Video: Michelle talks Iraq on “Fox & Friends”
posted at 9:36 am on January 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The first of two trip-related media appearances for the boss today, with the second to come this afternoon on “The Big Story.”
Captain Ed shares her newfound optimism and points to this NYT report on the arrest of more than 400 Mahdi army members since October, among them several dozen leaders. I’ve said before that I think Sadr’s sudden quiescence is a ruse engineered by him and Maliki to accelerate an American withdrawal, but it’d be sweet to be wrong:
Iraqis who live in the neighborhoods where the Mahdi Army is strong say the primary motivation for avoiding full-scale confrontation with the Americans is money. Members have grown rich on political channels of financing from Iran as well as from Iraqi government ministries, the residents say, and the militiamen do not want to fight the Americans directly for fear of losing their newfound status.
Ali, the merchant, said the reluctance to fight could be summed up in two words: “Italian shoes.”
It sounds like the surge offensive might bypass Sadr City entirely and focus instead on cutting off the neighborhood while targeting JAM elsewhere in Baghdad. Containment, in other words.
Don’t miss Bob Novak’s column today about Norm Coleman’s meeting with Iraqi NSA Mowaffaq al-Rubaie. Rubaie, you’ll recall, was one of the (Shiite) eyewitnesses to Saddam’s execution who was “really proud” of how it was handled. Then the cell phone video leaked and suddenly he was “disgusted” by the taunting. He told Coleman that the real threat in Iraq isn’t ethnic cleansing by the Shiites but AQ and those pesky Baathists who are trying to take over the country. Coleman reacted exactly the way you’d expect him to.
Update: Maliki’s claiming that the 400 Mahdi army fighters were arrested over the past few weeks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Rock on, Michelle!
So glad to see this.
mikeyboss on January 18, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Michelle! Awesome! It’s too bad you’re speaking to the choir on Fox. It would sure be nice to your reports in the MSM. How does the MSM decide what to air or print? Is there something we lay persons can do? Phone calls? Emails? Or is it a lost cause to even attempt to motivate them to report your experiences in Iraq?
I’m glad all went well at FOB Justice and keep up the good work!
csdeven on January 18, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Keep getting the message out. I hope Michelle gets booked on other networks in order to share her experiences with a wider audience that won’t or don’t watch Fox News. The counteroffensive to the MSM has begun.
Americans will be more supportive of our efforts in Iraq if they can see that there has been significant progress toward rebuilding. If the sectarian violence and the disruption by “the fleas” is shown in context with our successes and Iraqi successes, more Americans will support our involvement and understand we need to stay and finish the job. That is my hope anyway.
God bless our troops.
Mallard T. Drake on January 18, 2007 at 10:16 AM
any plans to hit the other networks?
pullingmyhairout on January 18, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Great segment. Upbeat and based on facts.
And-fabulous lipstick. Sorry-can’t resist.
WriterMom on January 18, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Mr. Novak said
Color me clueless, but do people really choose their state legislators based on national policy, especially national foreign policy? When I decide to vote/not vote for a particular state legistlator, I worry more about his stances on those issues that he’ll be dealing with; state taxes, how to attract jobs, etc, rather than what he thinks our policy should be in Iraq.
dalewalt on January 18, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I just came downstairs and my wife had NPR on the radio. I overheard yet another report on violence in Baghdad without any other news of what is going on in Iraq. We have all heard the drumbeat of negativity from the MSM. In light of Michelle’s TV appearances and Bryan’s reports, it really shows how one-sided the reporting is. I am heartened that there are journalists like Michelle and Bryan that are doing their best to get the other Iraqi story(s) out. If more people can hear both sides, they may begin to understand how biased and limited the MSM daily reports are about the whole picture over there. Keep up the fight to get the entire story out.
I am going to do my part by forwarding links of Michelle’s and Bryan’s reports to friends, both lib and conservative, so they can read and listen for themselves.
Mallard T. Drake on January 18, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Way too upbeat for the avearge MSM zombie… But I love seeing Michelle tellin it like it is. Great report!
RalphyBoy on January 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM
What is “it”? How is victory defined?
Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I’m not familiar with that. Could you have meant “The Big Story”?
mikeyboss on January 18, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Hate to say it, but it doesnt really matter what Michelle’s viewpoint is. The democrats are in control of congress and the media. They say we are losing the war . . . or that we’ve lost it.
Repeat a lie enough, and it becomes reality.
What is believed, whether false or true, is just as good as reality, and serves the same purpose.
Labamigo on January 18, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Valiant, I’d define ‘victory in Iraq’ as helping the Iraqi gov’t to advance to a state where they’re able to keep the peace in their country; without the threat of constant terrorist attacks and suicide bombers, where Iraq is able to take it’s place on the world stage as a free country that promotes peace, human rights, and the welfare of its citizens.
How would you define it?
dalewalt on January 18, 2007 at 10:58 AM
People generally vote party line in state elections. If a cycle brings out lots of D’s or R’s in a state, the party is gonna win. People don’t know what the candidates stand for. Who has the time, and since most decisions are made in washington anyways, who cares who is elected. That’s the problem.
lorien1973 on January 18, 2007 at 10:58 AM
:-)
dalewalt on January 18, 2007 at 11:02 AM
I define it as securing the WMDs, deposing Hussein, and all the free oil we want for the next 50 years. Your goals, though noble, are unattainable with our armed forces and arguably not in our national interests. The naivete illustrated by neocon RINOs concerning the region and Islam frankly sickens me.
I am not accusing you of being a neocon RINO, but too many conservatives enjoy the taste of the nation-building Kool-Aid. If we are going to build nations like Japan after WWII we must first get their unconditional surrender. Our armed forces are certainly capable of that, but there is no stomach in Washington to do what is necessary. Anything after the unconditional surrender is a diplomatic endeavor, anything before without the goal of unconditional surrender is a quagmire.
Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 11:14 AM
#1… check.
#2… check.
#3… uh, I hope you’re kidding about that, right?
You didn’t really answer my question… if all you wanted to accomplish was #1 and #2, then we’re finished over there. Get rid of Hussein, and the hell with the aftermath.
dalewalt on January 18, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Any chance Olbermann will extend an invitation to Michelle and Bryan to come on his show and elighten all eleven of his viewers?
JetBoy on January 18, 2007 at 11:31 AM
That stands to reason and really makes sense. When people have something to lose they are reluctant to get themselves killed. I was looking at different statisrics online about gun violence inseveral different countries and wouldn’t you know it gun violence (and crime period) goes down as the economy and opportunity go up.
Interesting article from TCS daily. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010807B
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 11:32 AM
You’re right, TWINE (can I call you TWINE? :-), very interesting article, but it gives a pretty dim view of our chances in Iraq… it’s pretty much saying that we should’ve gotten rid of Hussein and installed someone who’s friendly to the U.S. We haven’t had much luck with this approach in the past.
dalewalt on January 18, 2007 at 11:50 AM
The military was finished over there when Bush hoisted the infamous Mission Accomplished banner. Bush defined victory at that point and we could have left without shame. Once our national interests are served, our military involvement should cease immediately. Leave the aftermath to State and the UN.
I am not kidding about the oil. They, like Kuwait, owe us huge for the sacrifices we have made.
Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM
How sickening is it to read how each party views Iraq as a political Albatross or political advantage. Meanwhile we have over 200 thousand Americans on the ground doing a thankless job with possible death hanging over them each step of the way. What a bunch of spoiled, elitist, pompous assholes. Stop making decisions for political reasons, have we learned nothing from Vietnam? This is why it goes wrong, when you abandon principle for the political. God, Jehovah, Allah, please guide these idiots in the right direction…to support the mission and those carrying it out………
ritethinker on January 18, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Why not leave the lowest level Baathists in power? They at least knew how to keep the lights on. Weaken the federal government and strengthen local governments. Had we done that and done it quickly, getting to know the local sheiks, getting the populace involved, the better our chances fopr success. The more I learn about Middle Eastern culture/politcal history it becomes clear that Western style democracy is a pipedream, and Bush did not have a clue as to how to manage post war Iraq.
I don’t think the article goes as far as putting a puppet in power as it makes the point that “peace” requires that the main players have something to lose. They need the proper incentive to be non-violent, money will fill that need.
Theworldisnotenough on January 18, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I’m disgusted with the political posturing and the folks who are merely grandstanding for self-preservation purposes.
Okay, if the Democrats and RINOs calling for a quick exit out of Iraq have their way, do they really know what they are asking for? Do they comprehend the consequences? Methinks not.
The moment the redeploy order is given, you can start any countdown clock you like that signals the time toward the next AQ hit on American soil. The problem won’t go away just because we leave Iraq. It will follow the troops back home, and this time, the costs will be far greater than anyone can bare.
I only hope that between Michelle and Bryan, and to another extent Mark Steyn, they can get the word out and awaken the head-in-the-sand folks before it really is too late.
itzWicks on January 18, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Michelle Malkin: “That is Specialist First Class Michael Vaden [reading some book]…”
Eh, actually, I think that is Sergeant First Class Michael Vaden.
Oh well. Just a slip of the tounge that demoted SFC Vaden about three pay grades. No biggie. ;-)
EFG on January 18, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Corrected that at mm.com. Hope he’ll forgive me. :)
Michelle on January 18, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Not only would this course be playing into the far-lefts hands (this war is all about oil; Bush just wanted to make the military-industrial complex rich, etc), but this would give carte blanche to any military adventure we wanted to make… if a country has what we want, then topple the gov’t and take it.
Tell me Valiant, did you spend your childhood taking others’ lunch money?
dalewalt on January 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM
As far as I can tell, the debate on this board is not between parties but between neocons and paleocons in the GOP.
What is the mission? If it is nation-building as seems to be the consensus here (as the White House has not publicly defined the military mission), the troops deserve better. God bless our troops.
Valiant on January 18, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Not directly related to this but has anyone noticed the (new?)filler graphic CNN is using? “CNN = Politics”. They no longer are just covering it, they are it apparently. We already knew what party they are, so this is the next step, I guess.
ej_pez on January 18, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Pretty good DW.
I’d be happy with a country whose government is slightly right of Californias, has just a few less murders than California has, fewer immigration crime than California has, and can do all of this on their own by 2008. Considering they’re building a NEW country from (below) scratch, thats amazing if it’s done in less than 12 years.
You know what? They might have surpassed California already.
shooter on January 18, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Listen up dude. I am an Air Force veteran and currently an active member of the Army. I have 2 children, a son and a daughter, and both of them are in the military and serving during this conflict. All three of us understand what is at risk here. We all joined voluntarily after 911 because we understand the consequences of failure. We each took an oath do do our part to serve and to protect this country. We are trained to win. What is so dang frustrating is trying to win while following rules of engagement imposed by people like you who are determined to keep us from winning for political reasons. People like you want for us to lose. You would take our sacrifices that we have made and devalue them in the interests of politics. You bastards. People like you are sometimes more of an enemy to this country that Al Qaida ever will be. The enemy has only one rule and that is to kill me and you and our families and they will do it by any means possible. People like my little girl are the only ones standing between us and them. You ask “what is the mission”? To win. What is stopping us? People who think like you.
Unless you are a vet or active military, I would like for you to STFU and not assume what we, the troops deserve or want. If anything, the Troops DESERVE the unwavering support of the folks back home. People like you who so favor defeat and try to belittle our good work by ass-uming what is best for us is nothing short of insanity bordering on treason. Let us do our jobs. Let us win. Stop whining like you have some skin in this game because it is obvious that you do not. People like Michelle get it because they are not afraid to face the truth and even confront it on a personal basis. You did get one thing right in that post though . We do deserve better and with people like you we need all the blessings we can get.
Guardian on January 18, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Great interview Michelle. I left for work later than usual to catch you live. By the way, Bridgette Gabriel was on just before you… like you, she makes her points clear as a bell.
Zorro on January 18, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Comment pages: