NBC's Mitchell baselessly claimed Obama "has the least foreign policy experience of recent presidential candidates ... except Jimmy Carter"
On the July 17 edition of MSNBC Live, discussing Sen. Barack Obama's upcoming trip to Europe and the Middle East, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asserted: "The bottom line is you have a Democratic nominee, presumptive nominee, who has the least foreign policy experience of recent presidential candidates, of anyone except Jimmy Carter, and he's got to prove himself." But Mitchell did not elaborate on her claim that Obama's foreign policy experience is less than that of the governors who have become president since Carter, including the current president.
Of Obama's upcoming trip, Mitchell said:
MITCHELL: Yeah, there are a lot of pitfalls, and even though some of the McCain people are more than a little bit annoyed at all the attention that the Obama trip is going to get, and, you know, some of my friends at The New York Times wrote a little bit about that today. The bottom line is you have a Democratic nominee, presumptive nominee, who has the least foreign policy experience of recent presidential candidates, of anyone except Jimmy Carter, and he's got to prove himself.
And even John McCain, who is supposed to have all this experience, made mistakes on a congressional delegation when he confused the Shia and the Sunni. So, he's going to be watched very closely, and there are risks as well as potential rewards.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
For Democrats, how about Bill Clinton? Mike Dukakis?
For Republicans, how about Saint Ronald of California, aka Ronald Reagan? George W. Bush?
I'd also argue with the very premise of Mitchell's statement. The fact that someone hasn't served in Congress or the cabinet doesn't automatically mean that he or she is incapable of handling foreign affairs. In addition, just because someone has served in Washington, it doesn't necessarily follow that he or she IS capable of conducting foreign policy.
That's why I don't need my presidents to necessarily be the most honest, morally upright people. (I don't believe them when they claim to be anyway.)
But I truly believe that Carter may have been the least corrupt, most morally upstanding and honest human being to hold the office since Lincoln.
And as a direct result was one of the least effective leaders we've ever had.
Other than the fact that he was a terrible administrator, instituted policies that caused double digit inflation, retreated against Communist adventurism across the globe, gave Iran over to the mullahs, and gave the malaise speech, I might agree with you.
How did Carter give Iran over to the Mullahs? Are you sure you're not thinking about Reagan giving Lebanon over to Hezbollah?
Here is today's history lesson.
Khomeini’s ascent to power was aided by the policies of Jimmy Carter and his allies on the political left. Carter was elected president in 1976 by stressing his support for human rights. From the time he took office, the left contrasted Carter’s rights doctrine with the Shah’s practices. The left denounced the Shah as a vicious and corrupt dictator, highlighting and in some cases magnifying his misdeeds. Left-leaning officials such as Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, UN envoy Andrew Young, and State Department human rights officer Patricia Derian pressed Carter to sever America’s longstanding alliance with the Shah. Eventually Carter came to agree with his liberal advisers that he could not in good conscience support the Shah.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/01/29/giving_radical_islam_its_startWhen the Shah moved to arrest mullahs who called for his overthrow, leftists in America and Europe denounced these actions. Former diplomat George Ball called on the U.S. government to curtail the Shah’s exercise of power. Acceding to this pressure, Carter called for the release of political prisoners and warned the Shah not to use force against the demonstrators in the streets.
When the Shah petitioned the Carter administration to purchase tear gas and riot control gear, the human rights office in the State Department held up the request. Some, like State Department official Henry Precht, urged the U.S. to prepare the way for the shah to make a “graceful exit” from power. William Miller, chief of staff on the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan even compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi, and Andrew Young termed the ayatollah a “twentieth century saint.”
As the resistance gained momentum and the Shah’s position weakened, he looked to the United States government to help him. Carter aide Gary Sick reports that the Shah discovered many enemies, and few friends, in the Carter administration. Increasingly paranoid, the Shah pleaded with the United States to help him stay in power. Carter refused. Deprived of his last hope, with the Persian rug pulled out from under him, the Shah decided to abdicate. The Carter administration encouraged him to do so, and the cultural left celebrated his departure. The result, of course, was Khomeini.
The Carter administration’s role in assisting with the downfall of the Shah is one of America’s great foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century. In trying to get rid of the bad guy, Carter got the worse guy. His failure, as former Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, was the result of being “unable to distinguish between America’s friends and enemies.” Carter does not deserve sole discredit for these actions. This intellectual framework that shaped Carter’s misguided strategy was supplied by the political left.
By aiding the Shah’s ouster and with Khomeini’s consolidation of power, the left collaborated in giving radical Islam its greatest victory in the modern era.
Fog,
Very weak. If you don't like it, prove it wrong.
The Nixon-Kissinger folks brought about the rise of Iranian fundamentalism by being such fans of the Shah-- they hated us for this.
And double digit inflation occurred during Nixon-- it was so bad that he brought back the Office for Price Controls from WW II. Same with the gas crisis. MUCH worse under Nixon-Ford.
Carter was not to blame-- in fact, it was Carter appointee Paul Volcker who saved the economy.
Republicans? They lie, and they lie all the time.
It is true that inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. The inflation of the 1970s came about primarily because Fed chairman Arthur Burns gunned the money supply to get Richard Nixon re-elected in 1972. He was followed by G. William Miller, appointed by Jimmy Carter. Miller didn’t have a clue about monetary policy and only made the dismal inflation situation he inherited far worse.
The consumer price index, which rose 4.9 percent in 1976, the year Carter was elected, jumped steadily to 6.7 percent in 1977, 9 percent in 1978, and 13.3 percent in 1979. At this point, Carter realized that he had made a serious error appointing Miller to the Fed. But he could not be fired, so Miller had to be induced to leave voluntarily. Consequently, Carter fired Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal, who had been doing a fine job, in order to open the position for Miller, who left the Fed to replace him.
Under pressure from Wall Street, Carter reluctantly appointed Paul Volcker to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Volcker had been under secretary of the Treasury for Richard Nixon and was then serving as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, it is naïve to think that Volcker was given a free hand by Carter. His inability to fully implement a tight-money policy is why the inflation rate fell only to 12.5 percent in 1980, despite a sharp recession that year...
The result of the Fed’s tight-money policy was a far faster reduction in inflation than most economists thought feasible. From 12.5 percent in 1980, it fell to 8.9 percent in 1981, and 3.8 percent in 1982. It is hard to explain just how remarkable this achievement was. Most economists would have considered it impossible in 1980, especially given the big 1981 tax cut, which was generally viewed as pouring gasoline on the fire of inflation by economists schooled in Keynesian economics.
But Reagan was firm in his belief that the money supply — and only the money supply — fundamentally determined the inflation rate. However, he also knew that other policies could ease the transition to a low-inflation economy. ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200406140846.aspAA,
Are you really claiming editorials as fact?
AA,
As the other posters have shown, your editorial has been completely debunked. I am guessing you blame American culture for 9/11 like D'Souza does as well, correct?
in 1976 amnesty international noted: "no country in the world has a worse record in human rights than iran." torture and killing were widespread.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html
Here AA, let me just give you a little hand with your revisionist history:
While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of Modernization and recognition of Israel. Clashes with the religious right, increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:
Various controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the Tudeh Party and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK. Amnesty International reported that Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on January 16, forced the Shah to leave Iran after 37 years of rule. Soon thereafter, the revolutionary forces transformed the government into an Islamic republic.
Snoop,
There is no revisionism in what I provided. Nowhere did d'Souza say there were no political prisoners during the Shah's regime. Amnesty International is so biased toward the left it isn't even funny.
Perhaps you should count all the abuses done by the Mullah's since coming to power. I've seen estimates of 2.5 million killed and many imprisoned by the mullahs since coming to power.
http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id22.html
Here is what Amnesty International says about Iran today.
Human Rights in Iran
Human Rights Concerns
Amnesty International continues to document serious human violations including detention of human rights defenders and other prisoners of conscience, unfair trials, torture and mistreatment in detention, deaths in custody and the application of the death penalty. Iran has one of the highest number of recorded executions of any country in the world. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about the execution of children and individuals who were minors when their crimes were alleged to have taken place.
Snoop,
I noticed you did not cite your sources. I'm sure it is but an oversight. :-) (
As for answering your thread, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by not reading it until now. I hope you had a nice weekend.
Unfortunately for you, your cut and paste doesn't disprove to me, any of my contentions. Why do I need to comment on Eisenhower's actions? The discussion is about Carter. Your post is off the mark even if it does provide some added history. If you like perhaps you can explain the relevance.
As far as defending my position, I already provided my reasoning using the writings of d'Souza to back up my opinion about Carter and the mullahs. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any proof so far that anything d'Souza wrote is wrong. All I see is the typical ad hominem attacks. Again very weak. Of course you are all entitled to your opinion.
Anyway, it is an interesting discussion and a nice diversion from the typical day to day stuff.
AA, Dinesh D'Souza is a rightwing political hack, with no training in (or, apparently, understanding of) history. He blames America for the 9/11 attacks.
There are scholarly works by actual historians on the origins of the Iranian Revolution. Try looking them up the next time you visit the library.
Craig,
How about providing your own sources? I haven't noticed you doing that yet.
Forget who wrote it, show me where you think it is wrong.
For anyone to claim that it was Jimmy Carter who was responsible for the Iranian uprising-- or double digit 70s inflation, or high gas prices-- well, it's beneath contempt.
American, you're just stupid, besides being abysmally uninformed.
No, you made the claim, you need to back it up.
If I stated as fact that conservatives weren't as intelligent as liberals, then you asked me to support it, and I quoted an article by James Carville, would that be sufficient? Or would you want to see some scientific data? I would.
I have scanned some abstracts and book reviews on the causes of the Iranian Revolution. I haven't seen Carter mentioned. Here is the wikipedia entry. Likewise, Carter is not given as a cause there.
Most reasons I've seen given for the Iranian Revolution are internal issues, many either caused or exacerbated by the corruption of the Shah, who was a US puppet.
I think you need to face the possiblity that aggressive US intervention in the MidEast is a cause of and not a solution to our problems there.
BTW, do you agree with D'Souza that American culture is responsible 9/11?
Craig,
Thanks for sharing your opinion. It seems to me your argument that Carter was not responsible for the fall of the Shah is that you didn't read it in Wikopedia and a few other abstracts that you decided should remain nameless. I'm sorry but that just doesn't persuade me to change my opinion or disprove anything that d'Souza wrote about Carter and the Shah.
I really don't have an opinion regarding what you say is a quote by d'Souza and 9/11. I notice you didn't provide a link showing the actual quote.
However here is an interesting link that provides a little more substance to what I think you are referring.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/20/d_souza/Yes, that is what I was referring to. Not a quote, but a whole book about how Americans are responsible for 9/11. Here is more. I take it you agree.
Any luck finding a qualified professional who says Carter is to blame for the Iranian Revolution?
Mary,
No book club. I regularly visit the library. I encourage everyone here to try it sometime. :-)
then you should know that the solidarity labor union formed in poland when carter was president. the first non government approved union in the communist world.
That you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Every one of your factual statements is ridiculously false.
All 70s problems were created long before Carter became president. He inherited a real mess, but laid the groundwork for some fantastic progress-- Camp David, Paul Volcker, much more.
In fact, the claim can easily be made that by not putting up a fight when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, he helped doom them. That war destroyed them.
That's the kind of credit REAGAN would have gotten!
Car,
For one who is arguing facts, I think you should take a look at the last part of your previous note. Something about pot and kettle comes to mind... :-)
I have been to a library. I can also tell you that History is located in the 900's where, at my local library at least, you can find works by Anne Coulter and other hack revisionists. So I'd advise a little discretion when doing research.
AA, your passive-aggresive snarkiness is noted by most people here and you can't hide it behind a smiley face icon.
The fact that someone hasn't served in Congress or the cabinet doesn't automatically mean that he or she is incapable of handling foreign affairs.
You're right, it doesnt, but thats not what was said. He just claimed that he has the least experience, not that he can't do the job.
Did you miss this sentence that began that paragraph?
"I'd also argue with the very premise of Mitchell's statement."
The poster didn't ever try to claim that Andrea Mitchell said that. What she said was wrong, and he also argued that the premise of what she said was wrong. How can you miss the very first sentence of a paragraph and be a person with multiple college degrees?
But that's just plain wrong. He's been on the foreign relations committee. How does even a signle day there amount to less experienc that Clinton, Dukakis, Reagan or W. Bush had? They had NONE. Obama has SOME. Even if it's miniscule (which is highly debatable) SOME > NONE. At least it was in all the science and math class I took.
And how is it that McCain has more foreign policy experience? Just because he was shot down while flying a plane and held as prisoner of war in Vietnam doesn't automatically give him foreign policy experience. It also doesn't give him military experience, other than the knowledge to land a crashing plane and repeat his name rank and serial number, multiple times. Five years in the hole as POW doesn't a foreign policymaker make.
I appreciate and respect McCain's service to our country as a soldier. I don't appreciate or respect his disservice to our country as a corrupt politician.
The fact that someone hasn't served in Congress or the cabinet doesn't automatically mean that he or she is incapable of handling foreign affairs.
Wasn't the last senator to be elected president about 40yrs ago? Typically its because they lack executive experience. Perhaps this just shows how weak our election year really is.
What we need is definitely someone with executive experience like running an oil company or a baseball team. THEN the country would be in good hands...
By contrast, note that Obama can speak extemporaneously for hours on domestic and foreign affairs from memory. So by the right wing extremists' own standard, Obama is far more qualified than their last choice. I'd be happy to go with their standard.
The bottom line is you have a Democratic nominee, presumptive nominee, who has the least foreign policy experience of recent presidential candidates, of anyone except Jimmy Carter, and he's got to prove himself.
The LEAST foreign policy experience?
Andrea, did you forget this:
When Andy Hiller, the political correspondent for WHDH-TV in Boston, had George W. Bush in front of a camera on Wednesday, he asked the Texas governor if he could name the president of Chechnya. Bush could not. Nor could he name the general who recently took power in Pakistan or the new prime minister of India. Bush only answered one of the four questions correctly when he identified the president of Taiwan as "Lee."
What made the Q&A worse for Bush was that he responded to the questions with petulance. Rather than explaining that he is a big-picture guy and calmly providing a strategic vision of U.S. foreign policy concerning these areas, he shot back at the reporter.
"Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?" Bush asked, apparently proud that he knew the answer. Hiller reasonably replied that he was not the one running for president.
Mr. Obama has a force of 300 people to help him understand foreign policy. So do you really think she mis-spoke?
Everyday he receives two emails. 1 for the news of the day and 2. A Question and answer email with possible answers.
This presumptive Democrat Nominee has no clue on Foreign affairs or anything regarding other Nations policies and how we should handle them. The empty suit that speaks well with a tele-prompter.
Still smarting over the fact that you helped elect the worlds dumbest dunce eight years ago, eh?
As for MMFA, keep it up. Here's McLame's policy advisor claiming she was "misinformed" about the fact that oil leaked during Katrina right after a reporter called her on it. Yeah, that McLame sure has some top notch handlers advising him, don't he?
forgot the link...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/17/pfotenhauer-misinformed-oil-spill/
I guess McCain's advisor forgot to tell him she was misinformed about oil spills from Katrina. Here he is again today, after the meeting his advisor had, saying it again. Man, he has to be stupid as a brick to keep repeating lies!
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/18/mccain-rigs/
Guess what? He will soon have this whole department to advise him, hope he listens better than the current "decider"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_department_of_state.jpg
Pretty much anybody who tries to sling the ridiculous (and false) teleprompter talking-point has no cred whatsoever.
But thanks for playing.
Everyday he receives two emails. 1 for the news of the day and 2. A Question and answer email with possible answers.
You're just blowing smoke outta your butt because you realize you voted not ONCE but TWICE for THE dumbest President ever. When you saw the proof of exactly how stupid Bush is you realize how stupid you are for voting for AND defending him. It's not Obama's fault that he didn't get his education handed to him because of his family. It's also not Obama's fault that he uses his brain.
Making up stories is what children do, you need a time out.
Mitchell didn't claim Obama was incapable...she said inexperienced...a point that has some merit as an opinion.
Obama may well prove adept at foreign policy...inspite of his lack of experience.
Wesley,
Don't you think Obama has more foreign policy experience than Reagan or W. Bush?
I agree he doesn't have a ton of experience, but to say that he has the least in recent memory isn't true either.
Nope...
Obama's resume on foreign policy experience is razor thin. So attempts to defend his experience are certainly tough. The argument is easily supportable about his inexperience.
However, it's also reasonable to assume that he is capable of doing a fine job in foreign affairs...despite his debatable lack of experience.
Open,
You are mistaken. Bush visited the following countries before becoming President:
China (when his G.H.W Bush was U.S. Representative).
Japan
Mexico
Spain
Britain
Israel (including the West Bank in the company of Ariel Sharon.)
Ireland
Italy
and Egypt where he met Hosni Mubarek.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702619.htmlI stand corrected. Thanks AA.
It would have been nice if Bush had actually learned something from those trips.
Have not met any "Kosovonians," however.
Gordon Johndroe, a Bush spokesman, said Sunday that Bush has been outside the United States "more than a dozen times" with trips to Guatemala (business, Bush’s biographies also shed little light on exactly what his business in Guatemala might have entailed.), France (vacation), Bermuda (vacation), Italy (with family), Israel and Egypt (both with the National Governor's Association), Gambia (part of a delegation during the Bush administration), England and Scotland.
Looks like a lot of family vacations
Wesley,
What foreign policy experience did GWB and RR have before becoming President?
Wesley...
I didn't think it was that difficult to understand Freidberboy's question.
WHY DIDN'T YOU ANSWER IT??
8,
Why don't you answer it for him?
AA,
Maybe you can answer it. Why does Andrea Mitchell think that RR and GWB had more foreign policy experience than Obama before those two took office? Its completely false.
Mitchell didn't claim Obama was incapable...she said inexperienced...a point that has some merit as an opinion. -- Wesley
No, she did not say that. She said that he has the least experience of recent Presidents.
That's false. He has more foreign policy experience than George Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. He's not very experienced, but he has more than several recent Presidents!
I would argue that he even has more experience than John McCain.
What are McCain's committee memberships in the Senate?
What are Obama's?
You can look them up if you want. I have, and I'll save you some time by telling you that Obama's are more significant from a foreign policy perspective.
Obama's a relatively new senator, but he's crammed a lot into that short time.
That and, you know...the fact that Obama has opposed the Iraq war from the start and recognizes it as the premier foreign policy blunder of the last century while McCain has supported it since day one.
That alone goes a long way.
Deez,
When you say last century are you referring to the 2000's or 1900's? If so, you should take a break and reflect a little.
Lets start with Chamberlain's "peace in our time" disasterous appeasement that lead to WWII. Millions died.
What about the decision not to push the Communists back after defeating the Germans? It lead to the Communist suppression and totalitarian rule and the cold war. How many millions died because of that?
What about giving up on Chaing Kai-sheck and allowing Mao to take over China. More millions died.
Vietnam? How many died there because we finally cut-and-run?
What about Carter practically giving Iran to the Mullahs?
There's more but I have to run. We'll have to wait and see how history judges Iraq. However I'm proud that the U.S. did what was right and removed the murderer psychopath Saddam and are fighting the islamofacists.
Lets start with Chamberlain's "peace in our time" disasterous appeasement that lead to WWII. Millions died.
What about the decision not to push the Communists back after defeating the Germans? It lead to the Communist suppression and totalitarian rule and the cold war. How many millions died because of that?
What about giving up on Chaing Kai-sheck and allowing Mao to take over China. More millions died.
Vietnam? How many died there because we finally cut-and-run?
What about Carter practically giving Iran to the Mullahs?
There's more but I have to run. We'll have to wait and see how history judges Iraq. However I'm proud that the U.S. did what was right and removed the murderer psychopath Saddam and are fighting the islamofacists.
So your solution to everything is that America should constantly be at war with those who pose no imminent threat to us no matter the cost in dollars, human lives or the rest of the world? Was Saddam bad? Sure, but he didn't a pose a threat to OUR country and it's not OUR place to invade countries and decide for them how they should run their government.
Tell me, sir or ma'am, are YOU enlisted in the military or just another person that is fine with America killing and being killed as long as it isn't you?
Vietnam? How many died there because we finally cut-and-run?
Far less than the number killed during the war.
Loonz,
An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://boatpeople75.tripod.com/Vietnamese democide: 1,040,000 (1975-87)
Executions: 100,000
Camp Deaths: 95,000
Forced Labor: 48,000
Democides in Cambodia: 460,000
Democides in Laos: 87,000
Boat People: 500,000 deaths (50% not blamed on the Vietnamese govt.)
ANALYSIS: I'd say the most likely total would be 430,000. That's 65,000 executions + 165,000 camp deaths + 200,000 boat people. It's unlikely that VN alone caused 460+87T democides in Cambodia + Laos since estimates of the total deaths in these conflicts only run to a half million or so.
I've seen estimates Over 2 million people where killed by the Khmer Rouge as they took power nearby. Perhaps 1 to 2 million were killed by the communists in relocation camps and the boat people dying at sea.
ps. please excuse the last paragraph. It is inaccurate.
The deaths in Cambodia are too low and the deaths in Vietnam prison camps too high.
Non combatant deaths in Iraq since liberation by the americans:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
2.5 to 3 million Vietnamese dead during the war vs 430,000 Vietnamese dead when the war ended.
Cambodia is a separate occurrence and Pol Pot's brutal regime was actually removed by the communist Vietnamese government in 1979.
Arm,
Good point. Why don't you tell me exactly how many would have died had we stayed there... Oh and why you are at it, please send us the lottery ticket numbers for next week. :-)
We can't police the whole world Another American...
Though this is surely a powerful fantasy for every chicken hawk and armchair general.
AA,
Please don't talk about cutting and running in Vietnam. I think you know why I am not going further with that statement.
As far as the "Islamofascists" being in Iraq. How many of these "Islamofascists" were there before we invaded?
Mary,
He told us a while ago why he wasn't in Vietnam and his regrets and now says we "cut and run." Can't have it both ways.....
Hey everyone,
Thanks for such kind words. :-)
Perhaps one of these days it might dawn on a few of you that they mean nothing.
AA,
Which one of those causes would you have fought and perhaps given your life for?
What about Carter practically giving Iran to the Mullahs?
The Iranians gave Iran to the mullahs.
We'll have to wait and see how history judges Iraq.
In case you missed it, the verdict is in. <FAILURE>
Experience? Maybe they should think in terms of Effectiveness.
Here we have Sen. Obama, leading in popularity with the American People, speaking earlier this week in a bold way against the occupation of IRAQ, essentially saying that having our Troops there serves no National Security objective to us, and instead puts us at greater risk and distracts us from greater challenges... and his speech this week was really just the high note of what he's been saying more and more of in the past few weeks...
From today's New York Times:
U.S. and Iraq Agree to Goals for Troop Cuts
The United States and IRAQ have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq”
WOW!
Both PM Maliki in IRAQ and Sen. Obama in the U.S. say it's time to end the Military occupation of IRAQ, and look what happens!
What happened was that George W. Bush and his many minions stooges and crooks scrambled to set up a quick "video conference" with PM Maliki, and rushed to pretend the whole thing was the boss's idea, and his work... WOW!
Of course, they had to change the wording so as not to be charged with plagarism, so they turned "time-line" into "time horizon"
Sen. Obama has already effected a scheduled redepolyment of U.S. Troops from Iraq, and he hasn't even addressed the Democratic Convention yet!
That's Effective.
Everytime Mitchell appears on TV i switch channels, although must
admit have gotten so tired of MSNBC"s irresponsible reporting do not
watch it much. Problem is, we are faced with this bias reporting on
most stations and newpaper articles.
But, we the American people have more intelligence than the med
gives us credit for, so we easily ignore their incompetance, bias
and search for the truth, found mostly on the web.
"Obama's foreign policy experience is less than that of the governors who have become president since Carter, "
Ummm... isn't that every President excpet GHWBush? That's more than a gaffe, Andrea, that's a pile of stinking lies!
Yeah PSM, it's truly amazing...
Mitchell knows exactly what she's doing. She's getting up, and just lying right through her teeth.
What an utter disgrace to America this woman is. To totally debase herself like this is really quite sad.
I just sent her an e-mail.
I cannot think of a president with less foreign policy experience than George W. Bush.
"who has the least foreign policy experience of recent presidential candidates, of anyone except Jimmy Carter"
Only one reason to tell it in that way...
Mitchell never has a kind word to say about Obama. Her report last night couched Obama's policy statements with doubts as to his sincerity, experience or wisdom, letting Patreaus or McCain statements trump Obama's talking points. Then Kelly comes on as a died in the wool cheerleader for McCain, giving him a pass on misstatements, ignoring any negatives. Media Matters, I suggest you review the transcript from last night's broadcast and then begin keeping a record of the pattern I am pointing to. (I wasn't able to find where NBC posts transcripts). The irony is that the right wing noise machine is screaming that NBC is favoring Obama because they are covering him more (yes, but more coverage means more opportunity for negative coverage, at least when Andrea Mitchell gets to hold the mic!). MMR
PC,
Perhaps you can tell me about all of the foreign policy experience Reagan and GWB had before they took office.