Christine Romans: “I’m certainly not carrying anyone’s water! And, I will assure you of that.” No milquetoast for breakfast today. Polite American Morning co-host Christine Romans got a piece of Michael Scheuer’s mind instead. And, she was not amused.
During the AM segment entitled, “CIA in Libya,” Christine and co-anchor Kiran Chetry interviewed Michael Scheuer, a “former CIA counter-terrorism analyst, about the United States’ latest intervention in the Middle East. Skeptically, Scheuer propounded his concerns about the efficacy of arming and training the Libyan rebels in time to defeat Khadafy; “the [President’s] putting himself into a corner where his only option is ground troops”; and the U.S.’ role in Libya being a “recruiting tool for extremists” (because it was perceived as the “American-led West attacking a Muslim country that has oil”).
Pressing Scheuer about his final point, supra, Kiran countered that U.S. officials had said that NATO had fully taken over operations and that their coalition included Arab states. Scoffing, Scheuer answered that the “U.S.-to-NATO leadership transfer was a “piece of theater set up by Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain and the bipartisan group that loves to intervene abroad”) and that the “U.S.-led operation” was seen “in the Muslim world…[as]…Americans killing Muslims again…for oil.” Subsequently, when Kiran asked Scheuer whether America’s aid for the Libyan rebels was actually support of “Islamic democracy…tired of totalitarian rule,” he acidly asserted, “If we were supporting Islamic democracy, that would be one thing. But, if you listen to Ms. Clinton and, especially, the rather crazed Ms. Rice at the U.N., this is all about democracy in a world were democracy is not going to take hold.”
As Christine listened to Scheuer’s increasingly cutting criticism of the U.S. involvement in Libya, she appeared to become agitated in tandem with his answers (as she repeatedly put her hand on her hip, crossed her arms, and furrowed her eyebrows).
When the interview concluded, Christine dismissively interjected, “I think it’s very clear, Michael Scheuer, that you are no fan of this policy and this administration.” Then, looking at Kiran repeatedly (as if for succor), Christine scolded, “I think calling Ambassador Rice crazed is certainly a significant charge.”
Unrepentant, Scheuer acerbically retorted, “Oh, I don’t know! I’ve just listened to her! That’s only my impression. Elaborating, he remarked, “[T]his is not a Democratic problem: this is a Republican problem, too. Both parties love to intervene in other people’s business where there are no U.S. interests at stake and where we spend enormous amounts of money at a time when we’re nearly bankrupt.”
With her arms crossed defiantly (and Kiran looking down at the desk demurely), Christine sharply disagreed, declaring, “And, that’s a whole nother [sic] story. To call the United States bankrupt–the United States is running humongous deficits, yes.” But, the economy and this mission is Libya are two separate issues.”
Smiling, Seuer sneered, “They’re not separate issues, ma’am. You’re just carrying the water for Mr. Obama.”
Bristling at Scheuer’s slam, Christine retorted, “I’m certainly not carrying anyone’s water! And, I will assure you of that.”
Then, after thanking him for his time, Christine icily concluded, “You, know, we’ve had a very long, exhaustive interview. You’ve had plenty of time to give your point of view on that.”
For tea-sipping Christine, her Scheuer segment may have been “too early in the AM for [such] insults.” But, for this coffee-quaffing viewer, it was a timely AM java jolt. Or, was it a Jautz jolt?
Update: This evening Mediaite‘s Matt Schneider found the story, supra, via Johnny Dollar’s Place and basically recapped it. However, Chickaboomer seized it saucily and gave it her own inimitable take.
Update2: Bill O’Reilly weighed in Friday during his O’Reilly Factor opening “Talking Points” segment on the Scheuer/Romans spat. After playing the clip of Scheuer skewering Christine, O’Reilly remarked, “This CNN anchor is wrong when she says the Libyan action and the American debt are separate: they are not. He opined, “The sad truth is every action America takes from now on will have to be evaluated from a cost standpoint: That’s what happens when you’re 14 trillion dollars in debt.”