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
IIRC .. doesn't it also say .. depending on conditions on the ground??
My pleasure, stm. I was, you might say, "drafted" from FR by NewsBusters when it started up and am still a loyal FReeper.
Social Engineering
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.
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.
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.
How many on the Baker-Hamilton board served in the military?
Is that a neck or dried ostrich skin??????????? Excuse me while I vomit!
"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.
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.
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?
NO!!!!
Never mind Michele, who is Mitchell 'satisfying' to keep her job?
And that's a frightening thought!
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.
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.
"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."
Andrea is an ugly old liberal.
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.