|
|
CNN.com is reporting that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is willing to testify before Congress at hearings to address issues brought up in his new book.
What do you think of his accusations?
Why do you think he waited to come forward?
Do they actually damage the Bush Administration?
|
Posts:
911
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(57 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jul 7, 2008 10:52 AM
|
According to Pew Research, Daily Show/Colbert audiences rank highest in knowledge of national and international affairs, Fox News viewers rank close to the bottom.
Fox caters to that dark corner of the populace who either don't know any better, or prefer skulduggery and mayhem.
David Carr got it exactly right. The only way to fight a feral 800 lb. gorilla is to expose them. The NY Times could make a name for itself as the house of refuge for Fox victims who get to write their own horror story every single time Fox inflicts abuse or destroys a reputation.
"White House Suppresses Key Global Warming Document"
a ruling by the EPA...
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/
|
|
|
Posts:
24,441
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(56 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jul 7, 2008 2:10 AM
|
This reminded me of McClellan because Fox News has been the Bush Administrations de facto propaganda machine all these years.
The Media Equation
When Fox News Is the Story
By DAVID CARR, NY Times
Published: July 7, 2008
Like most working journalists, whenever I type seven letters ? Fox News ? a series of alarms begins to whoop in my head: Danger. Warning. Much mayhem ahead.
Once the public relations apparatus at Fox News is engaged, there will be the calls to my editors, keening (and sometimes threatening) e-mail messages, and my requests for interviews will quickly turn into depositions about my intent or who else I am talking to.
And if all that stuff doesn?t slow me down and I actually end up writing something, there might be a large hangover: Phone calls full of rebuke for a dependent clause in the third to the last paragraph, a ritual spanking in the blogs with anonymous quotes that sound very familiar, and ? if I really hit the jackpot ? the specter of my ungainly headshot appearing on one of Fox News?s shows along with some stern copy about what an idiot I am.
Part of me ? the Irish, tribal part ? admires Fox News?s ferocious defense of its guys. I work at a place where editors can make easy sport of teasing apart your flawed copy until it collapses in a steaming pile, but Lord help those outsiders who make an unwarranted or unfounded attack on me or my work. Our tactics may be different, but we, too, are strong for our posse.
Media reporting about other media?s approach to producing media is pretty confusing business to begin with. Feelings, which are always raw for people who make their mistakes in public, will be bruised. But that does not fully explain the scorched earth between Fox News and those who cover it.
Fox News found a huge runway and enormous success by setting aside the conventions of bloodless objectivity, but along the way, it altered the rules of engagement between reporters and the media organizations they cover. Under its chief executive, Roger Ailes, Fox News and its public relations apparatus have waged a permanent campaign on behalf of the channel that borrows its methodology from his days as a senior political adviser to Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
At Fox News, media relations is a kind of rolling opposition research operation intended to keep reporters in line by feeding and sometimes maiming them. Shooting the occasional messenger is baked right into the process.
As crude as that sounds, it works. By blacklisting reporters it does not like, planting stories with friendlies at every turn, Fox News has been living a life beyond consequence for years. Honesty compels me to admit that I have choked a few times at the keyboard when Fox News has come up in a story and it was not absolutely critical to the matter at hand.
But it cuts both ways: Fox News?s amazing coup d?état in the cable news war has very likely been undercovered because the organization is such a handful to deal with. Fox is so busy playing defense ? mentioning it in the same story as CNN can be a high crime ? that its business and journalism accomplishments don?t get traction and the cable station never seems to attain the legitimacy it so clearly craves.
There have been few stories about Bill O?Reilly?s softer side (I?m sure he has one), and while Shepard Smith?s amazing reporting in New Orleans got some play, he was not cast as one of the journalistic heroes of the disaster. The fact that Roger Ailes has won both Obie awards and Emmys does not come up a lot, nor does the fact that he donated a significant chunk of money to upgrade the student newsroom at Ohio University, his alma mater.
Instead, Mr. Ailes and Brian Lewis, his longtime head of public relations, act as if every organization that covers them is a potential threat and, in the process, have probably made it far more likely. And as the cable news race has tightened, because CNN has gained ground during a big election year, Fox News has become more prone to lashing out. Fun is fun, but it is getting uglier by the day out there.
?
A little more than a week ago, Jacques Steinberg, a reporter at The New York Times who covers television, wrote a straight-up-the-middle ratings story about cable news. His article acknowledged that while CNN was using a dynamic election to push Fox News from behind, Fox was still No. 1. Despite repeated calls, the public relations people at Fox News did not return his requests for comment. (In a neat trick, while they were ignoring his calls, they e-mailed his boss asking why they had not heard from him.)
After the article ran, Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy of ?Fox and Friends,? the reliable water carriers on the morning show on the cable network, did a segment suggesting that Mr. Steinberg?s editor was a disgruntled former employee ? Steven V. Reddicliffe once edited TV Guide, which, like Fox News, is owned by the News Corporation ? and that Mr. Steinberg was his trained attack dog. (The audience was undoubtedly wondering what the heck they were talking about.)
The accompanying photographs were heavily altered, although the audience was probably none the wiser. Mr. Reddicliffe looked like the wicked witch after a hard night of drinking, but it was the photo of Mr. Steinberg that stopped traffic when it appeared on the Web at Media Matters side by side with his actual photo. In a technique familiar to students of vintage German propaganda, his ears were pulled out, his teeth splayed apart, his forehead lowered and his nose was widened and enlarged in a way that made him look more like Fagin than the guy I work with. (Mr. Steinberg told me that as a working reporter who covers Fox News, he was not in a position to comment. A spokeswoman said the executive in charge of ?Fox and Friends? is on vacation and not available for comment but added that altering photos for humorous effect is a common practice on cable news stations.)
It?s a particularly vivid example of how the Fox response team works, but hardly the only one. Julia Angwin of The Wall Street Journal wrote a profile of Roger Ailes in 2005. Again, her coverage was right up the middle, but that is not the way that Fox News saw it, and she was held out for ridicule over and over in items on various blogs penned by Fox News staff when she jumped the gun on the start date for the Fox business channel. (Ms. Angwin is on book leave and did not answer a message left on her cellphone.)
Earlier this year, a colleague of mine said, he was writing a story about CNN?s gains in the ratings and was told on deadline by a Fox News public relations executive that if he persisted, ?they? would go after him. Within a day, ?they? did, smearing him around the blogs, he said. (I did not ask him for a comment because the information was of a private nature.)
Some of the avenues of attack are easier to anticipate than others. Right now, there are advance copies circulating of a reported memoir I wrote about my times as a drug addict and drunk. I?ve already been called a ?crack addict? on Bill O?Reilly?s show, which at least has the virtue of being true, if a little vintage. Expect a return engagement with some added detail. I have a bit of an advantage in that my laundry is already hanging on the line, not to mention that with a face made out of potatoes, the Photoshopped picture of me will have to go a long way to make me any uglier than I actually am. Having pointed a crooked columnist finger at Fox, at least I have it coming. Not so for many of the beat reporters who go to work every day confronted by a public relations machine that will go feral if it doesn?t get what it wants.
When I started calling around about Fox News, Mr. Lewis, the public relations head, made himself available on very short notice on the Fourth of July. He patiently explained that while yes, the game had changed, it was hardly in the way I was describing. There are no dark ops, he said, and no blacklist ? ?a myth? ? only good relationships and bad ones.
Mr. Lewis said that members of his staff were not in the business of altering photos, that they had no control over stories that appeared on ?Fox and Friends? or other shows, and he pointed out that it makes their job harder when they go after reporters. He called my suggestion that there was something anti-Semitic about the depiction of Mr. Steinberg ?vile and untrue.? Mr. Lewis denied that his staff had threatened one of my colleagues or planted private information about him on blogs.
That comes as a surprise to reporters I talked to who say they have received e-mail messages from Fox News public relations staff that contained doctored photos, anonymous quotes and nasty items about competitors. And two former Fox employees said that they had participated in precisely those kinds of activities but had signed confidentiality agreements and could not say so on the record.
?Yes, we are an aggressive department in a passive industry, and believe me, the executives and talent appreciate it,? Mr. Lewis said, adding that with the 24-hour news cycle and the proliferation of blogs, a new kind of engagement and activism was required.
?We are the biggest target in the industry and we accept that,? he said. ?We embrace controversy,? but he said that he and his colleagues respect that reporters have a job to do.
Many of the television-beat reporters I called had horror stories, but few were willing to be quoted. In the last several years, reporters from The Associated Press, several large newspapers and various trade publications have said they were shut out from getting their calls returned because of stories they had written. Editors do not want to hear why your calls are not being returned, they just want you to fix the problem, or perhaps they will fix it by finding someone else to do your job.
David Folkenflik, now the media reporter for National Public Radio, ended up on the outs with Fox News in 2001 when he was at The Baltimore Sun. After he wrote that Fox?s Geraldo Rivera had not been at the site of an incident of friendly fire in Afghanistan as he had told viewers, Mr. Folkenflik said, his calls to Fox News were not returned for more than 15 months.
?My sense was that it was designed to make it appear that I was having trouble doing my job, but also to intimate that the people who cross them will be shut out,? he said.
Mr. Folkenflik said he did not take it personally because it was not aimed just at him. ?I think it is a notably aggressive effort to manage the Fox News brand and image,? he said. ?I think it is suffused with a political sensibility, and I don?t think it is any secret that it comes from the top with Roger Ailes. They behave less like a competitive news outlet and more like a political campaign when it comes to managing coverage.?
But he holds no grudge.
?I currently have a perfectly good relationship with Fox News,? Mr. Folkenflik said. ?I touch base with them all the time, and I write the good and bad news as it occurs.?
Bill Carter has covered television for The New York Times for many years and has always had a good working relationship with Fox News, but he was appalled to see what he viewed as an anti-Semitic caricature of Mr. Steinberg, a colleague and a friend.
?I have not had a big problem with them, in part because their success has been such a great story, but this seemed over the line and really hateful,? Mr. Carter said. ?It doesn?t seem like you can deal with them professionally. You do this kind of thing to a guy who?s writing a story for a newspaper??
Fox News has long held that it is its politics and not its tactics that set it apart and require such vigilance. But working reporters have been shaking their heads for years about the nightmare of dealing with Fox News and as a result, the antagonism they believe they are fighting against seems to be on the march.
Mr. Lewis made it clear that Fox News has no problem working with reporters when they don?t have an agenda, and of course, I called with a very clear one. For the record, everyone I dealt with at Fox News in connection with this column was polite, highly responsive, and got right to the point, while still not giving ground on a single material fact. A guy could get used to that.
|
|
|
Posts:
24,441
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(55 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jul 7, 2008 2:09 AM
|
Gzndhyt,
There's much more awareness and resistance to false flag info promoting attacking Iran though.
So glad!
|
|
|
Posts:
911
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(54 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jul 5, 2008 10:33 AM
|
Scott Ritter, Molly Ivans, Helen Thomas, Knight-Ridder Newspapers (now McClatchey), Lewis Lapham et al at Harper's Magazine, Utney Reader, The Nation, The Guardian, and a host of global and international news orgs and websites...to name just a few.
The mainstream is at it again over Iran and Israel. The news is out there all over the place, and now we have Shlomo Ben-Ami's TICP, J Street, Haaretz, Bill Moyers Journal, Democracy Now!, Air America...
The 2007 U.S. Intelligence Estimate is available online to read...
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
which spells out what we need to know about Iran's uranium enrichment program. Repeatedly mentioned is that it's highly unlikely that Iran is enriching uranium to build a nuclear weapon, and IF they are, how soon the construction would be complete. How imminent the threat, in other words, all completely buried under a pile of war mongering rubble. That, and Congress' vote to proclaim the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization gave George a free pass to invade.
The way the mainstream panders to AIPAC's agenda as truth and fact like we're all a bunch of brainwashed Christian Zionists is damned scary.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,494
Registered:
8/24/06
|
|
(53 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jul 5, 2008 10:03 AM
|
Thanks RK.
Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks and many others. Anybody who spoke the truth was criticized and marginalized.
|
|
|
Posts:
24,441
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(52 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jul 5, 2008 2:11 AM
|
Tonight, Anderson Cooper interviews Jessica Yellen who explains how studio execs pressured reporters to write pro-Bush stories in the build-up to the war.
CNN Execs Pressured Her To Make Bush Look Good
http://boards.hbo.com/post!reply.jspa?threadID=2000002371&messageID=2000138288
related article at Salon.com:
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday May 29, 2008 06:03 EDT
CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative
(updated below - Update II)
Jessica Yellin -- currently a CNN correspondent who covered the White House for ABC News and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003 -- was on with Anderson Cooper last night discussing Scott McClellan's book, and made one of the most significant admissions heard on television in quite some time:
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.
And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.
I think, over time...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?
YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.
The video of that exchange is here. As noted in Update II below, Yellin today said that she was referring to her time at MSNBC.
Yellin's admission is but the latest in a growing mountain of evidence demonstrating that corporate executives forced their news reporters to propagandize in favor of the Bush administration and the war, and censored stories that were critical of the Government. Katie Couric yesterday said that threats from the White House and accusations of being unpatriotic coerced the media into suppressing its questioning of the war. But last September, Couric revealed even more specifically the type of pressure that was put on her by NBC executives to refrain from criticizing the administration, after she conducted a "tough interview" with Condoleezza Rice:
After the interview, Couric said she received an email from an NBC exec "forwarded without explanation" from a viewer who wrote that she had been "unnecessarily confrontational."
"I think there was a lot of undercurrent of pressure not to rock the boat for a variety of reasons, where it was corporate reasons or other considerations," she said in an interview with former journalist and author Marvin Kalb during "The Kalb Report" forum at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
In April of 2003, then-MSNBC star Ashleigh Banfield delivered a speech at Kansas State University and said that American news coverage of the Iraq war attracted high ratings but "wasn't journalism," because "there are horrors that were completely left out of this war." She added, echoing Couric:
The other thing is that so many voices were silent in this war. We all know what happened to Susan Sarandon for speaking out, and her husband, and we all know that this is not the way Americans truly want to be. Free speech is a wonderful thing, it's what we fight for, but the minute it's unpalatable we fight against it for some reason.
That just seems to be a trend of late, and l am worried that it may be a reflection of what the news was and how the news coverage was coming across. . . . I think there were a lot of dissenting voices before this war about the horrors of war, but I'm very concerned about this three-week TV show and how it may have changed people's opinions. It was very sanitized.
Shortly thereafter, Banfield was demoted, then fired altogether, and -- as Digby put it in her great analysis of Banfield's speech -- "she's now a co-anchor on a Court TV show."
At the same time, MSNBC fired the only real war opponent it had, Phil Donahue, despite very healthy ratings (the highest of any show on MSNBC, including "Hardball"). When interviewed for Bill Moyers' truly superb 2007 documentary on press behavior in the run-up to the war, Donahue reported much the same thing as Yellin, Couric, and Banfield revealed:
BILL MOYERS: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector. Who was saying that if we invade, it will be a historic blunder.
PHIL DONOHUE: You didn't have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn't have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.
BILL MOYERS: You could have the conservative.
PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.
BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.
PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true.
BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?
PHIL DONOHUE: Yes. I was counted as two liberals.
A leaked memo from NBC executives at the time of his firing made clear that Donahue was fired for ideological reasons, not due to ratings:
The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war . . . . He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
NBC executives then proceeded to hire Dick Armey as an MSNBC commentator and give a show to Michael Savage. Michael Savage.
This is nothing less than compelling evidence that, in terms of our establishment press, our media is anything but "free." Corporate executives continuously suppressed critical reporting of the Government and the war and forced their paid reporters to mimic the administration line. The evidence proving that comes not from media critics or shrill left-wing bloggers but from those who work at these news outlets, including some of their best-known and highest-paid journalists who are attesting to such facts from first-hand knowledge despite its being in their interests not to speak out about such things.
* * * * *
Yesterday was actually quite an extraordinary day in our political culture because Scott McClellan's revelations forced the establishment media to defend themselves against long-standing accusations of their corruption and annexation by the government -- criticisms which, until yesterday, they literally just ignored, blacked-out, and suppressed. Bizarrely enough, it took a "tell-all" Washington book from Scott McClellan, of all people, to force these issues out into the open, and he seems -- unwittingly or otherwise -- to have opened a huge flood gate that has long been held tightly shut.
Network executives obviously know that these revelations are quite threatening to their brand. Yesterday, they wheeled out their full stable of multi-millionaire corporate stars who play the role of authoritative journalists on the TV to join with their White House allies in mocking and deriding McClellan's claims. One media star after the next -- Tom Brokaw, David Gregory, Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer -- materialized in sync to insist that nothing could be more absurd than the suggestion that they are "deferential, complicit enablers" in government propaganda.
I have little doubt that they would be telling the truth if they denied what Yellin reported last night. People like Williams, Gibson and Gregory don't need to be told to refrain from reporting critically about the war and the White House because challenging Government claims isn't what they do. And amazingly, they admitted that explicitly yesterday. Gibson and Gregory both invoked the cliched excuse of the low-level bureaucrat using almost identical language: exposing government lies "is not our job."
Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and company are paid to play the role of TV reporters but, in reality, are mere television emcees -- far more akin to circus ringleaders than journalists. It's just as simple as that. David Halberstam pointed that out some time ago. Unlike Yellin, Donahue and Banfield, nobody needed to pressure the likes of Williams, Gibson and Russert to serve as propaganda handmaidens for the White House. It's what they do quite eagerly on their own, which is precisely why they're in the corporate positions they're in. They are smooth, undisruptive personalities who don't create problems for their executives. Watching them finally describe how they perceive of "their role" leaves no doubt about any of that.
* * * * *
This is the most vital point: this is not a matter of mere historical interest. This is not about how the media operated five years ago during an aberrational time in our history. This is about how they functioned then and how they function now. The same people who did all of this still run these media organizations and it's the same coddled, made-up personalities still playing the role of "journalist."
That's what makes the NYT "military analyst" story so significant, and it's why it's so revealing that the establishment media black-out of that story continues. Not just in 2003, but through 2008, the networks relied upon Pentagon-controlled propagandists to masquerade as their "independent analysts." Those analysts repeatedly spouted patently false government propaganda without challenge. The numerous financial incentives and ideological ties these analysts had were concealed. And these networks, now that this is all revealed and even with multiple investigations underway, still refuse to tell their viewers about any of it.
Clearly, if these network media stars think they did nothing wrong in the run-up to the war and in their coverage of the Bush administration -- and they don't -- then it's only logical to conclude that they still do the same things and will do the same things in the future. As people like Jessica Yellin, Katie Couric, Phil Donahue and Scott McClellan are making clear, these media outlets are controlled propaganda arms of the Government, of the political establishment generally. For many people, that isn't a new revelation, but the fact that it's becoming clearer by the day -- from unimpeachable sources on the inside -- is nonetheless quite significant.
UPDATE: The central excuse offered by self-defending "journalists" is that they didn't present an anti-war case because nobody was making that case, and it's not their job to create debate. This unbelievably rotted view found its most darkly hilarious expression in a 2007 David Ignatius column in The Washington Post. After explaining how proud he is of his support for the attack on Iraq, Igantius explains why there wasn't much challenge made to the Administration's case for war (h/t Ivan Carter):
In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn't create a debate on our own. And because major news organizations knew the war was coming, we spent a lot of energy in the last three months before the war preparing to cover it.
They were "victims of their own professionalism." It's not up to them to create a debate where none exists. That's the same thing Charlie Gibson, David Gregory, and Tim Russert -- among others -- have all said in defending themselves.
The idea that journalists only convey statements from politicians rather than "create debates" is the classic Stenographic Model of "Journalism" -- "we just write down what people say. It's not our job to do anything else." Real reporting is about uncovering facts that the political elite try to conceal, not ones they willingly broadcast. It's about investigating and exposing -- not mindlessly amplifying -- the falsehoods and deceit of government claims. But our modern "journalists" (with some noble exceptions) don't do that not only because they can't do it, but also because they don't think it's their job. That's because, by definition, they're not journalists.
But beyond that, this claim is just categorically, demonstrably false. As Eric Boehlert and Atrios both demonstrated yesterday, Ted Kennedy in September, 2002 "delivered a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about a possible invasion." Moreover, Al Gore (the prior presidential nominee of the Democratic Party) and Howard Dean (the 2003 Democratic presidential frontrunner) were both emphatically speaking out against the war.
Thus, three of the most influential voices in the Democratic Party -- arguably the three most influential at the time -- were vehemently opposing the war. People were protesting in the streets by the hundreds of thousands inside the U.S. and around the world. In the world as perceived by the insulated, out-of-touch and establishment-worshiping likes of David Ignatius, Brian Williams, David Gregory, and Charlie Gibson, there may not have been a debate over whether we should attack Iraq. But there nonetheless was a debate. They ignored it and silenced it because their jobs didn't permit them to highlight those questions. Ask Jessica Yellin. She'll tell you. She just did last night.
UPDATE II: Yellin clarifies in a post today that her comments "involved [her] time on MSNBC where [she] worked during the lead up to war" and that she was referring to "senior producers." She says that "many people running the broadcasts wanted coverage that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the country at the time." That, of course, is the same network that fired Ashleigh Banfield and Phil Donahue, and where David Gregory, Tom Brokow, Brian Williams and Tim Russert all now insist that they performed superb journalism in the run-up to the war.
On a different note, contrary to the standard establishment journalist excuse that there were no real anti-war advocates for them to include in their coverage, there were ample politicians and experts speaking out against the war. Aside from the numerous examples listed above, many of the nation's leading international relation scholars were forced to pay for ads in places such as the The New York Times to make their anti-war case because the media would not -- and still will not -- include them in its coverage. Numerous non-liberal factions -- from foreign policy scholars at the Cato Institute to former Reagan defense officials -- were vehemently against the war. But the networks featured an endless stream of know-nothing war cheerleaders while almost completely excluding actual opponents of the war.
-- Glenn Greenwald
|
|
|
Posts:
576
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(51 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jun 28, 2008 7:34 AM
|
> Not sure i mentioned it on this thread but planted
> GOP press corp member, Jeff Gannon, is posting
> innuendo about Scott on his blog
>
> Retaliation GOP style
I love it.
--
Jane
HBO Forums Host
|
|
|
Posts:
24,441
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(50 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jun 28, 2008 1:04 AM
|
Not sure i mentioned it on this thread but planted GOP press corp member, Jeff Gannon, is posting innuendo about Scott on his blog
Retaliation GOP style
|
|
|
Posts:
7,720
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
|
Posts:
2,601
Registered:
5/18/07
|
|
|
Posts:
584
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(47 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jun 27, 2008 7:26 PM
|
> Gzndhyt,
>
> I hear you. I'm so naive ...I've been shocked lately
> at all the Bush minions that congress supoenas who
> just say No Thanks.
>
Yup or won't testify because "Al Queda might be watching."
|
|
|
Posts:
911
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(46 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jun 27, 2008 8:38 AM
|
|
These are the people we rely on to keep democracy alive. Yikes.
|
|
|
Posts:
24,441
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
|
Posts:
911
Registered:
3/21/08
|
|
(44 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jun 25, 2008 9:40 AM
|
Being shocked isn't naive at all. What's there not to be shocked about? It shows a healthy respect for what made this country great, the Constitutional foundation in the Bill of Rights, and prompted so many to follow in our footsteps.
Watching it all unravel before our very eyes is painful, and this oppressive, abusive dictatorship unbearable. Even though Bush never acted with anything but utter contempt for the People, the Constitution and every law that ever stood in his way, this is the first time we've had a Supreme Court and Congress enabling a dictatorship and establishing a New Order.
Bush apologists comparing this illegal "war presidency" to what Abraham Lincoln imposed to save the Union is an outrageous, illogical, irrationale by people who can't grasp gravitas.
|
|
|
Posts:
24,441
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(43 of 57)
Re: Scott McClellan's Revelations
Jun 25, 2008 8:27 AM
|
Gzndhyt,
I hear you. I'm so naive ...I've been shocked lately at all the Bush minions that congress supoenas who just say No Thanks.
WFT??
As far as the Supreme Court, I think they're Dead to us. We lost them.
--
Edited by RainyKincaid at 06/25/2008 5:27 AM PDT
|
|
|
|
|
