About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Shuster grills GOP strategist: More concerned about Pelosi than that U.S. "might have used torture to fabricate information that took us into war?"

May 15, 2009 1:53 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell: The Truth About Richard Bruce Cheney

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (May 15, 2009 1:57 pm ET)
      3 1
      Well of course. They want to look forward. Not backwards. Unless it's at Nancy Pelosi or some other Dem.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 15, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
        4 1
        Like how they are using rendition to bring up Bill Clinton again. You'd think that Bill is the gift that keeps on giving for these guys.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jbrantow (May 15, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
      2 1
      This guy Danny Diaz is a giant moron. I remember seeing him during the election season. He spouts of republican talking points... one after the other but never backs them up. I think he just memorizes them like using phonetics and doesn't listen to the words or thoughts. He's a parrot!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (May 15, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
        1 1
        Makes sense. Hannitard can't be everywhere at once.

        But really - to disparage parrots like that. You should be ashamed. Not all parrots are as stupid as this guy.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 15, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      2 1
      You have to admit; these Republican talking point Zombies are well-programmed. Did you notice how deftly he ignored Shuster's questions about what may be the political crime of the century, and circled right back into his "Nancy Pelosi" script?

      How can you not be impressed by such laser-like focus?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 15, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
      5 1
      By the way... good on Shuster for practicing something that looks like real journalism.


      Isn't he the one who got in trouble for the "pimping" remark about Chelsea Clinton?

      As far as I'm concerned, he has redeemed himself.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cmiller442 (May 15, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
        4 1
        David Shuster is MSNBC's best weapon. He's fearless and stays on point when he's trying to get a real (as in true) answer from his guests.

        MSNBC's only weakness is that they're not quite tough enough on guests that flat out lie (although Big Ed looks like a real bulldog for truth) but I'd rather have it MSNBC's way of polite discourse versus Fox's propaganda drones silencing ANY discourse by shutting off their guest's microphones.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by kfraz43 (May 15, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
          2  
          That is the biggest difference between MSNBC and Fox. Compare the frequent exchanges between Steve McMahon and Todd Harris on Hardball, where they both remain at least partially civil to each other (even with Chris spitting all over them), with McMahon's interview on Hannity earlier this week - he was crammed between two of Fox's typical panelists nobody's ever heard of, and every time Hannity would throw out an accusation and ask him to answer to it, the other three would step all over him, interrupting, talking to each other and winking, etc.

          The first time I saw it, I was disappointed in McMahon's performance - I don't agree with all of his arguments, but to me he's been right more often than not. Once I played the interview back, however, it was clear that he had no shot at coming out on top of that interview. And that's typical for Fox - always outnumber the dissenting view, ask them to speak, then box them until they realize that it's futile. Talking over someone until they shut down is the ultimate victory at Fox.

          Fair and balanced...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (May 15, 2009 10:47 pm ET)
            3
          I must admit I am a bit impressed with the fact that MSNBC actually has someone who will confront and discuss an issue with an opposing point of view. They must see Fox's ratings and figure , why not, we can't do any worse.

          But your comment about the lack of discourse on Fox is just wrong. When guests actually answer the questions that they are asked they are treated in a very civil manner on Fox. Shutting off mics is very rare and usually is a result of guests who evade questions and filibuster, or misstate the truth like Jeremy Glick did for example. There is a long list of dems and liberals who appear regularly on Fox and present their views and participate in an exchange of ideas. Far more on Fox than on MSNBC.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 16, 2009 10:24 am ET)
            3  
            I find your take delusional. What mistatement did Glick make? I didnt see one he just said things Billy O didnt like and couldnt refute. The obvious truth is that Fox is not even a news source at all but a propaganda arm. They are only useful for those who want to reinforce their biases.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by eddiebear2 (May 17, 2009 11:11 am ET)
              1
            "MSNBC actually has someone who will confront and discuss an issue with an opposing point of view"

            So then why does Olbermann never have opposing views on his show?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by eddiebear2 (May 17, 2009 11:13 am ET)
            1
          "MSNBC actually has someone who will confront and discuss an issue with an opposing point of view"

          Polite discourse and MSNBC? I guess you consider "Special Comments" telling his opponents to "shut the hell up" polite discourse. Or "thrills up my leg" polite. Or "get a shovel" polite.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Leftym0m79 (May 15, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
      2  
      Wow, where did the Republicans find this guy? Saying he's "just a political analyst", so he doesn't want to talk about a hypothetical political investigation? Huh? Isn't that what he's paid to do?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (May 17, 2009 11:08 am ET)
         
      you have to ask the questions of everyone in congress during that time if fingers are going to be pointed to Pelosi. It's a nonsense story and the people know this.
      the only ones buying it is the gop.
      And it's a diversion that most in the media happily chase after because the torture and Cheney stories require hard work and uncomfortable facts and hard news. It also is something the media wants to avoid because of their own behavior back then.
      Hurray for Shuster in his cutting through the smoke and mirrors and knowing what is the real story.
      Report Abuse