Thread: Couric Studied With Anti-Palin Adviser Richard Haas Before Palin Interview

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Couric Studied With Anti-Palin Adviser Richard Haas Before Palin Interview 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    "Our Sweet Perkey Little Katie Couric Has the Cold Heart of a Viper in that Flat Little Chest !"

    It’s still odd that someone would see a battle of wits between Katie Couric and Sarah Palin as a fight Couric would win. Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio.com reported in a brief item that Couric revealed in a panel discussion that she boned up with anti-Palin foreign-policy advisors before interviewing the Alaska governor. Peter Kafka of All Things Digital featured this piece of the Bercovici report:

    Couric shed some light on her preparation for the interviews: Beforehand, she sought advice from former senator Sam Nunn and Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haas [actually, it’s Haass]. They told her to draw Palin out on her geopolitical worldview and urged her to let the governor speak at length without interrupting her. Maybe she should bring them along with her when she takes over at Meet the Press?


    That would be a sad day for substance on Meet the Press, if it ever happened. Sam Nunn, of course, is now leading the Obama transition team on defense policy, and Haass and was probably familiar to Couric through his appearances as an analyst on NBC. Haass was a top aide to Colin Powell in the first two years of the Bush administration, and remember, Powell endorsed Obama. Haass publicly expressed Vice President Palin would be way too inexperienced for the veep job.

    Kafka noted that Bercovici's story was pulled – not because it was inaccurate, but because Portfolio sponsored the panel discussion with the media investment group Quadrangle, which insisted on a no-press policy. Did Couric's camp complain? Kafka thought the no-press policy was ironic for a panel stuffed with press:

    Again, it’s Quadrangle’s conference, and they can run it however they’d like. But it seems particularly ironic that the one story that did get published, then pulled, was about a panel of professional communicators: CBS (CBS) news anchor Katie Couric, NBC anchor Brian Williams and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.


    Maybe these top journalists only appeared with a no-press promise. On November 4, Felix Gillette of the New York Observer found that Couric declared that she’s been disappointed that a lot of interviewers have gone soft on their subjects. Does someone need to get Katie a highlight reel of her kissy-kissy interviews with Barack and especially Hillary? But on Palin, the Observer said wow, that was damaging:

    "The interviews were important," said Ms. Couric. "I don’t mean to sound too self-congratulatory, because anytime a candidate does an interview, if it’s properly done, it should be revealing. Quite frankly, I’ve been disappointed by the lack of persistence I’ve seen in a lot of political interviews this season."


    As part of the article's attempts to build up Katie's journalistic reputation as she keeps CBS solidly in third place, Katie’s executive producer Rick Kaplan – the informal Bill Clinton buddy and adviser – also touted how extraordinary Couric was:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...alin-interview
    .................................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    The New Middle East Richard N. Haass

    Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.
    .......................................
    Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Richard Nathan Haass (born July 28, 1951, Brooklyn) has been president of the Council on Foreign Relations since July 2003, prior to which he was Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State and a close advisor to Secretary of State Colin Powell. The U.S. Senate approved Haass as a candidate for the position of ambassador and he has been US Coordinator for policy on the future of Afghanistan. He succeeded George J. Mitchell as the U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland to help the peace process in Northern Ireland, for which he received the State Department's Distinguished Service Award. At the end of 2003, Mitchell Reiss succeeded him as special envoy.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Summary: The age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.

    Richard N. Haass is President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    THE END OF AN ERA

    Just over two centuries since Napoleon's arrival in Egypt heralded the advent of the modern Middle East -- some 80 years after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, 50 years after the end of colonialism, and less than 20 years after the end of the Cold War -- the American era in the Middle East, the fourth in the region's modern history, has ended. Visions of a new, Europe-like region -- peaceful, prosperous, democratic -- will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself, the United States, and the world.

    All the eras have been defined by the interplay of contending forces, both internal and external to the region. What has varied is the balance between these influences. The Middle East's next era promises to be one in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand -- and in which the local actors gaining power are radicals committed to changing the status quo. Shaping the new Middle East from the outside will be exceedingly difficult, but it -- along with managing a dynamic Asia -- will be the primary challenge of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come.

    The modern Middle East was born in the late eighteenth century. For some historians, the signal event was the 1774 signing of the treaty that ended the war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia; a stronger case can be made for the importance of Napoleon's relatively easy entry into Egypt in 1798, which showed Europeans that the region was ripe for conquest and prompted Arab and Muslim intellectuals to ask -- as many continue to do today -- why their civilization had fallen so far behind that of Christian Europe. Ottoman decline combined with European penetration into the region gave rise to the "Eastern Question," regarding how to deal with the effects of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which various parties have tried to answer to their own advantage ever since.

    The first era ended with World War I, the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of the Turkish republic, and the division of the spoils of war among the European victors. What ensued was an age of colonial rule, dominated by France and the United Kingdom. This second era ended some four decades later, after another world war had drained the Europeans of much of their strength, Arab nationalism had risen, and the two superpowers had begun to lock horns. "[He] who rules the Near East rules the world; and he who has interests in the world is bound to concern himself with the Near East," wrote the historian Albert Hourani, who correctly saw the 1956 Suez crisis as marking the end of the colonial era and the beginning of the Cold War era in the region.

    During the Cold War, as had been the case previously, outside forces played a dominant role in the Middle East. But the very nature of U.S.-Soviet competition gave local states considerable room to maneuver. The high-water mark of the era was the October 1973 war, which the United States and the Soviet Union essentially stopped at a stalemate, paving the way for ambitious diplomacy, including the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord.snip

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200611...ddle-east.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •