NBC’s Mitchell says Republicans ‘will pull the plug’ on the war in August

April 2, 2007

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell appeared on the Chris Matthews Show yesterday and mentioned a series of fascinating revelations, not the least of which was that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recently sat down for an exclusive chat with Senate Republicans to discuss strategy on Iraq legislation.

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, ‘I will have real progress to you by August,'” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”

Stunningly, Mitchell said that “moderate Republican” senators had told her that they didn’t believe the escalation would work but voted for it anyway. “They really are not in favor of the surge. They don’t believe it’s going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running.”

Now, Mitchell’s report did not go by unchallenged. Time’s Joe Klein, also on the panel, questioned whether a Petraeus/GOP caucus meeting even took place. Who’s right? I have no idea.

But if Mitchell’s version of events is accurate, it’s in desperate need of a little follow-up.

They didn’t come up on Matthews’ talk-show, but here are the questions that deserve answers:

1. Why would the top U.S. commander in Iraq give a military briefing to lawmakers from only one party?

2. Just how many “moderate Republican” senators decided to vote for an escalation policy they believe will fail? Considering the American lives these lawmakers are gambling with, maybe Mitchell could name them?

3. If a significant number of GOP senators are willing to “pull the plug” by the end of August, why not include that in legislation? (Probably because Republicans have already proven that they’ll vote for bills they disagree with?)

And 4. If Mitchell learned this fascinating tidbit of information, why is it she didn’t actually report on it on NBC? In other words, this appears to be a fairly significant scoop — the kind of thing a journalist would want to share with as large an audience as possible. According to Nexis, Mitchell hasn’t mentioned the revelations on NBC at all. Why would Mitchell talk about it on a largely-unwatched syndicated talk-show, but not prepare a report for her own news network?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I know the answer to #4… She’s a TOOL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/andrea-mitchells-prime-t_b_10973.html

  • Answers:

    1.) To prove that the war is political.

    2.) There aren’t any. This is just another “save the surge” gambit, effectively buying (or at least making the attempt to buy) another 17 or 18 weeks worth of loyalty to a sinking ship, and prohibit further “conditions” being placed on unconditional funding for “Bush’s Folly.”

    3.) re: Item 2.

    4.) Ummm…maybe because she’s an evil underling of Chrissie Matthews?

  • Andrea Mitchell – the least reporter ever hired by NBC. She should just get on with her real job, giving her husband head on demand. She’s certainly demonstrated her skill at that in her “career.” Probably why Greenspan married her.

  • Racerx @1 – that’s an interesting Huffington Post (uh, post). It all seems plausible except that if Mitchell is the idiot that some think she is, this is a fairly convoluted set of facts. I guess though that all she really did was keep her role out of things.

  • If true, what does the White House have to say about this?

    Were they privvy to this meeting?

    If not, what does that tell us?

  • IF this supposed “briefing” with General Petraeus did take place, isn’t it illegal for a serving senior officer to be delivering briefings to only one political party, especially when said party is not in the majority??

  • I’ve grown tired of Mitchell and so many other pundits saying things to make them look like they know something, when what they’re saying turns out to be false. They’re paid to be insightful and when they have nothing real, they just seem to make it up.

    Now, if I see a bunch of moderate Republicans standing around a mike saying they’ll pull the plug if there isn’t significant progress by August, I’ll believe they said it. But even then, I’ll suspend belief that they’ll actually do it without knowing what significant progress means. I guess I’ve been “Specter’d” too many times.

  • Whatever will get us out of the Quagmire is fine with me (and the troops and the vast majority of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world). But this sounds too delusional to pass the sniff test. Horse pucky!

  • It’s very possible that she’s just passing on a White House-orchestrated “leak” to take the heat off for a few more months until August and that the whole Patraeus meeting was just a dog and pony show to provide a screen of legitimacy for the so-called information.

    If so, she may not know (or even care) that she’s being used like that but she should be held responsible for following up on it.

    Maybe the Dems should invite Patraeus for a private meeting, too, just to hear the Republics shriek about how unfair that is.

  • Steve, I read you daily, commend you for good writing that seeks clarity.
    As to why Mitchell did not provide Nightly News with this ‘scoop’, perhaps she has been warned at her professional home not to make any further statements that cannot be attributed?
    She’s a ‘celebrity’ reporter. Letting her out of her contract might cause more problems than it would solve.
    And Matthews’ “agree to disagree” can be read as, don’t expose your sources on my show, as well as hyping a ratings story.
    But let’s assume this is true. We see many in the GOP still suffer symptoms from drinking the Koolaide. They seem to operate under the assumption that their undercover actions are permanently protected, will not see the light of day.
    This needs to be followed. Attorneygate is hiding the worst from us.

  • I think it’s clear what is going on here. The Republicans need cover for not voting for the defunding of Iraq, as well as, there soon to be cast vote against a veto override. Floating this room about an August deadline allows them say that they didn’t vote for defunding or against the veto since, by August everything will be sorted out.

    • Comments are closed.