Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Andrea Advocates Baker-Hamilton: 'Is W Willing To Change Before Events Overtake Him?'
Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 12/01/2006 5:06:26 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest

'Today' continued this morning its campaign of promoting the Baker-Hamilton recommendations. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell left little doubt as to her inclinations with this mini-editorial in the guise of a report:

"Americans might well be asking today after all the high-profile summits this week on two continents 'is the administration any closer now to an exit strategy for Iraq?'"

Noting that "time is running out and options limited," Mitchell wanted to know whether President Bush is "ready to change policy before events overtake him?" She then launched into a description of the policy changes to be proposed by the Baker-Hamilton Study Group.

View video here.

Even the retreat the Baker group proposes isn't quick enough for some. Noting that the study group's recommendation would result in all combat troops being out of Iraq by 2008, Mitchell closed by observing: "leading Democrats are already saying it is not fast enough."

Aside: Michelle Kosinski later reported from London on the investigation into the poisoning of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko. I don't know about you, but I think it's still a bit early for NBC to bring Michelle back holding an umbrella. Inevitably invokes memories of this ;-)

Finkelstein recently returned from Iraq. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: andreamitchell; bakerhamilton; canoe; iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: governsleastgovernsbest
Even the retreat the Baker group proposes isn't quick enough for some. Noting that the study group's recommendation would result in all combat troops being out of Iraq by 2008,

IIRC .. doesn't it also say .. depending on conditions on the ground??

21 posted on 12/01/2006 5:54:45 AM PST by Mo1 (Thank You Mr & Mrs "I'm gonna teach you a lesson" Voter ... you just screwed us on so many levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Post5203
Yes, and the tools on FR continue to repeat that propaganda, just as they did during the campaign which surrendered Iraq to OBL.

Brilliant tactic by the MSM, their campaign targets were Republicans/Conservatives/Independents.

Knowing that those voters tend to be more susceptible to propaganda than the leftwing voters who fight to win, always, no matter what.
22 posted on 12/01/2006 6:02:14 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

My pleasure, stm. I was, you might say, "drafted" from FR by NewsBusters when it started up and am still a loyal FReeper.


23 posted on 12/01/2006 6:14:02 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show since 2002 so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Social Engineering


24 posted on 12/01/2006 6:18:53 AM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Who cares what Andrea and Today thinks? >>>>

Better question is...who cares what the "Iraqi Panel" has to say? None of them are on the battlefield in Iraq so they should STFU.


25 posted on 12/01/2006 6:23:49 AM PST by My Favorite Headache ("Head-On...Apply Directly To The Forehead, Head-On...Apply Directly To The Forehead")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
I agree the strategy was good & I like the idea of the terrorists expending themselves in Iraq vs the USA or Europe. Iraq is a great location from which to threaten Iran, Syria, & others; but that threat has not materialized.

The "delicate" & PC way we have waged this war has emboldened our enemies - see Lebanon, Gaza, & the Iranian Nuke program. Also, the conditions for civil war in Iraq have been created by refusing to kill al-Sadr & those like him. Our military is perceived as being "tied-down" in Iraq, & no threat to anybody in the near future.

"Shock & Awe" was what we needed to quickly pacify Iraq. What we got was limited bombing, "Hearts & Minds", & quickie democracy - weak & ineffective. The result is Bush & co. are too busy in Iraq to even consider threatening Iran or Syria.
26 posted on 12/01/2006 6:44:23 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

In days, if not weeks, and certainly not years, no one will give a tinker's damn what some talking head in the media nor a bunch of washed up political hacks say, think, or report.
History will judge our leaders by what they actually have done.

This is what counts.


27 posted on 12/01/2006 6:49:50 AM PST by newcthem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

They want us to get out because they know we're close to turning the corner.

They can't have a Bush victory in Iraq now. It would be bad for their plans for power.


28 posted on 12/01/2006 6:55:36 AM PST by airborne (MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Jesus is the reason for the season!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache; All
None of them are on the battlefield in Iraq ...

How many on the Baker-Hamilton board served in the military?

29 posted on 12/01/2006 7:01:15 AM PST by airborne (MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Jesus is the reason for the season!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Is that a neck or dried ostrich skin??????????? Excuse me while I vomit!


30 posted on 12/01/2006 7:07:34 AM PST by Doc Savage ("You couldn't tame me, but you taught me.................")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

"I think it's reasonable to ask if President Bush can adapt to what's going on faster than his opponents."

- The only "adapting" that Bush can do in the short term is to declare that the US has lost the war and cut and run. The course that Bush has set and repeated over and over until blue in the face is that he is committed to winning the war. in this decision he must be patient until the Iraqi's build up their own security forces to take over most roles.
That is his policy and his exit strategy rolled into one, so how critics can continue to argue that there is no exit strategy is beyond me.
After all, the US still has forces tied down in Bosnia a decade after Clinton started his "Monica Diversion" adventure over there and I never hear anyone complain about his lack of an "exit strategy" in that undertaking.


31 posted on 12/01/2006 7:08:53 AM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Our inevitable defeat in Iraq already is firmly and irrevocably ingrained into the American psyche. Most Americans fully comprehend and indeed embrace the consequences of our defeat. We need an exit strategy that goes something like this:

(1) convince some terrorist organization (the Iraqi army) to roam Iraq and kill all enemy propagandists (journalists) and the terrorists with whom they hang;

(2) build a thriving stable democracy in Iraq;

(3) beat a retreat to Tehran, accidentally discharging weapons at the enemies of the United States there, including all mad ayatollahs and terrorists; and

(4) offer to surrender to their smoldering corpses.


32 posted on 12/01/2006 7:13:02 AM PST by dufekin (media-Democrat-terrorist complex: espionage, sedition, propaganda, treason, and surrender)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"Americans might well be asking today after all the high-profile summits this week on two continents 'is the administration any closer now to an exit strategy for Iraq?'"

Granted my sample set may be a bit biased, but the Amercans I checked with want us to kill the enemy and win things in Iraq. The phrase 'exit strategy' didn't even come up!

Exit strategy, redeployment, civil war..... They keep repeating these things ad infinitum then they'll go out and take a poll on these questions, and voila! The 'majority of American people think a definite exit strategy for the redployment of our troops out of the civil war in Iraq is necessary'. BS making of the news and then looking for agreement from the 'people'.

When is that hag Mitchell gonna be fired?

33 posted on 12/01/2006 7:13:09 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance
Could Andrea Mitchell be any more annoying?

NO!!!!

34 posted on 12/01/2006 7:15:54 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Never mind Michele, who is Mitchell 'satisfying' to keep her job?

And that's a frightening thought!


35 posted on 12/01/2006 7:16:43 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
The only "adapting" that Bush can do in the short term is to declare that the US has lost the war and cut and run.

That's not even remotely true. President Bush has many options that he simply chooses not to exercise. The 'stay the course' versus 'cut and run' is a false dichotomy. Take the resig-firing of Rumsfeld, for instance. He could have resig-fired Rummy years ago, and adapted only after the loss in the elections.

36 posted on 12/01/2006 7:17:50 AM PST by Steel Wolf (As Ibn Warraq said, "There are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
"President Bush has many options that he simply chooses not to exercise"

- The only other option (other than cut and run) that I've heard presented so far was by John Murtha, which was to "redeploy" the US Forces in Iraq to nearby Okinawa. After all, Iraq is in the Middle East and Okinawa is in the Far East so they've got to be right beside each other, right?
You might laugh, but the idea got him reelected.
37 posted on 12/01/2006 7:28:58 AM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I'm just guessing, but I think when the shelf life of former babes (like Andrea Mitchell), approaches expiration, it's more important who you got the goods on, rather than who you're cozying up to.


38 posted on 12/01/2006 8:47:48 AM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"Senior NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell said ... that she "messed up" when she told an interviewer in 2003 that Valerie Plame's CIA identity was "widely known."

But despite the startling comment, Mitchell said she [has never to date] been contacted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

....Radio host Don Imus grilled Mitchell on her Oct. 2003 remarks, where she told CNBC's Alan Murray that Plame's CIA connection was "widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger."


39 posted on 12/01/2006 1:03:04 PM PST by StAnDeliver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Andrea is an ugly old liberal.


40 posted on 12/01/2006 1:04:04 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson