NBC's Mitchell uncritically aired Romney's "Dr. Strangelove" attack on Obama
During a segment on the August 6 broadcast of NBC's Today, NBC senior foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell uncritically aired Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's claim during an August 5 debate aired on ABC's This Week that Sen. Barack Obama "went from going to sit down to tea with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." His reference to Dr. Strangelove was an attack on Obama apparently for saying during an August 1 speech that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan, "and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." In fact, in the course of the very same debate, Romney and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani (NY) both acknowledged that they agree that a president should retain the option of attacking terrorists within the territory of an ally.
In the speech to which Romney was referring, Obama said:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Notwithstanding Romney's claim, Obama did not say he would "bomb our allies."
Mitchell introduced the clip of Romney's attack by saying, "Romney led Republicans in going after Democrat Barack Obama for his recent foreign policy statements." Mitchell did not report what those statements were. Nor did she note that during the course of the debate, both Giuliani and Romney acknowledged their agreement with the substance of Obama's "foreign policy statement."
ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, hosting the debate, noted that Giuliani had previously said that he would go after bin Laden if necessary over Musharraf's objections, when asked about Obama's speech on the August 1 edition of PBS' Charlie Rose. During the debate, responding to Giuliani's denial that he had said he would act, Stephanopoulos said: "No, you said 'If we had a chance to take bin Laden we've got to do it ourselves, because we're not sure if someone else is going to do it correctly. Yeah, I think I would take that option.'" Giuliani then acknowledged: "Well, I would take that option if I thought there was no other way to crush Al Qaeda, no other way to crush the Taliban and no other way to be able to capture bin Laden."
Romney said:
It's wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say "we're going to go into your country unilaterally." Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don't go out and say: "Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn't think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out." We don't say those things. We keep our options quiet.
Stephanopoulos summarized their positions as follows: "So what I'm hearing is -- that from both of you -- what I'm hearing is that you keep this option on the table, but it was foolish to talk about it in public," and asking, "Does anybody disagree with that?" Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) stated that he disagreed, but Romney and Giuliani did not. So not only did Romney agree with the substance of Obama's remarks, he attacked Obama for "go[ing] out and say[ing]" that he would take action against bin Laden, even as he -- Romney -- also announced that he would retain the option to act unilaterally if necessary: "Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America."
Mitchell noted none of this.
From the August 5 Republican presidential debate:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (moderator): Governor Romney, are you and Mayor Giuliani and Senator [John] McCain [R-AZ] all in the same place right now on Iraq?
ROMNEY: I think we're pretty much in the same place. It is critical for us to win this conflict. It is essential, and that's why we are going to continue to pursue this effort, and we're going to get a report from General [David] Petraeus on the success, and I agree that the Brookings Institution report over the weekend was a very encouraging indication that we're making progress. That's great news.
At the same time, you look at that Democratic debate -- I had to laugh at what I saw Barack Obama do. I mean, in one week, he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone -- he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to get to that.
[...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, you said you didn't agree with Obama's plan. You called it ill-timed and ill-considered. Mayor Giuliani, on Charlie Rose the other night, you said, "I would take that option." Why don't you guys take two minutes and debate this issue out.
GIULIANI: Well, I believe -- I believe that that is an option that should remain open. I think the senator didn't express it the right way. I think the senator, if he could say it over again, might want to say that we would encourage Musharraf to allow us to do it if we thought he couldn't accomplish it. But the reality is America should not take --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if he said no, you'd go in.
GIULIANI: I didn't say we'd go in, I said I wouldn't take that option off the table.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, well, you actually said, "I would take that option."
GIULIANI: I said I would keep that option open.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you said --
GIULIANI: In any event --
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- "If we had a chance to take bin Laden, we've got to do it ourselves, because we're not sure if someone else is going to do it correctly. Yeah, I think I would take that option."
GIULIANI: Well, I would take that option if I thought there was no other way to crush Al Qaeda, no other way to crush the Taliban, and no other way to be able to capture bin Laden. I think Pakistan has, unfortunately, not been making the efforts that they should be making. I think we should encourage them to do it. We should put the pressure on them to do it. And we should seek their permission if we ever had to take action there, as we were able to get their permission under Secretary or Deputy Secretary [Richard] Armitage was very effective in getting Musharraf's permission for us to act in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001 and 2002.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Yeah, I think Barack Obama is confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies. In his first year, he wants to meet with [Cuban President Fidel] Castro and [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez and [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. Those are our enemies. Those are the world's worst tyrants. And then he says he wants to unilaterally go in and potentially bomb a nation which is our friend. We're trying to strengthen Musharraf. We're trying to strengthen the foundations of democracy and freedom in that country, so that they will be able to reject the extremists. We're working with them -- we're working them on a --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if your CIA director called you and said, "We have Osama bin Laden in our sights, Musharraf says no," what do you do?
ROMNEY: It's wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say "we're going to go into your country unilaterally." Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don't go out and say: "Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn't think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get 'em out." We don't say those things. We keep our options quiet. We do not go out and say to a nation which is working with us, where we've collaborated and they are our friend and we're trying to support Musharraf and strengthen him and his nation, that instead that we intend to go in there and potentially bring out a unilateral attack.
Recognize, to win the war on jihad, we have to not only have a strong military of our own, and we need a stronger military, we also need to have strong friends around the world and help moderate Muslims reject the extreme, because ultimately, the only people who can finally defeat these radical Islam jihadists are the Muslims themselves.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what I'm hearing is that from both of you -- what I'm hearing is that you keep this option on the table, but it was foolish to talk about it in public. Does anybody disagree with that?
HUNTER: Yeah, I disagree with it. I disagree --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Who did -- what do --
HUNTER: Yeah. George, let me tell you. Barack Obama didn't understand there are now 100,000 Pakistani troops who have been moved to the border. They've moved two divisions to the border; in fact, one of them out of the high country on the Indian border. You right now have operations that are being taken in cooperation with American forces in Afghanistan.
From the August 6 broadcast of NBC's Today:
MITCHELL: And Romney led the Republicans in going after Democrat Barack Obama for his recent foreign policy statements.
ROMNEY: [video clip] He went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone -- he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.
MITCHELL: There was also some humor when Rudolph Giuliani, twice divorced, was asked his defining mistake.
From the August 1 broadcast of PBS' Charlie Rose:
ROSE: Fair enough. All right. Barack Obama made a very interesting thing today in pursuit of Osama bin Laden. He said the following -- if in fact -- he's in favor of withdrawing all the troops from Iraq, as you know -- if in fact there was in Pakistan a realistic evidence of Osama bin Laden, a hot target, and Musharraf was not prepared to go after him, he, as president, would be prepared to go into Pakistan to get him, regardless of what Musharraf did.
Would do you that? That's a tough stand against terrorism, which you have defined as the number one issue facing the new president?
GIULIANI: As I have said many, many times, we should redouble and triple our efforts to crush the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I say that --
[crosstalk]
ROSE: Even if it means going into Pakistan, which is an ally, despite the objections of Musharraf?
GIULIANI: I certainly would not take that option off the table. You would have to judge that given the circumstances that were presented to you. Hey, these things are all big calls on, is the intelligence correct? Can you actually get him? Are you going to be successful? Will America look foolish because it will make a mistake? There are so many questions that have to be resolved.
But if what you're asking me is, would that be an option that's on the table, which is we have a chance to catch bin Laden and we have got to do it ourselves because we're not sure if somebody is going to do it correctly -- yeah, I think I would take that option.















Rush Limbaugh also uncritically aired it...5 minutes before he said that the U.S. treasury had "More money than they know what to do with".
Actually, he did comment on it...he laughed and regarded it as a brilliant retort on Romney's part...one liar applauding another.
$2.9 trillion is objectively more money than we know what to do with.
And if you openly say you are going to invade Pakistan. You're an abject embarrassment.
Then it's a good thing he didn't say that.
If we have 2.9 trillion in our treasury, why do we have the largest deficit the country has ever known and just how much of that debt is owned by foreign governments?
Have another haul of kool aid. Your suggestion that we have money to burn is absurd. Reagonomics is a shell game that is going to bite us in the arse.
Bush pretty much said the same thing. It's perfectly fine to criticize Barak Hussein Obama on most issues. On this issue, the guy has courage though and should be applauded. However, I wonder how his comments are going to play among the pro-Islamist/CAIR contingent of the Democrat Party?
I don't know, Genghiz. Why don't you ask them, since most of them apparently live in your head.
This is common with Mitchell, she never tells the whole story.
When did Dr. Strangelove ever bomb our enemies? Romney's analogy doesn't even make sense-- has he ever seen the MOVIE!
I was just wondering that! Strangelove really isn't a big part of the movie - he's a satire of the German scientists the US government granted amnesty to. General Turgidson would be a better characterization of a warmonger.
I wonder...are the talking Punditrons spending as much time on the nutty ideas of Romney's church as they are on Obama's?
Romney got all perturbed by an interviewer asking him about his religion. During the commercial break, he got all bent out of shape over the questioning. It's clearly a sore spot with him.
I don't think his religion or the way he practices it should be much of an issue unless he demonstrates some hypocrisy about it.
I agree, but some of the talking heads have been questioning the teachings of Obama's church. If looney religious beliefs are off the table for one, they should be off the table for all.
If we don't want to end up a theocratic and backward nation we should stop putting so much weight on "faith" and care more about people's actions.
However if you really believe half the sh*t the mormons do you don't need to be in charge of the country.
There was a man named Joseph Smith...dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb....
I am actually on Romney's side on that one. It is on youtube. The talk show host - Jan Mickelson was telling Romney to accentuate his Mormon faith on the campaign. Romney told the guy his religion has nothing to do with it as the president is president for everyone - not just Mormons. Romney was right. I will not ever vote for him, but at least he passes the secular test pretty well. Here is the link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-G9hydflwEQ
All those sorry little people (republican candidates and the pundits who love them)
who have never served in a war, and enjoy the bellicose rhetoric no matter how disengaged from reality--
Do they realize they are all going the way of the dinosaur?
Do you know something about a meteor you aren't telling us?
ps. Persied meteor shower Aug. 12.
Hmm...no, not a worldwide disaster.
A little meteor shower, perhaps, occuring in their cerebral cortexes!
A Braincloud, perhaps?
How 'bout an Orange Crush?
The Mayan calendar stops in 2012 dude. Qetzlcoatl is coming back and he's going to be wrathful as they say. That's why the next Presidential election is so important; it'll be our last.
Ah flip-flop
a flip-flip-flop
a flip-flip-flop ya don't stop I said ...
(wind up Romney to repeat)
Great Mitt, so after saying Obama's deluded and foolish, you turn around and admit he's not so foolish, save that he actually admitted he would do it rather than keep it secret because the USA always has that option open anyway.
Building bridges ... which immediately collapse, ladies and gentlemen.
In this 'sound bite' generation, Obama has shown his inexperience. You gotta give him credit for his candor, but low marks for his ability to understand how his remarks will be used against him. I think he's through unless Hillary has a meltdown media moment like our old friend Howard Dean.
I thought Obamas comments were frank and very appropriate. They were refreshing. Someone needs to stand up to Pakistan and the harboring of bin Laden.
You Go, Sue!
You will have to forgive AA, it appears he has forgotten entirely who was really responsible for 9-11.
Name one experienced politician who disagrees with this statement. You know the one Obama actually said, not the fantasy land version.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." - Obama
It sounds as if Julie-Annie is saying we should ask permission from neighboring countries before we engage in any kind of incursion. (re: Armitage and Musharraf). He actually says we DID that in 2001 and 2002. Isn't that what they claimed Kerry was saying when he referred to justification in the form of "passing the test"?
I think he's through unless Hillary has a meltdown media moment like our old friend Howard Dean.
Dean’s “meltdown moment” was a media creation, too, as they continued to replay that scene ad nauseam as if the man was having an epileptic fit on stage. His excitement was depicted as insanity, thus him losing the Democratic nomination.
I don’t see Hillary having a moment to where the media can misconstrue her behavior or rhetoric as they did with Dean’s. They tried it with her before by saying she’s too “shrill” and “cold” and it hasn’t hurt her yet. She’s a savvy politician that’s too prehensile of our sensationalistic, sound-bite driving media to ever let down her guard.
I’m not sure I agree with you about Obama being “through” but I do believe it’s going to take a helluva lot of work to recover from the media pounding he’s been getting the past few weeks or so.
I think you are wrong. Obama will get the Democratic nomination. Hardly anyone is even paying attention right now and the ones that are can see through this kind of silliness on Romney's part pretty easily. The presidency will be decided between Julie-Annie (or maybe Romney) and Obama.
Don't count Thompson out yet. The Troglodytes are so hungry for a reincarnation of their Fairy GodReagan that they may stumble all over each other to elect another smooth-talking actor.
"I know he can GET the job, but can he DO the job" Repeat several times.
Obama quote:"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
Paraphrased by Romney: "bomb our allies."
Ok there is hyperbole, there is sarcasm, and there is irony. What conservative politicians like Romney fail to get is that all those aforementioned things have to be based on truth. Making stuff up is not the same, in those cases it is called lying.
Andrea Mitchell should be ashamed of herself, her reports are nothing short of verbal diahreah (did I spell that right? )LOL
Close enuff. : )
Andrea's verbage would do just fine it;s the same thing, the people know. Keep it coming Senator Obama!
What doesn't scare the Dems is the 25% of the country that goose-steps behind the Republans...Please Rightie candidates, your problem sits in the White House. The country has come out of the fog and no longer believes your crap. Start with your own...just some advice from a voter. Remember what they are? And PLEASE, quit speaking in HEADLINES.
Obama was demonstrative enough about his lack of judgement and critical thinking to loose my respect. This man is not fit for the presidency. Romney on the other hand is an exceptional candidate. He shines every time he opens his mouth. Clear, concise, knowledgable, presidential.
UNCRITICALLY AIRING OUT OF CONTEXT???? COME ON! I CANT STOP LAUGHING! CNNs coverage of Romney is DEFINED by UNCRITICALLY AIRING OUT OF CONTEXT. All of you liberals who think your beloved CNN is "critical news" are brainwashed. Open your eyes.
We elect Obama, we turn this country into Tijuana in 4 years. Period.
If the Repubs are to reach out to anybody born after 1945, they might want to modernize their references -- Strangelove (1964), Fonda (1970). It smacked of theater that was planned beforehand.
I'm picturing cowboy bush waving his hat (ala Slim Pickens) as he rides the bomb in the final scene. Right flick???
Yaaaahooooo! You got it.
Why does she have to be critical? Obama is demonstrating abject ignorance.
bush was just asked the same question and he tried to weasel his way out of it. In that situation he says "We would take care of it". Isn't that what he said about anyone caught leaking the names of CIA operatives?
P.S. As for her criticism, that's just so the mouth-breathers know who they're supposed to hate.
jscott, that seems to be the stance of the media and some of the posters here. Obama said something pretty clearly.
Giuliani took the liberty of deciding that Obama should have said it differently (loaded with BS), Romney gets confused and thinks that Obama said something completely different, and the Republo-zombies here criticize Obama as ignorant and naive, not for his position, but for stating it honestly.
I sense a bit of shock to the systems of those who really enjoy being lied to.
Abject ignorance? How so?
People complain that Democrats aren't willing to do what it takes, then when one offers to do what it takes they are accused of abject ignorance. I don't get it. It may have been naive in your view. But I have a pretty good idea the abject ignorance of foreign affairs falls squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans who've horribly compromised our national security and standing in the world.
I have to admit, I find Right Wing rhetoric particularly confusing these days. Obama, in essence, states that, if the government of Pakistan were to refuse to take action against Bin Laden & other members of al Qaeda's leadership, then we most certainly would. Romney then accuses him of threatening to bomb our allies. Just when exactly did al Qaeda become an American ally? I know that the Bush Administration, by outsourcing his capture to corrupt Afghan war lords, effectively allowed Bin Laden & his boys to stroll out of Tora Bora & into Pakistan. I also know that Dubya' has said that he doesn't know where Bin Laden is, & doesn't "spend much time thinking about him." But is this really the public position that Republicans want stake their reelection hopes on... a hands off approach to dealing with the terrorists WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US ON 9/11/01?
If they're merely arguing that we can't persue al Qaeda into Pakistan without Musharraf's permission, then WHAT THE F*CK ARE WE DOING IN AFGHANISTAN? Wasn't the sole reason that we invaded that nation was that their Taliban rulers refused to hand over Bin Laden, & denied us permission to go in after him? Didn't we, in essence, proclaim to the entire world that the one place you ABSOLUTELY DID NOT WANT TO STAND was between us & Bin Laden? Are these Republican candidates now saying that Bin Laden can be assured that he is safe from justice just as long as Musharraf has internal political 'problems' to deal with?
The MSM meme seems to be that Obama screwed up by publicly stating what most Americans have long assumed to be a given... that, as a nation, we will do whatever it takes to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. They seem to have missed entirely that the Republicans have now adopted a soft position on fighting al Qaeda, arguing that we must simply accept it if our 'ally' Pakistan chooses to confer sanctuary status to Bin Laden. I think it is further evidence of just how out of touch with the American people that the MSM has become. They will dutifully repeat ANY Republican talking point, no matter how absurd it is.
No, its not Obama that screwed up... its the Republicans.
They don't know it yet, but they may have just cut their own throats.
Giuliani and Romney have actually expressed the same, or pretty close, opinion as Obama on this situation. So what's all this brewhaha?
Brewhaha?
Ha ha ha
Ha Ha Ha! Door slams
Wait a minute, don't you want this door knocker?
I have no response to that.
Polarization of the voters, conservative=good, liberal=bad, a continuing MSM theme. Its also a line from Nick Danger, Third Eye.
Put down that pickle!
There ain't room enough in this dress for both of us!
The work is familiar to MESCAL and a few others here.
Calling Senator Obama "Dr. Strangelove" is like something out of Dr. Strangelove.
On Sunday Aug. 5th Gov. Romney tagged Sen. Obama with the one name most associated in popular culture with gleeful, pre-emptive nuclear attack. He did this despite the fact that last week Obama said he wouldn't use nukes "in any circumstance."
But Governor Romney is not the first in recent days to refer to Senator Obama as "Dr. Strangelove."
That weird distinction goes to reporter Mike Barnicle.
On Friday, August 3rd, Barnicle was substituting for host Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Harball. At one point during the show Barnicle was joined by a panel consisting of Jay Carney from Time Magazine, Craig Crawford from Congressional Quarterly, and Julie Mason of The Houston Chronicle.
I've posted a partial transcript. you can skip to the end of the chitchat to see Barnicle drop the bomb just in time for a commercial break.
BARNICLE: Jay, let me ask you something; you know, I go into a couple different states and have a cup of coffee and bump into people—you‘re out there in Chicago. You‘re out there in the middle of the country. Whenever Barack Obama‘s name comes up, there is a gleam in a lot of people‘s eyes, because I think a lot of people, my instinct is, want something new, something different this time out.
And yet national security, being what it is, people‘s fear of another terrorists attack, the balance between the two, experience and something new; how do you think that‘s playing out for Barack Obama?
CARNEY: Well, you know, in some ways very well. He has done well raising money. He has shown a lot of grass roots support. But I think experience is an issue. It‘s one that Senator Clinton clearly wants to exploit, and other candidates like Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson want to exploit, because there is no question, at least on national security matters, that Barack Obama has less experience than some of his opponents.
One thing that is refreshing about this, you know—while it‘s a feud and a name-calling episode between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, it‘s substantive. I think what we saw here revealed a lot about both candidates and where they stand on the issues and their relative level of experience.
And while—on the Senator Obama issue, while it‘s certainly true that no president of either party would truly look at the idea of using nuclear weapons to bomb Osama bin Laden in Waziristan, it‘s also true that it‘s very rare that a president would take that off the table ever, because it is simply not done in foreign policy, where you remove options from the table when you are trying to exert leverage. I think Senator Obama expressed a truth, but he also, I think, showed his inexperience.
(CROSS TALK)
CRAWFORD: Any loose talk about nukes by a presidential candidate is trouble, particularly a new comer already trying to fend of the naive --
MASON: Rookie mistake.
BARNICLE: Doctor Strangelove. We are going to be right back with the panel. You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
In my previous post I left out the link to the transcript of Friday, August 3rd's msnbc Hardball telecast with guest host Mike Barnicle, wherein Barnicle refers to Senator Obama as "Dr. Strangelove":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20146238/
Obama stated that these are all options not facts. He said he would speak first to the president of Pakistan, Musharraf, and try to get them to work this out before any actions were ever taken. I think people should actually watch the speech Obama made before going off half-cocked with opinions that are based only on their misguided thoughts. Romney especially is very good at speaking about matters that he hasn't researched. It's sad that these 2 are the republicans front runners. Our country should be lead by people who don't read or listen again? We've already had 7 years of this, and enough is enough!!!!!
Romney's response to Paul is all that needs to be known about him:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/08/06/in-debate-romney-repeats-descredited-claim-that-saddam-was-behind-911/
No more Cheneyliars in our White House.
My bad (I'll get this one of these years):
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/08/06/in-debate-romney-repeats-descredited-claim-that-saddam-was-behind-911/