Showing posts with label Andrea Mitchell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrea Mitchell. Show all posts

Friday, March 12, 2010

Andrea Mitchell Pleads to Dem Congressman: 'You've Got to Get This For Him'


Nice to see an "objective" news reporter pleading the case for Barack Obama.
Bottom line, what happens if you don't get health care for this president is, this is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, his legacy, he's invested so much in this, in this first year. You've got to get this for him.
Just pathetic.

You get the feeling she'll be openly weeping on the air when ObamaCare finally crashes and burns?

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Ahmadinejad 10, Obama 0

I had quite a chuckle yesterday when after MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd were discussing Barack Obama's humiliating folly in Copenhagen, Mitchell made some weak claim that at least Obama was getting some concessions in his negotiations with the terror regime in Iran. I can't locate any video, but thankfully America's premier newsman has a transcript.
TODD: A little bit of the shine is going to wear off today. It's a stomach punch. But we'll see. There will be plenty of people that will write on a lead to their column, "Boy in a day that unemployment went up his hometown doesn't get the Olympics. He couldn't bring it home. You know, this guy's president...?" blah, blah, blah. You could see how that could shape itself. The president could use a victory here sometime soon, that's for sure.

MITCHELL: Well, it's a good thing he did well in the, uh, the diplomatic talks with Iran, but that's another whole subject.
Seems someone ought to send Mitchell a clue, so we'll be happy to do so. Actually, happy probably isn't the right word since this is rather depressing. And if this is any indication of Obama's famed powers of persuasion, already in ruins after the Olympic debacle, well, we're in for a very bumpy ride.
BY all accounts, Thursday's talks between Iran and the 5+1 group of major powers represent a diplomatic coup for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he faces continued political unrest at home.

Before the talks, Ahmadinejad's opponents -- among them former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mussavi, the man who believes he won last June's presidential election -- claimed that Tehran's stance on the nuclear issue was driving the country toward "sanctions and war."

Ahmadinejad had countered the claim by promising to lock the 5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) into "long and well-planned talks" with an agenda proposed by Tehran.
So let's detail where Iran is coming out ahead on points.
* The negotiations are no longer about Iran's compliance with the Security Council resolutions it has violated. Obama is careful not to even mention the resolutions in his statements.

* A new agenda, based on a "package" proposed by Iran, is to be developed. Talks on that issue will start by month's end.

* The 5+1 are no longer demanding that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Instead, they're promoting a range of ideas that would let Iran continue its program.

* Obama's delay in challenging Iran on the newly revealed Qom nuclear site also played into Ahmadinejad's hands.

* Obama got his allies in Congress to bury a resolution to impose a ban on the sale of gasoline to Iran. (The move, supported by 300 House members and 75 senators, was one of the "crippling sanctions" threatened by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.)

* For the first time in 16 years, Iran's foreign minister was granted a visa to visit Washington -- sending a signal that Obama endorses the second Ahmadinejad administration.

* Obama has rejected Sarkozy and Brown's suggestion to fix a time frame for the talks to produce results. Ahmadinejad thus needs only to stall: All he wants is another 18 to 24 months, by which time Iran's nuclear program would become irreversible.

When Obama became president, Iran had 800 centrifuges enriching uranium. Now it has 8,000. By 2010, it may have twice as many -- including the "ultraefficient" new ones promised by Ahmadinejad's new nuclear chief, Ali Salehi.

Ahmadinejad is intelligent enough to have understood one fact: For Obama, the way things look are more important than the way they are. The Iranian will happily feed the American's illusions. He has already done so by taking a number of steps:

* He has agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Qom enrichment plant in a few weeks' time rather than the three months previously promised. This allows Obama to declare a diplomatic victory: "We forced Iran to open its plant in weeks rather than months," he told Charlie Rose. (Rose was too polite to ask: Why wait weeks, when IAEA inspectors could be there in an hour?)

In the process of winning this "concession," the US has fudged away the fact that Iran built the plant in defiance of UN resolutions and that its existence was kept a secret from the IAEA.

* Iran will allow retiring IAEA Director Muhammad ElBaradaei to make one last visit to create the illusion that Obama's "smart engagement strategy" is working.

* The regime-controlled media are donning kid gloves for Obama and blasting Sarkozy and Brown. The official news agency, IRNA, talks of Obama's "reasonable approach" as opposed to "conspiracies hatched by France and Britain."
Depressing, isn't it. If I didn't know any betetr I would think Obama's on Ahmadinejad's side in all this.

But to the delusional Andrea Mitchell's of the world and the rest of the antique media, Obama did well in talks with Iran. Is it any wonder Obama was desperately seeking a victory of any kind?

Now that the Chicago 2016 bid has exploded in his face, maybe he can go find a spine somewhere and stand up to Iran before it's too late. This isn't his only problem.
Now the fun and Olympic games are over.

The president returned to America, where real, serious -- and neglected -- problems await him.

His signature health-care legislation is dying on the operating table. The ranks of the unemployed keep stubbornly rising.

Yet, with all that Obama neglected at home, perhaps nothing is as grave as the troubles abroad.

In Iran, a madman is playing with nukes. Israel-Palestinian peace is no closer. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban are taking over as our soldiers die at an alarming rate.

When Obama went begging to the IOC, he promised, "We are putting the full force of the White House and the State Department" to make the games in Chicago a success.

If only he could muster that much commitment and determination for winning the war in Afghanistan.
Well, he did finally get to meet Gen. McChrystal yesterday. For 25 minutes. Who says he's not focused on Afghanistan?

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

NBC: Anyone Complaining About Obama's Speech to Kids is Too Stupid to Raise Children



You can just taste the arrogance and sneering condescension. How dare people speak out and organize without getting their marching orders from antique media relics like Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews!

Via Jim Treacher.

More here.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

More Conflicts of Interest at NBC

As anyone with a pulse knows, NBC News has tilted so far to the left this election season they've done everything but dress up their on-air news "talent" in cheerleader outfits with an Obama logo on them.

Now comes word that with the current economic crisis, a couple more glaring conflicts are causing concern.
NBC is under fire for having correspondent Andrea Mitchell cover the economic crisis because she's married to former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan - but some people are also wondering about David Gregory, who has a show, "Race for the White House" on MSNBC. Gregory is married to Beth Wilkinson - who until a month ago was general counsel, executive vice president and corporate secretary for mortgage giant Fannie Mae, which is now being investigated by the FBI.
Everyone knows Mitchell is married to Greenspan, but he's no longer Fed chair and you can probably cut her some slack. But as for Gregory, his obvious conflict of interest should preclude him from reporting on any matters related to Fannie Mae. When the time comes, as it should, that former Fannie Mae officials are indicted or brought forth to testify before Congress, will NBC even mention Wilkinson is married to one of their star reporters?

More questions here.

By the way, when it comes to being in the tank, how on earth did someone who's clearly rooting for Obama wind up moderating a debate?

Could you envision a John McCain supporter with a book due to be published on Inauguration Day being allowed to moderate a debate?

Of course not. No shock she also used to be employed by ... NBC.

Instapundit links. Thanks!