speechlesstx
Jul 30, 2007, 09:55 AM
Just heard about this on the radio, Chris Matthews hosted a panel of Washington Post's David Ignatius, Time's Michael Duffy, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, and U.S. News and World Report's Gloria Borger, discussing the repercussions of pulling out of Iraq. I'll post just one question and answer and you can read the rest (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/29/shocking-chris-matthews-discussion-maybe-we-shouldn-t-leave-iraq)...
Matthews asked Ignatius the following:
When we get a national intelligence estimate that says al Qaeda is back and strong, and all over the world, what good does this war in Iraq do to reduce that threat?
Great question. Even better, Ignatius by no means gave the normal liberal media member response (fasten your seatbelts):
Well, these struggles are different fronts of the same war. There is a radical Islamic movement that is active all over the world. It's seeking to hit U.S. targets and targets of our allies...This national intelligence estimate says that it has regained its strength, and most important, it has regained a safe haven in northwest Pakistan. And, the big question the U.S. is going to have to decide: that's a very stark warning, that they have, they have a platform to stage 9/11 level attacks. What are we going to do about it?
The notion that, you know, a defeat for the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against al Qaeda is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, "The Americans are weak. If you hit them hard, they'll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut, they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia, they ran away."
If, if the Iraq experience shows the same thing, that will be emboldening.
[...]
Whether it's Bush's argument or not, I think anybody who rejects it out of hand hasn't read Osama bin Laden's writings.
A rare moment of liberal sanity? Positioning themselves for the possibility of victory, that Bush may be right, or that a Democrat president won't pull out of Iraq in spite of all their rhetoric?
Matthews asked Ignatius the following:
When we get a national intelligence estimate that says al Qaeda is back and strong, and all over the world, what good does this war in Iraq do to reduce that threat?
Great question. Even better, Ignatius by no means gave the normal liberal media member response (fasten your seatbelts):
Well, these struggles are different fronts of the same war. There is a radical Islamic movement that is active all over the world. It's seeking to hit U.S. targets and targets of our allies...This national intelligence estimate says that it has regained its strength, and most important, it has regained a safe haven in northwest Pakistan. And, the big question the U.S. is going to have to decide: that's a very stark warning, that they have, they have a platform to stage 9/11 level attacks. What are we going to do about it?
The notion that, you know, a defeat for the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against al Qaeda is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, "The Americans are weak. If you hit them hard, they'll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut, they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia, they ran away."
If, if the Iraq experience shows the same thing, that will be emboldening.
[...]
Whether it's Bush's argument or not, I think anybody who rejects it out of hand hasn't read Osama bin Laden's writings.
A rare moment of liberal sanity? Positioning themselves for the possibility of victory, that Bush may be right, or that a Democrat president won't pull out of Iraq in spite of all their rhetoric?