CNN's Piers Morgan just couldn't let his Republican guest denounce
President Obama's foreign policy. He spouted the White House spin on all
the President's accomplishments while not holding him accountable for
the Libya fiasco, on his Monday night show.
"I would say one of the things that Barack Obama has done incredibly
successfully is restore a lot of America's very damaged reputation
around the world since the eight years of George Bush and all the
warfare that came with it," claimed Morgan.
[Video below. Audio here [1].]
But the President's global reputation has fallen since he entered office, according to a June Pew Research Center study [2].
Approval of his international policies took a substantial hit,
especially with Muslim countries where it fell by 15 points, or over 50
percent, from 2009.
"The reality is bin Laden is dead. He was alive four years ago. Gadhafi
was alive four years ago. Mubarak was ruling Egypt four years ago. Many
people would argue however difficult the situation is in the Middle
East right now, and it is very complicated and very difficult, but
actually, yes, America probably is better off knowing that those three
are no longer ruling their countries, or in bin Laden's case, al Qaeda,"
Morgan argued for the President.
Morgan's reticence over the Libya fiasco on Monday points back to his ignorance [3]
of Libya on September 28, when his colleague Anderson Cooper provided
breaking news on the situation there and questioned the actions of the
Obama administration following the attacks. Morgan made no mention of
Libya, though he found time for two segments on how the Romney campaign
was in hot water.
On Monday, former GOP Senator Norm Coleman shot back at Morgan's
liberal talking points. "Piers, I say respectfully, the Middle East is
not – it is not more secure today than it was four years ago. Egypt is
not a better place than it was four years ago. Syria is a mess," he
argued.
"[W]hat I would want and what we didn't have and what we don't have is
I'd like to have a strategy." He added, "In Syria, it's a mess. Iraq is a
mess. And Iran is much closer to a nuclear weapon. So yeah, let's take a
look where we were, the lack of a strategy, the lack of a strategic
approach has caused this President -- whatever his policies were in the
Middle East, I can't tell you what the strategy was but it's certainly a
mess."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on October 8 on Piers Morgan Tonight at 9:04 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
[9:04]
PIERS
MORGAN: Let's turn to your specialty, foreign policy. He made a big
foreign policy speech today clearly trying to deal with the fact that
most people assume he's a bit weak in that area. I guess my overview
when I read the context of his speech was, where is he really that
different to Barack Obama? I mean can you articulate for me exactly what
the key difference would be, if he became president?
NORM COLEMAN (R), former U.S. Senator: A number of key differences. Key
differences -- well first of all, let me kind of start in big picture
and then we'll narrow in. This campaign should be about big issues. It
should be about the American economy. It should be about rebuilding
that, rebuilding the American military. American values. And what we're
seeing with this President over four years is a weakening of the
economy, a weakening of the military, and a weakening across the board
in foreign policy.
Piers, tell me the place in the world where America today is more
respected or safe and secure than we were four years ago. Certainly not
in Syria, certainly not with Iran getting a nuclear weapon, it's
certainly not the Middle East --
MORGAN: Actually, I would --
(Crosstalk)
COLEMAN: The only –
MORGAN: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on, Senator. Let me just stop you in
your tracks. Because, actually, I would say one of the things that
Barack Obama has done incredibly successfully is restore a lot of
America's very damaged reputation around the world since the eight years
of George Bush and all the warfare that came with it. So I would -- I
would seriously question that. I've traveled a lot through Asia and
Europe and so on.
(Crosstalk)
MORGAN: There's a lot of respect for America that certainly wasn't there six, seven years ago.
COLEMAN: The question is not whether you're better liked. It's always
safe and secure. Is the situation in the Middle East any better than it
was four years ago? Is it better in Iran? Is Iran further from getting a
nuclear weapon –
MORGAN: Well, hang on. Again, again, let me question you.
(Crosstalk)
COLEMAN: Piers, Piers –
MORGAN: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
COLEMAN: Latin America –
MORGAN: No, no, no. I'm not going to let you get away with that,
because let's be pragmatic and sensible about what you just said. The
reality is bin Laden is dead. He was alive four years ago. Gadhafi was
alive four years ago. Mubarak was ruling Egypt four years ago. Many
people would argue however difficult the situation is in the Middle East
right now, and it is very complicated and very difficult, but actually,
yes, America probably is better off knowing that those three are no
longer ruling their countries, or in bin Laden's case, al Qaeda.
COLEMAN: And so an American embassy is attacked on the anniversary of
July 4th – let me by the way step back. We applaud that Osama bin Laden
is dead. But strategic – but tactical strikes taking out terrorist
leaders does not overcome for a lack of strategy to provide greater
stability. The Middle – Piers, I say respectfully, the Middle East is
not -- it is not more secure today than it was four years ago. Egypt is
not a better place than it was four years ago. Syria is a mess. Iraq --
MORGAN: So presumably you would like to see – would you like to see Mubarak?
COLEMAN: Israel is not more secure and Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon.
MORGAN: Well, hang on. You can't just – you can't just throw these
things out, Senator. Presumably then, in that case, would -- would you
-- would you want Mubarak and Gadhafi, if they were still around, to go
back and take over again? I mean where would you go with this threat?
COLEMAN: Well, what I would want – well, let -- what I would want and
what we didn't have and what we don't have is I'd like to have a
strategy. And Mubarak in Egypt's place, what we did is we pulled back,
substantially pulled back, Piers, from aid, from aid, you know,
democracy forces. I serve on the board of National Endowment for
Democracy, substantially cut back. We had no ears on the ground. We had
an election process that then moved forward without the forces of
democracy having a chance to mobilize, so what were you left with?
You're left with the Muslim Brotherhood. So it's not about whether
Mubarak should be there. It's what strategically -- you know, you cited,
again, you know, tactical things that the President has done. God bless
him, it's a wonderful thing, Osama bin Laden is dead. But there has not
been a strategy, and the result of it is that you've got a problem with
what's happening in Egypt.
And when you ask, Piers, let me get back to the question you asked
about differences. I articulated just a few. First of all, in Syria, we
would have worked with and should be working with what I call the
relevant forces of relevancy in that region, the Turks, the Emirates,
even by -- we'd bring the Brits and bring the French and the German in.
This President hasn't done that. Great article in the New York Times
yesterday. Take a look at it. And you have Syrian opposition leaders
saying that they've been abandoned – by the way, they say the West, but
particularly by the United States – sitting on the sideline. And the
result is that the Syrians are being radicalized. The forces of
extremism are taking over.
It's the failure of America to lead, failure to bring folks together.
Failure to be a player in that region that has caused us to be in a
situation now where in Egypt, the leadership is one that is not clear
they're going to enforce their treaties with Israel, they're going to
be, you know, working to make sure that Israel isn't subjected to
greater terrorist attacks from across the border.
In Syria, it's a mess. Iraq is a mess. And Iran is much closer to a
nuclear weapon. So yeah, let's take a look where we were, the lack of a
strategy, the lack of a strategic approach has caused this President --
whatever his policies were in the Middle East, I can't tell you what the
strategy was but it's certainly a mess.
-- Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center