Posted on 07/14/2006 5:50:57 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein on July 14, 2006 - 08:26.
Israel might be defending itself on two fronts this morning, but that might not be enough. The Today show was attacking on at least three. And in a brief but telling moment, Andrea Mitchell gave away the blame-Israel game with a spontaneous shake of the head.
Here's the gist of Today's reporting:
* Israel's offensive against Hezbollah is based on a 'pretext.'
* The Bush administration has dropped the diplomatic ball. It should have sent higher-level people in to mediate sooner. In the meantime, despite the concerns of America's European allies, the Bush White House has given Israel a dangerous 'green light' to attack.
* The Bush administration is not responding effectively to the crisis because it is 'overwhelmed' and spread too thin by involvement elsewhere.
* With ghoulish glee, Today wasted no time speculating on the possibility of $100/barrel oil resulting from the heightened tensions.
Here are the details. After a report from Richard Engel on the ground in Lebanon, Matt Lauer interviewed Andrea Mitchell. Claimed Mitchell:
"Diplomatic sources say Israel was waiting for a pretext to clean out Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanaon that have been firing rockets into northern Israel. But the European Union called Israel's response dispor and only the US voted to veto a UN resolution to condemning Israel's Gaza incursion. Instead, the administration is focusing on Syria and Iran's role in the crisis."
That's when Mitchell passed along criticism that the US should have sent a higher-level envoy sooner. To bolster her argument, she played a clip of one James Steinberg, who blistered as 'inexplicable' the administration's failure to be more directly involved. The screen graphic identified Steinberg by his University of Texas affiliation. But a quick Googling reveals that he was the Deputy National Security Advisor . . . in the Clinton administration. Truth in packaging, Andrea?
Mitchell passed along more criticism of US policy: "The administration has given Israel a green light to go after Hezbollah and Hamas. The concern though is that events could spiral out of control." Andrea, have you considered the dangers if Israel doesn't go after the terror groups?
That's when Matt took his shot: "How much of the US response now is dictated by a lack of clout in that region following the war in Iraq?"
Mitchell: "That certainly is certainly part of the problem with the US spread so thin in Iraq, Afghanistan and the continuing nuclear stalemate with Iran." Mitchell also tried to portray as bi-partisan the criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the situation, though the only Republican critic she could identify was Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. Does that count?
When you want to criticize Bush foreign policy, what better source than Madame Secretary herself, and sure enough Lauer quoted Madeleine Albright to the effect that crises around the world have produced 'a perfect storm.' Springboarded Matt: "Is there a sense in the diplomatic world that the administration's a bit overwhelmed?"
Mitchell: "There is a sense the administration has not focused on the Israel/Palestinian issue," and that everything else hinges on that.
An aside: at one point during the Lauer/Mitchell exchange, Matt passed along breaking news that Israel had again bombed the Beirut airport. Andrea responded spontaneously with a brief-but-disapproving shake of the head.
Today wasted no time in bringing the conflict to the home front, tying it to a favorite recurring theme, high gas prices. Interviewing market reporter Ron Insana, Ann Curry could barely contain her glee in speculating about "$80, $90, $100/barrel" crude oil. Curry seemed disappointed when Insana suggested it would take Iran's entry into the conflict to really send oil prices soaring. "Would it take that to get to $100/barrel?", she asked.
Come on, Ron, give us some apocalypse now!
It's what you've got to love about the Arabs.
They always want to help Israel by invading and murder to provide that "pretext".
That was our mistake in Iraq- dialogue and UN involvement- that's our mistake here. The sucker punch works everytime, giving terrorists time and notice? Never!
Andrea Mitchell was in her best Bush bashing, hezbollah loving cheerleader uniform this morning.
Im down today. I know that we have talk radio and some of the internet but the media as a whole is completely and utterly against ALL FACTS and this President. I do not feel good about our future today I fear for my 3 young children.
Libs will go whichever way the wind blows...
That is why it's vital that the next President pick up on the war on terror where W leaves off. If that means voting for Rudy Giuliani then so be it.
Is it me , or has she gotten a lot worse since her hubby( Greenspan) retired?
She's a NJG (Nice Jewish Girl) from New York. Husband is Alan Greenspan (in case that wasn't sarcasm!).
don't despair
it's been MUCH worse than this
you should have lived through the late 60s/early 70s and especially the Carter years
then all we had was liberal media, Democrats in control, and "malaise"
As long as the wind is blowing the opposite of a Conservative point of view.
Because they have the same goal -- the destruction of the U.S.
Their tactics may be different, and certainly their post-U.S. vision is radically different. But their goal is the same, and their enemies are the same -- Israel, and conservative America.
It makes them feel good to show how "tolerant" they are and concerned with the rights of the "oppressed." They identify with terrorists whom they see as fighting "Western imperialism" and the greedy, arrogant United States. Here are these poor, exploited, desperate people who have no weapons except home-made bombs to fight their oppressors, etc.
Andrea Mitchell is NOT a journalist. She sits in a chair a reads what ever comes over the teleprompter.
Good Lord the morning shows are all drivle spiked with propaganda.
I just clicked through the channels to find women chatting about shoes and tummys on the Today show and diane sawyer chatting about quiche on ABC
Blehhck
Who knew they actually discuss news?
She's from New Rochelle, NY originally but grew up in greater Philly.
...and certainly more proof that not all Jews are smart...
Andrea Mitchell is NOT a journalist.
____
Well, since you want to argue: She's not just a news reader. She did a live report on Imus this morning as well. However, she is an idiot. I've never seen her well-prepared for anything. Imus said she sounded "like the liberal media bashing the President" this morning.
Journalists, in large part, embody the deadly combination of ignorance and confidence.
Thats what I was thinking. They pass these people off as experts, when in fact all they are is high paid eye wash that read the latest news from AP and other liberal sources. A monkey could do the same thing and without snide comments.
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.