Filling in for Stephanie Ruhle during MSNBC’s 9:00 a.m. ET hour on Monday, anchor Chris Jansing worked to downplay President Trump’s “biggest foreign policy win so far” with the killing of ISIS terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a successful U.S. military raid by claiming that the operation revealed “the flaws in Trump’s foreign policy” and only happened “despite” him.
“The other big story this morning, Democratic leaders demanding answers about why they weren’t notified when President Trump ordered the raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, arguably Trump’s biggest foreign policy win so far,” Jansing proclaimed at the top of the segment, already trying to hype political controversy surrounding the raid.
Following a soundbite of the President’s White House address from Sunday morning, Jasning warned: “The raid that killed al-Baghdadi is both a military and political victory for the Trump administration, but some officials point out that it may say as much about the flaws in Trump’s foreign policy as it does about how well it can work.”
She concluded that “all of those advantages” that made the raid successful were going to “take a hit under the President’s plan to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and abandon our Kurdish partners in the process.”
White House correspondent Kristen Welker acknowledged a win for the President, but quickly qualified the achievement: “Yes, they did take out the leader of ISIS, as you point out, that is a significant victory for the military, for this administration strategically. But again, there are real concerns that with the U.S. withdrawal, ISIS will become resurgent.”
Later in the discussion, Jansing suggested al-Baghdadi’s death might just be a “hiccup” for the terrorist organization: “What does it mean for ISIS? Is this a devastating blow to their operations or is someone waiting in the wings to take over and it’ll be as if maybe it was no more than a hiccup?” NBC News national security analyst Nicholas Rasmussen responded in part: “And in the immediate aftermath of a strike like this, it’s not like ISIS is somehow defanged or not dangerous anymore. The threat picture is still every bit as daunting as it was before.”
Turning to former United Nations Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, Jansing eagerly touted a hit piece against Trump regarding the raid:
And in fact, The New York Times report that military commanders rushed the timing while U.S. forces were still on the ground. So do you agree with intelligence and counterterrorism officials who are cited by the Times as saying this raid occurred largely in spite of President Trump’s actions not because of them?
Soderberg actually pushed back and called for credit to be given to Trump: “I don’t think we know yet. The information that has come out is very sporadic and the President, frankly, deserves credit for – he – for this impressive operation, he is the commander-in-chief and I think we have to give him due credit.”
Liberal media bitterness toward Trump has reached such a fever pitch that journalists can’t even bring themselves to give the President credit for a military operation that killed the world’s number one terrorist and made the country safer.
Here are excerpts of the October 28 segment:
9:00 AM ET
(...)
CHRIS JANSING: The other big story this morning, Democratic leaders demanding answers about why they weren’t notified when President Trump ordered the raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, arguably Trump’s biggest foreign policy win so far.
DONALD TRUMP: This is the worst ever. This is a man who built a whole – as he would like to call it, a country, a caliphate. And was trying to do it again. But he died, he died in a ruthless, vicious manner.
JANSING: The raid that killed al-Baghdadi is both a military and political victory for the Trump administration, but some officials point out that it may say as much about the flaws in Trump’s foreign policy as it does about how well it can work. Let’s take a look at key components of the raid: human intelligence, U.S. boots on the ground, local allies, all of those contributing to tracking and killing the ISIS leader. And all of those advantages take a hit under the President’s plan to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and abandon our Kurdish partners in the process.
I want to dig deeper with NBC’s Kristen Welker, who’s at the White House for us. Kristen, good morning, is there any sense that this could prompt any kind of reassessment of the administration’s plans in Syria, given how this raid unfolded and how important those things I just named were to it’s success?
KRISTEN WELKER: Chris, at this point in time, it doesn’t seem as though they are reassessing the strategy here. In fact, it seems as though President Trump is using this to argue that his strategy in the Middle East, his America-first foreign policy is working. But as you point out, there are still gaps and significant questions about the way forward. In particular, how many troops in the United States going to leave in the region. You heard President Trump talk about the fact that there is going to be a residual force to man the oil fields.
And then, Chris, how are they are going to make sure that ISIS is not resurging. Yes, they did take out the leader of ISIS, as you point out, that is a significant victory for the military, for this administration strategically. But again, there are real concerns that with the U.S. withdrawal, ISIS will become resurgent.
Now, all of this comes against the backdrop of a stand-off over how this all went down between the President and Democrats on Capitol Hill. With President Trump essentially making Russia aware of the U.S. plans before making congressional leaders aware. Why was that? Well, take a listen to what he had to say about Adam Schiff, of course one of the top figures in the impeachment inquiry, and why he didn’t feel it necessary to brief him on his plans beforehand.
DONALD TRUMP: They were talking about why didn’t I give the information to Adam Schiff and his committee. And the answer is because I think Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington. You know that, I know that, we all know that. I’ve watched Adam Schiff leak. He’s a corrupt politician, he’s a leaker like nobody’s ever seen before.
WELKER: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer demanding a briefing on how this all went down.
(...)
9:05 AM ET
JANSING: What does it mean for ISIS? Is this a devastating blow to their operations or is someone waiting in the wings to take over and it’ll be as if maybe it was no more than a hiccup?
NICHOLAS RASMUSSEN [NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: Well, one of the things we’ve learned over time, Chris, is that taking out a single terrorist leader can have an important effect, but it’s really not likely to be decisive unless those operations can be sustained and repeated again and again and again. And that’s something that may be difficult to make happen in this case for some of the reasons you teed up in your opening. If the President pursues a policy of drawing down our forces in Syria and reducing our intelligence access on the ground in Syria, it will make it far more difficult to achieve similar successes like that which was achieved yesterday. And in the immediate aftermath of a strike like this, it’s not like ISIS is somehow defanged or not dangerous anymore. The threat picture is still every bit as daunting as it was before. Over time, we hope this has a strategic impact, but in the immediate aftermath, I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t necessarily feel like we are out of the woods from a threat perspective.
JANSING: Ambassador Soderberg, a critical piece of intel on Baghdadi was where he was hiding, reportedly came from an informant to the Kurds. And in fact, The New York Times report that military commanders rushed the timing while U.S. forces were still on the ground. So do you agree with intelligence and counterterrorism officials who are cited by the Times as saying this raid occurred largely in spite of President Trump’s actions not because of them?
NANCY SODERBERG [FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.]: I don’t think we know yet. The information that has come out is very sporadic and the President, frankly, deserves credit for – he – for this impressive operation, he is the commander-in-chief and I think we have to give him due credit. That he is the commander-in-chief.
But I think it raises larger questions about what our purpose there – what’s happening with the oil fields, how do we sustain a campaign against ISIS if we’re completely withdrawing, are we handing the region over to Russia? Iran is very much in the influence. And I think those kinds of questions are the ones that we should be focusing on. And also commending the incredible intelligence officials that lead to this and the brave soldiers who took out the world’s top terrorist. That is something that needs to be commended.
(...)
