'Today': Curry Blames Al-Qaeda Resurgence on 'Misguided Focus on Iraq'

New York Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

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

[cinives]

So what was Chertoff’s answer ?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Ann Curry channels Hillary on Iraq, Al-Qaeda. Ping to Today show list.

[faloi]

“Without a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we can’t control any borders!”

I’m starting to REALLY not like him.

[Stashiu]

I would have hoped it was STFU!

Or, “Was that a question, or a statement?”

[cinives]

Can we get rid of him for stupidity ? Just how dumb does he think we all are ?

Yes, those are rhetorical questions. I’m insulted and offended by this jackass.

[Paradox]

Has anyone stopped to think, that if we WEREN'T in Iraq, all the terrorists there, would be in Afganistan/Pakistan, in the no man's land where we aren't allowed to attack. In Iraq, they are fair game.

If we weren't in Iraq, the headlines would be about our failures in Afganistan/Pakistan...

[cinives]

I really dislike Chertoff. The only thing he’s good for is exposing the hypocrisy of the open borders/anti-terrorism crowd.

As John Taylor Gatto says about public schools, the government is not there to protect us, it’s there solely as a jobs project for incumbent bureaucrats like this idiot and his cohorts at the so-called Dept of Homeland “Security”.

[enough_idiocy]

Again, pre-9/11 levels is better than above 9/11 levels. During the 1990s Al Q GREW. During Bush’s term, they were reduced, and, supposedly, got back to their oginal level.

If I bought a stock in 1992 for $5 and in 2001 it was $40, then in 2007 it was still $40, how would you describe my stockbroker from 2001-2007 vs. from 1992 - 2001? Clinton was a great stock broker for Al Q. Similarly, if the crime rate was 90% in 2001 and 90% in 2007 isn’t that better than 10% in 1992 and 90% in 2001? I’m tired of the simplistic “analysis” and reporting that continues to hoodwink the American public.

I’m not happy with this report, but a little context folks. Al Qeada is like cancer - if you ignore, you will die, if you treat it, it will go away, but likely return. TREAT IT AGAIN.

[Right Cal Gal]

Someone needs to tell Ann that NOT fighting a war on terror resulted in 9-11.

[Steve_Seattle]

I don’t even trust this report. I would not be surprised if it was cooked up by anti-Bush elements in the CIA or State and then leaked in order to provide ammunition for the cut-and-run crowd.

[ClaireSolt]

I got to thinking about this last night. It does not even seem credible to me that someone is presuming to tells us the AQ strength but not tell us where Bin Laden and Zawahiri are.

If you want to know why we don't just march into Pakistan and arrest them, read Three cups of Tea to understand what the terrain is and how people live in forts. We would need a new division proficient in medieval seige warfare with Hannibal and his elephants to go into the huge mountains....

Or drones with hellfire missles that so outrage the world. With accurate intel we take them out, and that brings me back to doubting the report.

As for the info babe, oh well, they sleep their way to the top, you know.

[Steve_Seattle]

The Dems overlook that AQ is in Pakistan because we drove them out of Afghanistan. And someone should ask them: OK, do you want us to invade Pakistan? I remember early on when everybody assumed we’d nab OBL soon, the Dems started saying, “Oh, well it would be a waste of military resources to go chasing after one man . . . he’s really not that important . . . blah blah blah”. It was mostly after we got Saddam, that they started complaining we hadn’t nailed OBL. And when we get OBL, they’ll say it wasn’t important, we should have done something else.