"and frankly on the Clinton administration."
Posted on 4/13/2004, 11:42:06 AM by governsleastgovernsbest
Things were relatively quiet on the Today Show this morning . . . until Katie showed her stripes in the last interview of the half-hour, with Tim Russert.
She had earlier interviewed 9/11 Commission member and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey. He was not at his partisan worst, though he was as pompous and self-important as ever.
But in the last segment, Katie bared her liberal fangs, albeit with a rather saccharine coating.
Speaking of Pres. Bush's press conference tonight, Couric snidely observed that this was not his favorite forum for communicating with the American people, noting that it was only the third prime-time press conference of his Presidency (a fact that had been noted at least twice before during the show).
The Today Show also ran at least twice footage of W emerging from the Marine helicopter at the White House. The President was looking rather tired and listless, and frankly a bit older. I don't think it was coincidence that Today chose to highlight the footage.
The most telling moment came in Couric's preview of testimony today before the 9/11 Commission. Katie said that the FBI would come in for heavy criticism that would also reflect badly on the Bush administration "and frankly on the Clinton administration."
Consider the implications of that "and frankly." I think it was an unintentional pulling back of the curtain on Katie's liberal bias. She was effectively saying "not only will the testimony make the hated Bush administration look bad, but let's face it, it will, frankly, make our guys look bad too."
Katie next observed that the Bush administration "has been downplaying number of bad guys in Iraq. To what extent will they have to change this strategy?"
Note the use of "strategy." Couric's clear implication was that this is just a political ploy, and that if it's not working politically it might have to be changed. No reference to whether the characterization of the situation in Iraq is TRUE or not. That would be so old-fashioned. Her hero Bill Clinton never worried about details like that.
Next, Katie fretted about how the current situation might be affecting her boy of the hour, John Kerry. "How will all this affect John Kerry's strategy? He's in a tough spot. He can't criticize our actions in Iraq without being seen to criticize troops, I guess."
Russert observed that as a candidate for President it wasn't enough for Kerry to be the "anti-Bush." He has to make specific proposals of his own. [And as we know, for the time being about the only thing Kerry has come up with is to throw ourselves on the mercy of the UN, the French and the Germans.]
LOL. Telling use of the word frankly, don't you think? BTW, thanks for the thread! You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din.
Exactly. It might have seemed like a small point to many, but in fact it was a rare slip of the liberal mask, an insight into how Katie and her liberal press cohorts really think.
When someone uses the word "frankly," it is for purposes of making an admission against their interest. Here, it was obviously painful for Katie to admit that the testimony might put her hero Clinton in a bad light. Telling indeed!
I also caught Morris' appearance on O'Reilly last night. What a sick man. Of course he lauded Clinton for being willing to turn on a dime without any concern for principle if the polls suggested that was expedient.
Hey, al-Katie - if you and your buds @ the AP and the alphabet fraudworks are successful, they'll be coming to New York first. And I won't have an ounce of sympathy to spare.
We were blindsided on 9/11, and many people saw what needed to be done. If this country doesn't have the patience to see this through to the end, then I'll wash my hands of it.
"Strategy" indeed.
On the FRONT PAGE of the Washington ComPOST above the fold no less...is a story titled "Fallujah Gains Mythic Air".
IMO, this article aids and gives comfort to our enemy.
The 1st paragraph says that the "U.S. Marine siege of Fallajah [is}designed to isolate and pursue a handful of extremists in a restive town, and has produced a powerful backlast in the Capital (Baghdad).
"The fighting now is different than a year ago. Before the Iraqis fought for nothing. Now, fighters from all over Iraq are going to sacrifice themselves, said a Fallajah native who gave his name as Abu Idris and claimed to be in contact with gureillas who slip in and out of the besieged city theree and four times daily".
Why isn't this considered giving comfort to the enemy? Why haven't the writers given the name and location of this Mr. Idris?
If Kennedy's words can be construed (correctly) as possibly abetting and giving comfort to our enemy, why not this article? Afterall, this is the POST...not Al Jereeza.
If Hillary ever manages to become President, we'll have an illustration of the perfect world according to Couric. PS: Firebird Formula!
"and frankly on the Clinton administration."
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.