In a long interview with Rachel Sklar of The Huffington Post, former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw accentuated the dark cloud inside the silver lining of the surge. The fact that it's having some effect only darkens a "black mark" against the administration. But when it comes to the current campaign, he could only offer praise for Hillary Clinton ("enormous capacity" of her "native intelligence") and Barack Obama (also with "enormous intelligence," and some rookie mistakes.) First, the war:
It was too late, there were a lot of officers and military analysts who said early on that we needed more troops there, the fact that the surge came so late in the process is, I think, a black mark against the war planners and against the administration, I don't think there's any question about that. But now that it's in place it is having some effect: The diminution of insurgent attacks — but now we find out that they're moving north and they're just changing the battlefield.
Sklar seemed intent on finding every common point that could be made between Iraq and Vietnam. Like a good Democratic Party man, Brokaw could only find the nicest things to say about Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, too. First, he said Obama has "made some rookie mistakes, and he's still a work in progress. Everyone agrees he's a man of enormous intelligence and great potential, but one of the reasons we have these campaigns is to see it through, so to speak."
By contrast, on Hillary, Brokaw argued: "I think she's run a very impressive campaign, I think she has enormous capacity in terms of her just native intelligence and her political acuity...she still struggles with what I would probably best describe as that missing component — people are not quite there with her yet. And a lot of it unspoken and some of it just has to do with character — 'I don't quite trust her, I can't warm up to her' — whatever the element is, it's there. Despite all that she has run a remarkably strong campaign."
Just before that, Brokaw complained that the country was too divided between right and left, that the division is "radioactive," and he even complained about his recent interview with conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt:
I think that what has happened at the national level — much less at the state level, at the national level — the professional party organizations have gotten hung up on this liberal/conservative wavelength and it becomes a radioactive wavelength. I was a talk show the other day with Hugh Hewitt — he wanted to just parse the country with these labels! And he didn't want to make a qualitative judgment. He wanted to add up how many were left of center and how many were right of center and make a judgment about that. Listen, I'm out around this country a lot. And what I hear — from Republicans and Democrats alike, in Montana, the Southwest, wherever I am — they don't give a damn if the solution comes from a liberal or comes from a conservative as long as it's working. A lot of these are not ideological issues we have to face.
That's a rich answer coming from Brokaw, who has trouble telling an interviewer from The Huffington Post that the surge is working, and even if it is, it's way too late to give any credit to President Bush or General Petraeus.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Let's see Brokaw talk about.....
December 17, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Prester John.... the black marks against the war planners and FDR for:
Leaving the planes at the airfields around Pearl Harbor lined up in the open (maybe the Japanese air attack "wasn't the enemy we planned for"?)
Abandoning the Army in the Phillipines
The disaster at Savo Island
The disaster as Kasserine Pass
The disaster at Anzio
The near disaster on Omaha Beach
The near disaster in the hedge rows in Normandy
Patton's Third Army running out of fuel in the late summer of 44
The disaster in the Huertgen Forest
The near disasters at Pelelieu and Tarawa
The disaster in the skies over Schweinfurt
The disaster in the skies over Ploesti
The complete strategic surprise in the Ardennes which cost the U.S. 60-70,000 dead and wounded.
Shall I go on Tom?
Let's see Lockjaw go over
December 17, 2007 - 16:48 ET by mattmLet's see Lockjaw go over to Iraq and spew his bull to the troops.
Libs are lucky conservatives aren't the trigger-happy, genocidal maniacs they accuse them of being.
I am seething here...The
December 17, 2007 - 15:35 ET by bigtimerI am seething here...
The likes of this man and all of his idiotic ungrateful lying left make me ill.
Anything to win and to hurt the President and our military if they can...they are nothing but traitorous in my opinion and I am thankful for sites like NBs and others getting this info out, it goes to the airwaves eventually...
For that Mr. Graham I am grateful for the hard work you do, I could not do this all the time...my temper is to short for filthy critters like Brokaw...who will never use the word Victory, if they do there will always be a but added to the sentence...always.
JMO.
Geeze,
December 17, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Gigantor"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One to lie and one to listen...."
Yes, they have moved north. And you know what Tom? The Kurds, the much improved Iraqi Army, the U.S. military and the CLC regulars are there waiting for them. The battlefield moved north and now the insurgents will get killed up north. And from the north, they have nowhere to go. I thought this was common knowledge, I mean, take a look at the milblogs or even MNF-Iraq.com and bam, you already learned more about the war then Brokow. Everything these idiots have said to downplay and defeat the Surge here at home has not come true.
My friend who is stationed in Al-Anbar province, and is home until January, said that they have made A LOT of progress and the ISF are MUCH improved. He also got to shoot some guns with Chuck Norris, which I think is pretty cool.
Tom Brokaw, ugh.
December 17, 2007 - 16:19 ET by MrShyTom Brokaw, ugh.
'I don't quite trust her, I can't warm up to her' — whatever the element is, it's there.
No, not "whatever the element"... those ARE the elements. And yes, they are totally there.
Despite all that she has run a remarkably strong campaign.
Despite the fact that she has the last name "Clinton", still the wheels are coming off because she is totally not qualified.
And I won't even start with his downplaying of the surge. He's another brain dead talking head.
We bid a fond farewell to Professor Talking Points & Cheetos
"...they don't give a damn
December 17, 2007 - 16:30 ET by Chris Norman"...they don't give a damn if the solution comes from a liberal or comes from a conservative as long as it's working."
I ain't buyin' that old line of hooey at all. Number one, what liberal "solution" ever worked?
Just wait. When the war is
December 17, 2007 - 17:05 ET by wiwfJust wait. When the war is won, these treasonous leftists will claim they did all the work and they'll take all the glory. Sickening
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Hey Brokenjaw...
December 17, 2007 - 17:05 ET by JayTeeYou and Nancy Pelosi have the same amount of Military Training, and have served in the Military about the same amount of time.
To give credibility to any of your comments on the Iraq war stategy, would require the willing Suspension of Dis-belief.
Move to San Fransicko and look for Pelosi's Man Date, but stay off the Airways, you're retired, finally !
Once again,
December 17, 2007 - 17:51 ET by IamTinmanTom Brokaw, another talking head without a clue. War is a messy business and always has been. No battle plan survives the first shot fired. Ask the military genius Brokaw how many generals and admirals were replaced and how many battle plans were changed during WWII. Stuff happens and thanks to a depleted intelligence community we weren't perfect, however if Bush had asked for additional troops earlier these same MSM magpies would be calling for his impeachment for that.
As far as her Hillaryness, Tom is correct only in that most people don't trust or like her. The rest of his comments about her running a great campaign are pure rubbish! She had 8 years to prepare for this run, an almost unlimited war chest and the positive regard in which her husband is held (Lord knows why) and yet her ratings are starting to look like Katie Courics. She is getting hammered by a guy who a few months ago was a virtual nobody in the democratic party while she was the undisputed queen of all things democratic. The warts are finally starting to show now that she has to run as herself and not just Billys armholder.
Couldn't Agree More Tinman
December 18, 2007 - 10:25 ET by BourbeauIt pains me to read or listen to Brokaw pontificate on matters, such as war strategy, as if he's an expert. If one wants to truly assess the logistical and battle strategy of the Iraq war, do a comparison of FDR's war, Truman's war, Johnson's war, and lets see how the military strategists fared in those epic challenges. War is ugly; always has been and always will be. For every military strategist that called for more troops, there were others that were convinced we could use less. The fact that all of them say now they believed we needed more, only validates the culture we live in where second guessing becomes the tool of the armchair generals. Of course, no one will consider had we placed more troops there with a faulty strategy, we might be looking at countless more deaths and wounded. The real question to me is why it took four years to get Petraeus in position to implement his strategy. That's the prinicpal failure of the military establishment to which none of them dare speak, but that we are owed an explanation.
It was too late, there were
December 17, 2007 - 22:06 ET by MidAmericaIt was too late, there were a lot of officers and military analysts who said early on that we needed more troops there, the fact that the surge came so late in the process is, I think, a black mark against the war planners and against the administration,...
Maybe.... Maybe not. The sectarian violence might have been something that the Iraqi's had to go through in order to realize they could kill each other but in the end neither could win. If we had gone in and dominated the country we might have stalled this bloodletting and then after we had gone home victorious we would look back to see the country explode into violence and carnage.
It was too late, there were
December 18, 2007 - 13:49 ET by BeowulfIt was too late, there were a lot of officers and military analysts who said early on that we needed more troops there, the fact that the surge came so late in the process is, I think, a black mark against the war planners and against the administration, I don't think there's any question about that.
And this troop increase was supposed to happen when? Like when the Lefties were screaming at the top of their sorry little lungs to anyone who would listen (like YOU Brokaw) for immediate troop WITHDRAWAL? You can't have it both ways, even if you are an elitist LSMer.
And why is no one calling moronic statements like this out? 4 years ago (continuing to this day), the LibTards wanted complete withdrawal. Now, they're saying "If only that evil Bush had sent more troops back then, this war would be over"...
ENOUGH already!
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers