Posted on 12/06/2005 4:59:44 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
December 6, 2005 - 07:05.
Perhaps Katie Couric was only playing the reporter's role of devil's advocate, but one sensed she was speaking her own mind in interviewing Dem Rep. John Murtha on this morning's Today show.
And what was on her mind was that Iraq would dissolve into chaos and terror were the US to beat the kind of hasty retreat that Murtha advocates.
Murtha repeatedly praised the US military, but when it came down to it, flatly claimed that: "this mission is not something they can accomplish, not something they can do."
Murtha sought to distinguish between terrorism, of the type we fought in Afghanistan, and insurgency, of the kind we face in Iraq. His argument was that fighting insurgency amounts to nation-building that we cannot achieve.
Stretching at least this observer's credulity, Murtha claimed that if we withdrew as per his six-month timetable:
violence in Iraq would decrease;
the Iraqis - left to their own devices - would successfully "throw Al-Qaida out of there;" and
Iraq would become "a safer place for democracy, for the region and for the United States."
Katie didn't seem to be buying:
"Let me give you the other side of the coin. What about the fact that there have been true political strides in Iraq: a constitution, an interim government, upcoming elections on December 15th. Many people say you have to look at that rather than incidences of violence."
She continued: "Furthermore, what about the argument that if the US withdraws prematurely, the country will dissolve into a bitter, terrible, extremely violent civil war. It will encourage instability throughout the region."
With her voice rising in a manner that indicated she was speaking her own mind, she suggested that "the United States will be seen as those who cut and run."
Murtha said that he believes "just the opposite" and asserted that "just because they say it doesn't make it so. They said there was an Al-Qaida connection before we went in, they said there were nuclear weapons . . . "
He was about to continue when a clearly agitated Couric cut him off: "but Congressman, what do you think will happen if the US pulls out?"
Murtha stuck to his guns: "I think there will be less terrorism. [The Iraqis are] a proud people. They're going to destroy Al-Qaida once we're done."
Katie continued to sound the alarum: "Are you afraid that a radical government will step into power in the vacuum, with the United States in its cross-hairs?"
He wasn't, and to the contrary repeated his proposal to "redeploy to the periphery" of Iraq.
What explains Couric's emphatic criticism of Murtha's cut-and-run strategy? Has moderation crept into Today? Is Katie serving as a stalking horse for Hillary? Too early to tell, but we'll certainly be keeping watch.
Today Show/NewsBusters ping.
These democrats should be dragged in before all the world and tried for Treason With Murtha and DEAN hand cuffed together.
When I turned on TV this am it was in the middle of that interview. She preceded her question with "Others are saying". It was certainly not her opinion.
Mrs. Couric actually verbally-refuted Mr. "Weak-in-the-knees" himself????
I vote for the latter.
Thanks as always AB, you do a fantastic service for us weak-stomach types.
Don't forget to handcuff that Ramsay Clark dude.
Murtha is a Moonbat .. and he makes Katie sound sane
You are right. By the way, welcome to FreeRepublic.
Bingo.
Katie would usually be on her knees for someone like Murtha.
Maybe she found out he's impotent as well
In fairness, when Katie is attacking Republicans, we often criticize her for using the vague "some say" as a cover for her own opinions, so I think it would be unfair to turn around and claim that she really was only passing along other people's opinions when, for once, she says something supporting the Bush administration.
I watched the entire interview carefully, taped and reran it several times. As a veteran Couric-watcher, it's my considered opinion that she was largely speaking her own mind.
Couric's feigned objectivity is a function of her vying for the job to replace a certain news anchor!!!
I think you could well be onto something.
The US isn't going anywhere. The weight and force of events to come will make our position in Iraq and Afghanistan intractable. The nuclear enemy Iran issue is only going to get bigger. Israel sits there, chafing to do something.
Her own mind? IMO, everything she does is rank with political motive. Her gal Hitlary has taken a "moderate" position and that's where she is, right now. Couric never espouses an opinion outside the Democrap universe.
Republicans have their political problems with Iraq. But the Dems are in for a political disaster if they position themselves as the party of defeatism and an America that "can't-do".
No doubt Couric might have had political motives, but my point was that she did seem to be expressing her own opinions, for whatever reason, rather than merely playing the devil's advocate.
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.