Skip to comments.Once an Aberration, Twice a Trend? Today Again Questions Dems' Lack of Iraq Plan
Posted on 11/23/2005 5:09:37 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein November 23, 2005 - 07:27.
ESPN loves to run the clip of NFL coaching legend Vince Lombardi stomping down the sideline, demanding to know "what the hell is going on around here?"
Watching the Today show the last two mornings, one is tempted to ask the same question.
As reported here http://newsbusters.org/node/2923, Matt Lauer yesterday criticized the Democrats for their lack of a plan for Iraq. This morning, Matt & Co. were, mirabile dictu, back at it again.
Lauer introduced the segment in this surprisingly W-friendly way: "President Bush has taken a beating on Capitol Hill from Democrats unhappy with the way the war is going, but do the president's critics have an exit strategy of their own?"
Norah O'Donnell, who's never been accused of pro-Republican bias, narrated the segment entitled "Do Democrats Have Plan for Iraq?"
She aired a clip of John Kerry, looking increasingly like a Saturday Night Live parody of himself, ponderously proclaiming: "We need to reduce the American presence. The president does not have a plan to do that."
Norah then asked the obvious question: "But where is the Democrats' plan? They've yet to agree on an exit strategy."
O'Donnell then brought in the suave John Dickerson of left-leaning Slate.com, who answered Norah's question in a manner that largely let the Dems off the hook: "the Democratic party doesn't have a good plan for how to get out of Iraq because there is no good plan to get out of Iraq."
As the segment ground to an inconclusive halt, Norah went on to cite Murtha, Hillary, Biden and Kerry to various effect regarding troop withdrawal. But while it was anything but a tough indictment of Democrat hypocrisy, the very fact that the issue of the Dems' lack of an Iraq plan had been put on the table at all was noteworthy.
Sea change at Today? Not likely. Refreshing blip, fleeting as a subliminal 'X'? Perhaps. To be continued . . .
I also heard on NPR this morning they've changed their strategy to focus on Afghanistan again. They had a story about a single Indian road contractor that had been killed by the Taliban.
So I guess if you can't get the people tired of Iraq, go back to trying to tire them on Afghanistan. *rolling eyes*
a relative sea change, however, for NBC
The 'suave' John Dickerson of Slate? That sounds more like the de-balled, DNC water-carrier of Slate. Miserable piss-ants!
Setting the stage for Hillary and her new "there's a third way" plan, perhaps?
LOL. I'm listening to Andrea Mitchell on Imus trying to explain why a perfectly clear answer to a perfectly clear question is not what it seems to be. Apparently, we are to belive that the much vaunted "journalist", Ms. Mitchell, is just not very good at her job and doesn't know much of anything.
Probably just setting the table for Hillary's plan.
They CAN'T come up with a plan. Because it would be identical to what's actually going on now. They can't denounce a plan and then turn around and put their name on the same plan. Their propensity for "Everything Bush" is bad has gotten them "between IRAQ and a hard place".......
It can't be much simpler.
Uh, wasn't it just two weeks ago that Kerry demanded more troops in Iraq? Flip flop. Again.
Today Show/NewsBusters ping.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Silly me! How could I have forgotten? - Kerry has a plan. He told us so, after all. And his plan is that we don't have enough troops, except, er, that we need to bring the troops home. It's not his fault if the little people can't understand. Teresa will soon be brought out to explain it to us in French, Spanish and Portuguese.
When a talking head asks them if they've got a plan, they say, "Of course, we've got a plan." Then they rattle off a list of things that Bush has been doing for the last 3 years anyway.
Hillary is just using bill's words...nothing else. She's so uncreative. The smartest woman in the universe? HA
Yes to both remarks. The "prosecuter's prosecuter" didn't do a very good job, did he, other than fulfilling his charge to "get" someone in the administration.
It's not a bad idea (although it hasn't been the case for every war at least since Jefferson), congress would probably still be pointing fingers (I believe the war itself would have been declared) but they would look a lot more foolish.
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.