Ann Curry didn't even bother with the "some say" dodge. On this morning's "Today," she flatly suggested to Michael Chertoff that we are losing the war on terror because of a "misguided focus" on Iraq.The Secretary of Homeland Security was on to discuss reports that a new assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts indicates that al-Qaeda has rebuilt itself and poses the greatest threat to the U.S. since before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
When Chertoff confirmed the report's basic accuracy, Curry went on offense.
NBC'S ANN CURRY: You're saying that this report is true. Well, how is this possible? How is it possible that after six years and U.S. attacks, that al-Qaeda could now could be at about the same level it was pre-9-11?As Chertoff tried to respond, Curry interrupted, her voice suddenly thick with emotion.
CURRY: And what does it say specifically about whether we're losing this war on terror and if in fact that's because our focus is misguided, that's it's on Iraq, and not on this area of Pakistan?Was Curry channeling Hillary? From a Clinton speech on July 10th:
We cannot effectively address any of these challenges if we continue our military engagement in Iraq. As long as we stay there, our military strength will continue to erode. Our standing in the world will continue to decline. Our enemies in the region will continue to exploit our failures. Our occupation will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. Our support for Afghan democracy, our conflict with the Taliban, and our hunt for al Qaeda will continue to be compromised.Contact Mark 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
So, is General Curry recomm
July 12, 2007 - 10:01 ET by dervishSo, is General Curry recommending that we should invade Pakistan? I'm confused.
Confused; Yes. Of late ALL op
July 12, 2007 - 21:20 ET by M J BConfused; Yes. Of late ALL opposition to the US occupation of Iraq has been labled Al-Qaeda!
Even the Iraqis are fighting Al-Qaeda( I kid you not) The Iraqis are also fighting to retain control over their oil supplies & revenue! Find that in the MSM; including FOX.
"Confused; Yes."W
July 12, 2007 - 21:43 ET by Jerry"Confused; Yes."
Well, there's hope. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem. Here's wishing you a full and lasting recovery.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
When people like Ann Curry ar
July 12, 2007 - 10:08 ET by buddycWhen people like Ann Curry are just ignorant or just political hacks I can accept it. But when they are BOTH ignorant and a political hack I get frustrated.
There is the CIA and there is the US Military. They are two different groups. If she reads Tenant's book and get some information instead of just reading DNC talking points she might learn something. He bursts the liberal myth that we diverted the necessary resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and those resources could have gotten UBL. Tenant totally refutes it. Now she is using that same flawed myth that if we use our Iraqi resources we could get UBL in Pakistan. Does she propose that we re deploy the 1st Cav to Pakistan?? What a retard.
Ann needs to focus on reading
July 12, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Free ThinkerAnn needs to focus on reading the news and not trying to debate someone who knows infinitely more about the subject then she does. I am trying to figure out if she is now arguing for a "per-emtive" strike against Pakistan? I think that the administration needs to drop the politeness and just blow these newsreaders out of the water when they ask stupid questions.
Why would anyone entertain qu
July 12, 2007 - 10:16 ET by walkWhy would anyone entertain questions from such a mental midget as Ann Curry?
So Iran bears no fault for be
July 12, 2007 - 10:19 ET by dscottSo Iran bears no fault for being the number 1 financial sponsor of terrorism in the world? This is the US fault being in Iraq? Never mind that Iran is spending millions of dollars in sending arms, explosives and training terrorists for Iraq? The BDS has gone to their heads.
Oh, and so what is your recommendation there smarty, should be invade Pakistan? Bomb it to the stone age? Embargo the country?
Blaming the US for terrorism is like blaming the police for crime. It's nonsensical but after that last thread with the dufus claiming chasity promotes HIV/AIDS infections it doesn't surprise me how loony these people have become in their reasonings (if you can call it that).
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Ann Curry’s question itself
July 12, 2007 - 10:50 ET by KC MulvilleAnn Curry’s question itself betrays the myths about fighting the war on terror. In turn, it shows that the media knows so little about the actual war that they can’t be trusted to analyze it. The myth is that we were fighting bin Laden in Afghanistan, but just when we had him pinned down in Tora Bora, we stupidly took all our people off the job and sent them to Iraq. Osama is still alive because we don’t have enough people to hunt him down. If only we had more troops in Afghanistan, we could get him, and the war would be over. That’s the myth.
So let’s review … Remember that the war in Afghanistan was against the Taliban. We never went after al Qaeda directly. Why not? Because terrorists launch attacks and hide among civilians. We know where they are, but it’s hard to identify who they are. The Taliban were identifiable. But once the Taliban were destroyed, the targets became blurry. On top of that, we know that al Qaeda is mostly along the mountains along the Afghan-Pakistan border. That’s bad terrain. The terrain forces you to move through narrow passages that are easy to defend, and more importantly, can’t be taken by surprise. Whether you send a dozen people or a thousand or a million, the terrain slows you down so much that you can’t move in before your targets can move. Normally, the way to defeat that strategy is to just blow the whole place up. But in the first place, Pakistan also has the bomb, so we can’t just bully our way. Second, if we indiscriminately blow things up, we lose what little cooperation we have. The locals would turn on us, and we’d have our soldiers become targets for guerilla attacks. You think our soldiers in Baghdad are sitting ducks? Imagine how bad it would be in Afghanistan.
Terrorists use frustration to their advantage. They depend on your unwillingness to wipe out a whole population to get rid of a few. You're forced to fight with patience. Since you can't overwhelm the enemy, they magnify your frustration until you give up. That's why the one quality that would defeat a war against terror is impatience. And the Dems and the liberals can't even wait until September.
I have come to compare the wa
July 12, 2007 - 10:54 ET by drillanwrI have come to compare the war in Iraq with the Vietnam War ... But NOT, however, the way the left is. Iraq is to the War On Terror, as Vietnam was to The Cold War. Both were/are battlefields in the larger war(s). We were fighting Communism in Vietnam, and we're fighting Islamo-Fascist terrorism in Iraq.
It's just that simple. But not for the agenda driven leftist MSM. Or the dhimmis in Congress. They are completely unable to see the whole picture.
Ann Curry: Once a delightful
July 12, 2007 - 11:45 ET by winston smithAnn Curry: Once a delightful alternative to the dominance of the "perky" one -- now, just another obnoxious, fact-challenged, Democrat Party flack.
Man, Ann Curry has gone off the deepend
July 12, 2007 - 13:47 ET by blackrain4xmasMY EMAIL TO THE SHOW AS FOLLOWS:
today@msnbc.com
Ms Curry,
I cannot believe you'd take a moment of
journalism-an interview-and use it to openly inject political propaganda. That
was disgraceful.
"...what does
it say specifically about whether we're losing this war on terror and if in
fact that's because our focus is misguided, that's it's on Iraq, and not on
this area of Pakistan?"
Just what strategy are you saying is a better strategy than
fighting Al Queda in Iraq;
least 4000 fighters between 3/03 and 10/06
Queda claim said they could confirm 7000 Al Queda killed in Iraq during the same
time frame
(available to the public in weekly emails) confirmed that 3184 Al Queda had been
killed in Iraq since the start of the Surge offensive
but responsible for almost 100% of the suicide bombers that fuel the
insurgency
Do you think it would have been better to fight Al
Queda in Afghanistan and/or the mountainous tribal areas along the porous border
(a region that has never in all of human history been invaded
successfully-dating back to Alexander btw)? Brilliant strategy. I am EAGER to
see the Today show have on a single military historian, officer, or intelligence
official suggest that sending all the troops that are in Iraq to the Graveyard
of Empires is a good idea. PLEASE email me or something when that interview is
scheduled because it's gonna be the first of its kind. Yeah, some will say that
Iraq has some effect on operations there, but that's to be expected, and given
the (bare min estimate) 7100 Al Queda who have been drawn to the killing zone
that is Iraq, that might be a good strategy. Whether one is a hunter, a
fisherman, or a general, the first rule of killing and capturing is to choose
your battlefield, and to fight on your own terms instead of the enemy's, and to
that end it would seem that refusing to fight in
Pakistan/Waziristan/Baluchistan, Afghanistan is probably right in line with that
first rule of war: fight on ground and conditions of your choosing. No,
throwing bodies at a problem is not the way to fight a guerrilla war in the mts
of mankinds only unconquered lands. It's a strategy as brilliant as sending
battleships to fight in Afghanistan.
Sorry, Ms Curry, but that was blatantly incorrect
and purely political commentary on your part presented as though it were fact
not oped. Since it was done in a journalism setting, I submit that you owe the
audience an apology for not making clear that your comments were your assessment
and echoed the political propaganda from opponents of the war in Iraq. Be they
Democrats, socialists, or Al Queda...the message you presented/their message is
the same. I am ashamed to have watched you and your show in the clearly false
belief that you were objective journalists and not political pawns.
I'll tune in tomorrow to see if you apologize for
editorializing, misleading viewers with politicals statements presented as fact,
and to see if you have really become a factless fool.
Nowdays everyone is Al-=Qaeda
July 12, 2007 - 21:24 ET by M J BNowdays everyone is Al-=Qaeda!
Nowdays all is not going so well.
Fox is not the only news channel!
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece