Is NBC's Ann Curry siding with terrorists?
I woke up this morning to NBC's Ann Curry interviewing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the Today Show. I'm wondering if NBC or Curry will come under similar fire for meeting with al-Assad like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did just over a month ago. Of course, Curry should not take heat for her lengthy interview with the Syrian president (nor will she), just like Pelosi should not have. But, the right-wing hate mongers won't come after Curry, because she's not the first female speaker of the house - Pelosi is.What's more, word out of Washington is that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may soon be meeting with Syrian and Iranian officials to discuss peace in the Middle East. I don't know if the rumors will prove to be true, but perhaps the Bush administration is finally learning a lesson they should have realized four or five years ago - to talk to your enemy isn't a weakness, and it's not making concessions - it's trying to resolve disputes, avert further violence, and maybe even (GASP!) realize peace in the world's most violent meat grinder known as the Middle East.
Labels: Ann Curry, Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, NBC Today, Syria, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
posted by RJ at 10:11 AM
5 Comments:
Are you seriously that out of touch to think that the conservative response to Pelosi's meeting with al-Assad is based on her being a female? Get a grip!
The problem here is that Pelosi undermined the President's authority by meeting with an international leader "on the side." This sends a dangerous message to our enemies, which would include Syria.
If Condi were to meet with al-Assad, with Bush's blessing, that would be a completely different story. People might disagree with the wisdom of such a strategy, but hopefully they wouldn't be so reactionary that they couldn't see the difference between such a visit and Pelosi's underhanded subversion of the President's authority.
impeachreidandpelosi.com
Mike,
Thanks for your comments, and I respect them. I'm not blind, though - my eyes are wide open. And I know what I see, and I know what I've read and heard since Pelosi took office, and that's her being denigrated and castigated at every single turn. From the pseudo-outrage over her airplane to her stance on the Iraq War, it's all plain to see.
If it isn't sexism, I'm open to suggestions, but it's something. Take a look back into the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich was galavanting around the globe, talking policy with world leaders. How do you feel about that? You can't have it both ways. I didn't like it then, but honestly, we live in a Democracy, not a monarchy. We declared independence from King George in 1776 - we don't need one now.
George W. Bush is not the only leader this country has. And specifically now, with the hapless, inept leadership of the his administration, maybe we need a few other voices showing the world that not every leader we have is clueless. Evidently, I'm not alone - Bush's approval rating is hovering at 28%.
After all the Bush, Cheney and Co. have done, you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should be impeached? Where have you been since Bush was appointed president in 2000?
You're right... not every leader we have is clueless. What we need now is a surge of leaders telling our enemies that we've lost the war.
Like it or not, this is a democracy, and George W. Bush has been elected as the sole Commander in Chief of the armed forces. People are tired of the war. I get that. Honestly, my preference would be that we didn't have to fight this war. Unfortunately, this generation doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to see something through, even when it gets tough. But putting arbitrary withdrawal (i.e. surrender) dates on funding bills that our troops desperately need isn't leadership. It is dangerous, both to the troops and to our national security. The only ones who benefit from this so-called leadership are the ones who are scoring cheap political points at our nation's expense.
Calling Pelosi out for her underhanded political moves isn't sexism. It's rationalism. I suppose you think opposing Hillary for president would also be sexism by default?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike,
Again, I respect your points, and in the end, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Elections have consequences, and in 2006 not one Democrat lost his or her seat in Congress. That should be a pretty stark indication of how popular this war is. Further evidence is how two thirds of America wants us out of Iraq, NOW.
I don't buy into the notion for one second that these funds are desperately needed by the troops. Since this war began, or troops have DESPERATELY needed top-of-the-line Humvees, which can withstand IEDs, and they're not getting them. They've desperately needed top-of-the-line body armor, and in many cases they haven't received it. Yet, even by conservative accounts, billions of dollars have been plundered (and much of it unaccounted for) in Iraq. Now, we're to believe that this money is desperately needed?
Here's another question - why isn't the money for the war included in the general budget? Even a passive political observer could surmise that it's because if Bush included the war funding in the federal budget, there would be a metaphorical revolt from the American public, and from his supporters in Congress.
I find it offensive that you suggest "this generation doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to see something through." Absurd. I can't speak for all of Generation X, but personally, if this fight, these casualties and all of this money were taking place in Afghanistan, looking for the people/organization who actually brought 9-11 to America, I'd fully support it. For the millionth time - Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda and 9-11. Nothing. Yet, Dick Cheney was on TV in mid-April claiming a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. Tragic. Sure, al Qaeda is in Iraq now - that's because we are there. Of course "there hasn't been another attack on America on our watch," as Cheney arrogantly brags. Maybe because it's easier to kill Americans over there than it is over here? Just another wild, irrational thought from a peace-loving, unpatriotic liberal who hates his country, I suppose.
As for cheap political points, I'll remember that the next time I see Bush at a VFW or an American Legion, saying we need to fund the troops.
The bottom line is this - Bush had four years for his tidy little war to turn out the way he and his cabal promised. (Remember "We'll be greeted as liberators"?) It didn't happen. How long is this supposed to go on? All I ever hear is how "we need to give this plan time to work." You've had plenty of time, Mr. President. You've had your hundreds of billions. And now there's 3,350+ Americans dead and tens of thousands more wounded and maimed, physically and mentally. And I haven't even mentioned hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
At some point, it has to end. I say NOW.
This is the best part, and we'll see if I'm right or not. Republicans are already hedging their bets, because there's an election in 18 months. Over the weekend, GOP leaders were saying (John Boehner among them) that if by September, there isn't significant progress, then "we may have to switch to Plan B." It's about time.
Once we do withdraw, and we will at some point, I can GUARANTEE that our "losing" this War in Iraq will be blamed on Democrats. Make book on it.
Good debate - thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home