Posted on 12/01/2005 5:25:07 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
December 1, 2005 - 08:16.
Sometimes even the Marxists get it right, and no, I'm not speaking of John Kerry. I'm referring to Karl Marx himself, who famously said "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”
To judge by his treatment at the hands of Matt Lauer this morning, John Kerry, Part Deux teeters on the brink of being seen as a farce and an embarrassment, even by his erstwhile supporters in the MSM.
Kerry was in to offer his critique of Pres. Bush's speech of yesterday in which he laid out his plan for victory in Iraq.
When Kerry argued that "the insurgency has to be dealt with through a political reconciliation," Lauer cut him off peremptorily, and did so saying: "with all due respect," not-so-subtle code for "not much respect is due." Lauer pointed out that "the President talked about the political process as well and laid that out in his plan for victory."
Lauer had done his homework and continued his critique of Kerry's bona fides thusly:
"I've been reading the key points of the plan you laid out on November 10th, and in all honesty, except for the fact that you want to withdraw 20,000 US forces immediately following successful elections in December, it doesn't seem that you have all that much disagreement on the big items on that list."
Compare and contrast with the reverential treatment a John McCain or other Today fave receives, and Kerry should realize that he had been seriously 'dissed' this morning.
Then it was on to Katie Couric's interview of Mary Matalin, former adviser to VP Cheney.
Matalin was the living antithesis of the notion that the Bush administration has been lackadaisical in its response to critics. She was absolutely loaded for bear, citing an avalanche of facts and figures to make the case that there has been significant military, political and economic progress in Iraq and that a precipitous withdrawal, as urged by some Democrats, would be disastrous for both Iraq and our own national security interests.
Mary got off a zinger right out of the box. Couric asked her to comment on Kerry's suggestion that an estimated timetable for troop withdrawal is something that needs to be debated.
Matalin, unsuccessfully suppressing a grin: "it has been discussed and debated, and John Kerry was against that position before he was for it." Ouch.
When Matalin cited an impressive list of accomplishments in Iraq, Couric countered with the President's weak poll numbers on Iraq.
When Matalin began to react, Couric cut her off: "before you sigh so audibly and visibly, Mary, the latest Gallup poll shows the president's approval ratings at an all-time low. Why is there such a disconnect between what is going on in Iraq and how the American public is perceiving it?"
Matalin: "For months now, the Democrats have been saying 'the President lied, the President lied, the President lied', with no evidence whatsoever. In that same period of time the President's credibility has dropped 20 points. Now he's fighting back."
She continued: "People here are bombarded with relentless demagoguery from the Democrats, and frankly, a disproportionate [negative] view of what's going on in Iraq from the MSM is affecting the polls."
Couric sought to end on a Kumbaya note: "You know, Mary, 160,000 US service men and women, many of them quite young, are still in Iraq. Do you think somehow Democrats and Republicans can get together and agree on some kind of strategy since so many US lives have already been lost and so many are continuing to be at risk?"
Matalin was having none of a false consensus:
"The cost of action is high - we've lost 2000 of our best and brightest in three years. But the cost of inaction is even greater. We lost in three hours 3000 innocent Americans. There is a cost of inaction and we should have that debate."
She continued, barely pausing for breath: "And we should talk about the consequences of pulling out, which would be rampant slaughter, implosion of the country, destabilization, in the region and global economic consequences. They don't talk about what they're doing . . . emboldening our enemies by talking about withdrawal."
As Katie Couric likes to say of her feminist sisters: you go girl!
Today Show/NewsBusters ping.
F'n has a plan?
I might not have phrased it well: the reference was to W's plan.
good to see that at least Lauer is willing to tell Kerry to his face that he is basically in agreement with the President's plan, yet he pretends to have a different plan.
Very good summary. Thanks much. It does seem (judging solely by your reports) that the Today crew is making a bit of an effort (whether it's sincere is a different story) to come across as more objective.
"Good dog, Matt, I'll take it from here."
I usually turn the channel when I hear kerry's drone-like voice but this morning I watched it just to see how Matt treated him.
Not bad for ole Matt today. And I love Mary Matlin
LOL
Matalin was having none of a false consensus: "The cost of action is high - we've lost 2000 of our best and brightest in three years. But the cost of inaction is even greater. We lost in three hours 3000 innocent Americans. There is a cost of inaction and we should have that debate."
AMEN!
Thanks, Mary for reminding the perky one about 9/11. Excellent comeback!
Katie was up to her MSM tricks, calling out Mary for sighing in response to Couric's citing of W's weak poll numbers, and concluding with a maudlin reference to US casualties. But Matt was certainly in a more objective frame of mind.
Yesterday, Rush said that he doubted ANY of the MSM hacks would pickup on Kerry's hypocrisy... so far, Lauer is the only one I've seen do it.
Let him get away with nothing and demanded HIS plan.
It amounted to nothing but blathering. He did take care to refer to our President as Mr. President and made an effort to be respectful.
Zahn demanded to know in 30 seconds, just what the democrat plan was since the party was all over the place on the issue of the war.
Makes me proud....
..until I remember she's still married to snake-in-the-grass Carville....
..and I fear either she's just parroting what she's suppose to say, but doesn't believe it....
..or speaks with forked tongue.
How can anyone have such conviction & so many facts....
..and still share a bed and children with one of the slickmeister's partner in crime, propaganda and disinformation?
Is hers a house divided?....or is she in cahoots!
Thanks, LG. Glad you enjoy the reports. It's truly my, twisted, pleasure.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10593
War on Terror
Dems Were for a Strong Troop Presence in Iraq—Before They Were Against It
by Sen. John Cornyn
Posted Nov 30, 2005
The office of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) released the following information following today's press conference by Senators John Kerry (D.-Mass.) and Jack Reed (D.-R.I.).
In his “response” to the President’s speech today, Sen. Kerry said:
“[T]he presence of our troops itself is a part of the current reality on the ground that presents food for the insurgency. And you need to reduce that presence…”
—U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) hold a news conference on President Bush's speech on the war on terrorism, November 30, 2005
But a mere five months ago, Sen. Kerry said just the opposite:
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): “We don't have enough troops in Iraq.”
—"Today," NBC, June 29, 2005
So did Sen. Reed—just three months ago:
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.): “[T]he reality is we don’t have enough troops, and that’s another shortsightedness of the administration.”
—"War In Iraq: President Bush, Reed, Kennedy," Providence Journal, August 18, 2005
I barely did justice to the defense of our Iraq policy that Mary mounted. She cited an absolute avalanche of data, factoids, poll numbers, etc. in support of her position, all done in machine-gun fashion. It was very impressive!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.