcipated) who, if they follow the US example will then begin leading the way in this transformation.
Using the typical third world country example, the commander of the Iraqi Armorred divison or someone like him will run for office, and begin pushing through the necessary changes both politically and socially. The commanders we are meeting are highly motivated and will serve well in this capacity.
It is interesting to me, that the bulk of training being presented on democracy and all of its buttons and whistles that is being pitched to the iraqi public is not coming from a kid from foggy bottom with a degree from Harvard, rather it is being given by a kid usually from Fort Benning who has just completed the Infantry Advance Course, who is doing his damndest.
Those kids are following their plan as best they are able.
BD, But improved security
January 16, 2008 - 18:03 ET by LeonBD,
But improved security is limited progress. It has a ceiling.
So we achieve improved security, then what?
Seriously, you act as if this is the end all be all. It doesn't mean anything if we don't use this security to move Iraq towards independence.
If you don't couple security gains with political gains, you just create a stagnant environment without any hope of further progress. If the government never gets off the ground, we can never leave, regardless of the security situation.
You say the Iraqi troops are getting better, more capable blah blah blah but that's the same old tired line we've heard for the past 3 years. It's tough to swallow when you've heard it so often but seen no change. That boy cried wolf a long time ago.
It all depends on what you
January 16, 2008 - 18:10 ET by BDIt all depends on what you want or need, or what you PERCEIVE you want or need.
If perfect security were acheived and there were ZERO attacks by AQ or its associated groups, what is the downside if the political class in Gagdhad argues the shape of the conference table ceaselessly?
Personnally, from contact I have with freinds who are back incountry again, the progess IS happening. Maybe not as fast as we wish it to, (Some friends in theater have made fun of the fact that at least the Iraqi's funded their military this year which we in the US have not.) but progress is occuring.
This boy has not cried wolf and has seen improvement in the Iraqi's.
BD, The problem is
January 16, 2008 - 18:14 ET by LeonBD,
The problem is obvious. If they're just going to sit around arguing over drapes, they can't be an independent nation, we have to stay there, and we have to continue spending massive amounts of cash.
Leon: Hell, our OWN
January 17, 2008 - 09:59 ET by BDLeon:
Hell, our OWN politicians sit around endlessly discussing the drapes. It is what Politicians DO!
Therefore we cannot be an independant nation?
BD, While that certainly
January 17, 2008 - 10:08 ET by LeonBD,
While that certainly describes the current political situation, had our Founding Fathers been as useless, we probably wouldn't be an independent nation now.
I disagree. You must
January 17, 2008 - 11:27 ET by BDI disagree.
You must remember that our founding fathers were JUST as useless in the short run.
1.) George Washington continuously wrote letters to the Continental Congress and later the US congress pleading for simple items like food, clothing, and Ammunition, all to no avail regardless of the fact that the colonies were relitively posperous and the colonies could afford just these needs. Factionalism and regionalism effected this much like what is happening in iraq.
2.) The Declaration of Independance was signed in 1776, and it was not for most of a decade that they worked towards the constitution. The abortive attempt at the articles of confederation would easily be compared to what is occuring in the iraqi parliament right now.
Politicians, ours, theirs, everyones are SLOW. We should not expect miracles, regardless of the fact that some are occuring..
Leon, I have yet to see the
January 16, 2008 - 10:43 ET by bassndudeLeon, I have yet to see the day when the military commited to any operation without clear objectives in place. That includes trips to the motor pool.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass, Read before
January 16, 2008 - 17:45 ET by LeonBass,
Read before writing. The military has a plan, but there is no corresponding political plan.
This was my point, clearly stated, so I have no idea why you replied the way you did.
Ah but
January 16, 2008 - 17:53 ET by FastEda military plan is based on a political plan - but you should admit that ANY plan submitted by the administration will be "destroyed" by the demolibs and the media. The admin is placed in a lose, lose situation, which is what the media and the dems want. As far as the Iraqi's are concerned, they are learning what "compromise" is, and how to work together. Maybe, the dems should go over a teach them how to "compromise", since it happens to be dems consensus.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
This might help you. It is
January 16, 2008 - 17:54 ET by NL207This might help you. It is the the National Strategy for Iraq. It is a rather complete overview of the plan you claim does not exist. Then again, maybe it won't help you.
NL, Seen it. You do
January 16, 2008 - 17:57 ET by LeonNL,
Seen it.
You do know it's 2 years old, right?
Lots of pretty writing and big words that have led to little action, little tangible accomplishment.
I'm talking about a real plan with real goals and a real timeline for completion. Not some PR puff piece the administration released to try to convince everyone they were actually trying to do something in Iraq.
You have seen this but
January 16, 2008 - 18:15 ET by NL207You have seen this but since its two years old there can't be a plan? So you have conceded my first point and implicitly admitted you are either a liar or a fool when you claimed above that there was no such plan! There is clearly such a plan, though it is equally clear you do not like it. Perhaps that is why you deny its existence. An impressive start to a debate with me!
And you suppose that any such plan can be executed in just two years? It cannot. The defeat of Nazi Germany took 5 1/2 years of continuous war. The reconstruction of Germany as a Free State took 20 years more. Some might even argue that task was not complete until the re-unification of East and West and restoration of Berlin as its capital. Iraq will take a generation at least, to turn into a Free State. This was why I opposed the war there in the beginning. But we are committed there now for better or worse and against these Jihadists, defeat is not an option.
NL, Again, it's not a
January 16, 2008 - 18:23 ET by LeonNL,
Again, it's not a plan.
It's PR Garbage
Furthermore, I don't expect our plan to be achieved in 2 years, but I expect to see at least minor gains. This has not happened with regards to the Iraqi Government.
And as for all your it takes a long time nonsense - we didn't hear that until we were already there and realized we made a disasterous mess that would take a long time. Great example of revisionist history!
If a strategy is not a plan
January 16, 2008 - 18:36 ET by NL207If a strategy is not a plan then you are a Cassaba melon.
Leon
January 16, 2008 - 09:21 ET by well99"Lowering violence is only half the battle."
I sure the Iraqi's will disagree with you on that.It is a big part of the battle.Political progress is important but first you have to stop people from killing each other.Just a note:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C3D8B5FD-F86F-466F-BE97-BDAB4F5D1082.htm
Alot more work to do.
How can we call this surge
January 16, 2008 - 10:12 ET by pbanks7How can we call this surge a success when it's only accomplished one of our goals? What is the plan going forward?
A long journey begins with a single step. The surge was step one. We had to secure the country before we could progress to political improvements.
Are our troops just going to be the Iraqi police force for the next few years? Sounds like a waste of resources to me.
Remember, many Iraqis were convinced we would cut and run, so they were holding out to see which side won. The surge accomplished this. Iraqis are joining the police in droves now. They were reluctant to join when it would them a target in the losing side.
We still need to hammer the party of defeat because we wouldn't even have this opportunity if it was up to them.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
pbanks, 1) We invaded
January 16, 2008 - 17:54 ET by Leonpbanks,
1) We invaded Iraq in 2003. The surge IS NOT step one by any means. Step one 4 years after the invasion? Dubious.
2) I highly doubt this claim. Joining the police force in droves? I haven't heard that at all. Furthermore, who cares? Those guys just want a pay check. Ever seen Gunner Palace? Watch the poor US soldier that is tasked with training the Iraqis. They're a joke. Look like a bunch of goofballs. We should have never disbanded the real Iraqi army. Huuuuge mistake.
3) Are you really impressed with the idea of the surge? It took 4 years to figure out that maybe we needed more boots on the ground? Well, that's pathetic.
Big Surprise? Actually,
January 16, 2008 - 10:27 ET by BDBig Surprise?
Actually, it was a big surprise to those who opposed the surge. Most of them stated that more soldiers on the street would inflame the situation and just provide the enemy with more targets to kill.
What in fact happened was that the increase in soldiers, and the operational emplacement of them in more exposed/smaller communities had the beneficial effect of providing in creased security which led to improved in telligence collection.
While initial casualties were higher due to the movement into new areas, the improved intelligence collection posture has now reversed the tables to the point that the insurgents are "Meat on the Table" and do not have long "Shelf Lives" witness the fighting south of Mosul in the past week.
Regarding the purpose of the surge, it was to provide just this security.
Over the past three years I have witnessed the Iraqi forces increasing in size, skill, effectiveness and in professionalism. Day by day without coaching they increase their abilities. How good will they be by mid summer, I am not sure how to quantify it, but the change between it and last year at this time is like night and day.
Regarding the failure of the US State Department to convince the legitimately comprised Iraqi Government to create policies more to their liking, I guess we need to fire everyone at Foggy Bottom. Its not like any of them wish to accomplish the job anyway. Perhaps we should follow the advice of replacing them with military retirees and those on medical holds.
The bias continues ...
January 16, 2008 - 10:05 ET by qapilotLauer's comment was really interesting. I was surprised when I heard it. Notice Russert's response: "We have to be careful ..." He said "careful" but not "fair," as if the problem is the choice of words, and not the underlying bias itself.
Matt's assessment of the race is also telling. He says there is no frontrunner on the left or on the right. Yet, look at the results so far:
Prior to Tuesday, the media was unanimous in declaring that if Romney didn't win Michigan, his candidacy was over (despite the fact that Romney was leading in delegates BEFORE Michigan). Did they say Giuliani (with one delegate so far) HAD to win Michigan to stay in? Thompson? Ron Paul?
Now, even while acknowleging imbalance in reporting, they refuse to admit Romney is leading on the Republican side. They're counting wins, not delegates. (Even by that count, Romney is winning. They prefer to ignore Wyoming.) The Today Show isn't showing delegate totals. You can bet they would if Huckabee was leading ... they want him as the GOP candidate so Obillary can trounce him. They do NOT want Romney to win the presidency, or the nomination. They so obvioiusly see him as a threat (and they should), but you'll never hear them discuss it.
The media hates Romney. Some jounalists have openly said so. They hate that he's poised and polished. They hate that he has a spotless personal life with no dirt for them to expose. They hate that he's wealthy, that he's successful, that he has moved right instead of left. And now they hate that he's winning. If Romney continues to do well, look for the media to gun against him all the more ... Russert's warning notwithstanding.
If the media hates Romney,
January 16, 2008 - 10:15 ET by Adam_MEIf the media hates Romney, that's just another reason for me to like him. But let's be honest. The media will pile on whomever gets the GOP nomination. Even McCain lost the support of the press last year after he started appealing to conservative voters.
Romney's a liberal
January 16, 2008 - 14:17 ET by NBFIf the MSM hated Romney, they would never mention his name. The fact is that Romney would be a disaster for the GOP just as much as Guiliani or McCain. He will choke when get gets out of the Blue states and states where democrats are voting in the GOP primaries (MI).
Would an actual conservative ever get elected Gov. in ultraliberal MA? Obviously not.
Flip Flopney is a non-starter for the GOP base. I have underwear older than the precious few conservative principles that he CLAIMS to have.
He appoints a majority of liberal dem judges. He raises his mitt for Gorebal Warming. He doesn’t give a hoot about the 2nd amendment. He raises “fees” in an already overtaxed state.
If you want dems to win without even breaking a sweat, support Rudy McRomney.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/13/digging-deeper-the-enviro-nitwit-ization-of-the-gop/
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/16/romney-on-meet-the-press-gun-rightsimmigration-positions-under-fire/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942612/posts
You're wrong about Romney being a "liberal."
January 16, 2008 - 14:43 ET by RJTrue, Romney isn't the perfect candidate, but he's the best choice of the Republican leaders....that is, he's the most conservative and least liberal. Personally, I'd prefer Thompson, but I don't think he'll rise to leading status.
But Romney also has much to recommend him as POTUS. John Hinderaker of PowerLine says: "he's a social conservative, but doesn't have much appetite for red-meat politics on abortion and gay marriage, and places much higher priority on the economy and national defense."
Is he electable? Hinderaker also says: "If he emphasizes his expertise in applying free-market solutions to economic problems, with strong national defense in a close second place, and if he couches whatever comments he makes on the social issues in terms of the only sphere where the President actually impacts them--the appointment of judges--he should be able to achieve a subtle shift in the way he presents himself to voters. He won't, I think, be so vulnerable to attack on the basis of his relatively liberal positioning in 1990s Massachusetts. This approach will also posture him better for the general election, in which a large majority of voters don't want gay marriage, but an even larger majority don't want a President who is obsessed with preventing gay marriage."
The Pilot is right
January 16, 2008 - 11:28 ET by soosanRomney is despised by the media - he's the one republican who could whack any of the Dems. Funny no one from the media is mentioning the populations of the states that are holding these events - isn't the electoral college ultimately one place where size does matter?
Was that a pig that just
January 16, 2008 - 13:16 ET by LilyPearlWas that a pig that just flew by my window?
What
January 16, 2008 - 14:06 ET by RESTLESS 1is this surge they are talking about? I haven't seen anything about this lately in the msm.
wow
January 16, 2008 - 14:06 ET by CooperI'll bet you Meredith wanted to kick him in the shin when he asked that.
Did Tim Russert just imply
January 16, 2008 - 15:17 ET by BacchusDid Tim Russert just imply that the Dem base favors an irresponsible position on Iraq? Sure sounded like it.
Indeed. I watched the Nevada debate video clip where the three amigos made their pact of irresponsibility. That was a very uncomfortable scene.
MATT LAUER: How much of a tightrope are they walking with the
apparent success of the surge over the last couple months, how
difficult is it for these Democratic candidates to score points on Iraq
right now?
The Dem Nanny-state leadership can't risk articulating a responsible foreign policy position without biting off their noses first, thus the pact. They're hoisted by their own petards.