It was the worst of times, it was the best of times on this morning's "Today." Throughout the show's long opening segment on Iraq, and regardless of the visuals: from David Gregory to President Bush, troops on the ground, Nancy Pelosi, Gordon Smith, etc., the screen graphic continued to skeptically ask "Lost Cause?"
So when Meredith Vieira began her subsequent interview of Ted Kennedy, there was every reason to expect her to lob softballs to the senator on the legislation he's introducing requiring Pres. Bush to obtain specific congressional authorization of a surge.
Surprisingly, that was not the case.
View an edited video clip of the interview here.
From her opening question, Vieira challenged Kennedy: "To put it bluntly, sir, I believe that you think that the President has botched up Iraq pretty badly, and I know you're going to propose legislation in the next few days that would force the president to seek congressional approval for a troop surge in Iraq. But just two days ago your Democratic colleague, Sen. Joseph Biden, said of a potential surge 'as a practical matter, there's no way to say, Mr. President, stop.' So what exactly are you proposing, sir?"
When Kennedy responded that his legislation would require the president to come back to Congress to get the authority for a surge, Vieira interjected: "But senator, doesn't he already have that authority, and doesn't he set policy?"
A bit later, she flatly asked: "Do you believe, Senator, that we should cut funding for the war and begin withdrawing our troops immediately?" When Kennedy answered "no," that he is just looking to stop the surge, Vieira replied: "but I understand, Senator, that you would like to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in the next few months." Kennedy acknowledged that was true.
Then, surprisingly, Vieira asked: "what would happen, what would we be leaving behind, sir, if we withdrew troops?"
Kennedy made a shocking allegation in reply. Not merely did he claim that there is a civil war in Iraq, but that "most of the generals that are there that have testified before the committee think that the American presence is actually enhancing the civil war at the present time."
By "enhancing" Kennedy clearly meant "exacerbating." It's true that a number of military leaders have expressed doubts about a surge. But if "most of the generals" think our presence is making matters worse, that would be an argument not merely against a surge but for outright withdrawal. If they have so argued, it's certainly news to me. Can Kennedy document his explosive charge?
Vieira continued with her probing line of questioning: "Do we have an obligation to fix the mess that you believe we created? When responded that we have an obligation to protect American troops, Vieira interjected "but does that mean we pull out?"
Vieira's closing question: "Do you believe we will ultimately prevail in Iraq, or do you believe it is a lost cause?" Thus put on the spot, Kennedy claimed that he didn't think it was a lost cause, "but a very difficult one."
Hard to say whether Meredith was responding to the recent criticism of NBC's liberal tilt, but there's no denying that this was a solid journalistic probing of Kennedy's positions.
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Shame
January 9, 2007 - 09:11 ET by iveseenitallWhat a shame that we have to appreciate any "tough" questions from so-called "jounalists", much less care about a conversation between two people with a combined I.Q. of 90.
Kennedy
January 9, 2007 - 09:17 ET by BBallleaperKennedy doesn't have to back-up his explosive charge. He's a LIBERAL, and that means that he can say and do as he pleases without fear of being contradicted by the Drive-By-Media while they're shooting at the Presidental limo! But I understand your outrage so I phoned Mary Jo Kopechne to get her reaction to the charge. Strangely enough, she was still dead!
This just in: Saddam still dead.
January 9, 2007 - 09:22 ET by acaiguanaThis just in: Saddam still dead.
Recent reports to the contrary and in spite of a spate of silly videos on U-Tube, Hell reports that Saddam is still dead.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
***Confirmation to above*** f
January 9, 2007 - 11:38 ET by FastEd***Confirmation to above*** from sources close to Beelzabub, 72 fire-pit on left, Saddam, with a crooked neck, is still dead, with no desire by the present landlord to evict, or return to the living.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Reminds me of that scene from
January 9, 2007 - 13:09 ET by JimboReminds me of that scene from the Adam Sandler comedy movie Little Nicky. They are in hell, and the devil shoves a pineapple up Hitler's ass every day. Damn funny. I hope they ordered a few extra pineapples since Sadaam showed up.
I beg your parden... ;)Suppor
January 9, 2007 - 12:42 ET by ghost of Mary Jo KopechneI beg your parden... ;)
Support Our Troops
http://adoptaplatoon.org/new/index.htm
Iraq was a mideast paradise b
January 9, 2007 - 09:29 ET by kathleenirishIraq was a mideast paradise before the bad Americans came, if you listen to stupid traitorous liberals like Killer Kennedy. He makes me physically ill.
David Gregory: still drinking, I see?
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Was Kennedy slurring again?
January 9, 2007 - 09:33 ET by acaiguanaWas Kennedy slurring again?
That video of him slurring Osama's (er...Obama's) name was just priceless.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
Congress
January 9, 2007 - 09:39 ET by iveseenitallGovernment, the MSM, and our "education" system--three places where people can break the law and ruin lives without ever being accountable.
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
It would be so funny if it we
January 9, 2007 - 09:51 ET by Conservative in the ArtsIt would be so funny if it were so sad! I was in an arguement with a lib and they really did think Iraq had gold faucets in every house and everyone was drinking fresh clean water. Oh, and the only sand in Iraq is at the beach, where the pool boy will bring you a fresh drink every half hour.
Sounds to me like Meredith, l
January 9, 2007 - 10:09 ET by bassndudeSounds to me like Meredith, like the rest of the MSM are upset with the dems because they are not doing exactly like the MSM is telling them to do. This to me is not Meredith asking tough questions for the sake of reporting. It is the MSM putting the dems on notice. "You do like we say, or its going to get nasty!" This is just a preview, unless the dems can convince the MSM that they, the MSM, and their views are in the minority.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Iraq War balances on tip of a knife until now
January 9, 2007 - 11:26 ET by blackrain4xmasThere is a factual catch 22 re the Iraq war:
If America leaves, Iraq collapses into a terrorist haven like Afghanistan was, and then the US will have to invade a third time-and will have to occupy under far far more dangerous conditions.
Then there's the political catch 22. Dems want a pullout, can't even envision let alone stomach a victory/success, but now they're in power, and any loss resulting from actions they take with that new power means the results (post Amercian occupation chaos and a 3rd invasion) will be their fault. They cut off the war to end it, then the way it ends is their burden. SO they need a way for the US to lose, to lose in a way that's not accountable to them politically, and they need to spin it hard/fast.
1) ya can't lose in Iraq and have it be an acceptable outcome
2) ya can't be the instrument of that defeat and then point fingers (certainly not after having caused 4 defeats with the same tactic...that kinda thing is a haunting trend that is inescapable politically)
3) there's an elephant in the room, and few noticed it:
The very first thing dems did upon taking power was a rules change in the house. Now, instead of a 2/3's vote, budgets need only a majority (dems have a majority=now they can make any budget they want). option A is of course cutting off funds for Iraq, but then they risk getting the blame for the after effects, and it's hard to run in 08 while millions die in Iraq. option B is to present the President with a budget packed with new taxes, higher taxes, every possible earmark and new spending program imaginable, and make the budget so big and bad that.....
....President Bush has to veto it/President Bush is the one who cuts off funding.
I have yet to see a single news pundit point this out.
What was the Dem's "New Direction In Iraq" plan? It was simply to manipulate the House rules so that America loses a war, but they don't get the blame.
That's it.
Simple plan.
The only problem remaining is one that pundit Laura Schwartz accidentally dropped last night on The Factor. She said, "Democrats want America to win in Iraq" Bill let it slide. He let her spin and only giggled, blushed, and smiled.
Me, I'd have asked, "How?"
"How do Democrats want America to win in Iraq-what's their plan?"
"What was their plan in Feb 02-to just let inspections continue until the plan to attack the US (Detailed in the Pentagon Iraqi Perspectives Project Report) came to fruition?"
"What was their plan in 04 when a dozen candidates ran for office by taking both sides of the issue-being for the war before being against it, but always being for it/victory?"
"Give one example of how Democrats WANT America to be successful and victorious in Iraq, and then explain why the only pro-war Democrat was driven from the Democratic Party in favor of Kossack, loony tune, Ned Lamont?"
Democrats want America to win in Iraq....WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP
Excellent post: the bottom li
January 9, 2007 - 11:53 ET by kathleenirishExcellent post: the bottom line is: Democrats want us to lose. Your point of them wanting to stay clear of being blamed for it is well taken.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Of course democrats want us t
January 9, 2007 - 12:47 ET by paperheadOf course democrats want us to lose in Iraq. They want the White House in '08. Admitting defeat is the only way they'll get it. The question I have for democrats is, how would you want the war against Islamofacists fought? What would you do differently than Bush. It is one thing to criticize but to do so without an alternative plan is irresponsible. The dems did not gain their majority in congress as the anti-war party and don't forget that.
Not sure if that is a typo in
January 9, 2007 - 13:02 ET by JimboNot sure if that is a typo in the last sentance, but I beleive the Dems received a substanial number of votes becasue they were viewed as the party to bring the troops home sooner than logic and strategy would otherwise dictate to people who have the ability to think.
I agree with most of your pos
January 9, 2007 - 12:53 ET by JimboI agree with most of your post, however I don’t think the Democrats will be able to paint Bush into a corner with regard to ‘forcing’ him to cut the funding on the war. If the Democrats are smart enough to put your theory into action, and give the President a budget to sign that either abandons his tax cuts or abandons the troops, I think he has only one choice and wouldn’t think twice about doing it –
The President understands the importance of victory in Iraq, as well as the implications of defeat. Two things liberals have never known. If presented with your scenario, he will abandon his tax cuts, implement the surge, and give us a real chance of winning the war. The Democrats can explain why they used our troops as pawns to raise taxes through the roof during the ’08 election.
In my opinion, the Democrats will be the ones painted into a corner. 1. At the end of the day, they will have to support the President’s plan. They can criticize the president’s plan all they want, but until they propose their own plan they promised during the election, their whining is hollow and shows no support for the troops. Without their own plan, the public will grow quickly tired of the argument. 2. Their crazy left wing element will be holding their feet to the fire for an immediate withdrawal, especially once #1 comes true. In 6 months to a year, the Democrats are going to have serious internal problems, and if you think lack of a singular direction and message from them is lacking now, just wait.
Lack of control
January 9, 2007 - 13:54 ET by blackrain4xmasThe commonality of all addictions (drugs, sex, compulsory need to carry a copy of Catcher In The Rye) these are all examples of a lack of self control, and along that line, Congressional Democrats in a time when the American economy is healthy by all measurements simply will not be able to control the urge to spend, and if they need more, they'll take-err, I mean-they'll tax more. They could go in an accidental and uncontrolled spending spree and force a budget veto, but the real REAL problem they have....and if they can't even face up to the problem of forming an optionB plan for Iraq then they'll never believe or face this...is that GWB is a lame duck, but not a quitter, appeaser, or an azkizzer. The more cornered he gets, the tougher the going is, the more inclined he is to get tunnel vision and dig in his heels. If the dems deliberately or accidentally force him to veto the budget and cut funding for the troops, he will no doubt keep them there until the beans and bullets run out. Then Condi just needs to work out a little selling of Iraqi oil for some beans/bullets money...OR even better ask allies to fund the op as they did Desert Storm. They don't have to give a lot, just make good on their 2003 promises of aid. Last choice: put UN flags on soldiers arms get the new, friendly UN ambassador to fund the op and make it a UN op with American command (already reasonable to reference May2003 UN resolution 1483 for that purpose). In all of these cases, people will gladly pay to keep the US there if it comes down to a choice between chaotic Iraq on their border or US forces and some cashiers checks on the other hand.
Gonna get real REAL interesting starting tomorrow night. I'm still of the mindset that he might actually surge the new troops there to bring ones in country home. Hey, a guy can hope, right? :-)
Vieira Now A Serious Journalist?
January 9, 2007 - 11:48 ET by emjem24Wow, now Vieira wants to be a serious journalist and not just some "whore" for NBC. NBC must be getting desperate and scared if now it's resorting to "serious" reporting. I loved how Kennedy continually stumbled over his own contradictory statements. Why are the Democrats so afraid of the truth they've been touting all along. They've constantly harped at us that the Iraq War is lost so let's get out. Why the hesitation now? Could it be a play for the presidency in 2008? Hmmm, makes you wonder if Vieira was complicit in this and played along for kicks and grins, trying to give a semblence of "balance" on the Today Show when none really exists.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
I really hate to cut and past
January 9, 2007 - 12:38 ET by Dave RI really hate to cut and paste here at NB, but this echoes my thoughts on Ted K. so completely that it really leaves nothing left to say.
Ted, put this in your pipe and smoke it, you feloneous disgusting slob!
"I'm calling BS on you and your entire story.
I think you let Mary Jo Kopechne suffocate in your car in four feet of water off the Chappaquiddick Bridge while you were wandering up and down that dirt road worrying about salvaging your political career.
I think that if you had been half the man either one of your brothers were, Mary Jo Kopechne would have lived to marry and raise some children of her own.
I think there's much to that story that's never been told."
"Somebody's Gotta Say It" by Neal Boortz.
Regardless of why Meredith as
January 9, 2007 - 12:41 ET by JimboRegardless of why Meredith asked questions consistent with honest to goodness reporting (because of the attacks on NBC for being biased or because she wants to hold the Democrats to their campaign promises), I liked her line of questioning. I have no doubt that Teddy was expecting the same softball questioning he has received from the MSN since he took office 150 years ago. Seeing Teddy squirm while being questioned by the MSN is a breath of fresh air – regardless of the motive.
Explosive charge
January 9, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Uncle John"Can Kennedy document his explosive charge?"
He doesn't have to. It's the explosiveness of the charge that counts, right?
Liberalism ≠ liberty.
la hero
January 10, 2007 - 05:27 ET by foolnomorethe sell out from Tax'a-brewsetts, has been, would blatter or slur into makeing it look like that he's helping to save,(sellout),an help the deadender's, everybody from drowning their stuporist ways again(no-liberal), whoa ted la'Swimmer , my hero,
Liberalism is a mental disorder !!-Bless and support All the troops,