A year later, Morgan still defending her comments about NY Times' Keller and treason
On the July 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, right-wing radio host Melanie Morgan said, "I still believe" that "anybody who leaks or publishes classified data in a time of war in highly successful program such as the SWIFT [bank-tracking program], they should be tried for treason. If they were found guilty of treason, I would have no problem with them being executed." Morgan was referring to comments she made on the June 26, 2006, edition of Hardball following the publication of a New York Times article three days earlier describing a secret Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial transactions by tapping into a database maintained by a banking consortium known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). After a commercial break on the July 20 Hardball, Morgan again defended her comments about Keller and the Times. Guest host Mike Barnacle responded: "You're kidding, right?"
As Media Matters for America documented, on the June 26, 2006, edition of Hardball, Morgan said: "I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys [Keller and The New York Times] behind jail." According to a June 29, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article, Morgan later said: "If [Keller] were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber."
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the July 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
NAOMI WOLF (political activist and author of the forthcoming The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (Chelsea Green)) : They're waking up to the fact that this administration uses very nasty, dark tactics like smearing critics and dissenters. And Melanie, I've got to -- I'd like to sort of confront you. You know, you've done this, too. You attacked [New York Times executive editor] Bill Keller when he published the SWIFT banking articles. And you also, you know, accused him essentially of treason.
MORGAN: Yes, Naomi, I did. And it was right here on Hardball, as a matter of fact, when I said that anybody who leaks or publishes classified data in a time of war in highly successful program such as the SWIFT [unintelligible], they should be tried for treason. If they were found guilty of treason, I would have no problem with them being executed. That's my exact quote. Of course, I know that you've been researching --
BARNICLE: Who -- what was this? Who were you going to execute?
MORGAN: And it was said right here on Hardball, and I still believe that. And I believe that Senator Hillary Clinton is engaging in a very dangerous and very, very unfortunate choice of words here now. She has creeped constantly leftward, and it's hurting our military and our family. And what she's driving towards is a premature evacuation of the battlefield, leaving Iraq in disarray and the American troops as losers, and that is wrong.
WOLF: And Melanie, if I could get --
MORGAN: Plain wrong.
WOLF: Melanie, if I can get a word edgewise. The American people really have to know, and I think, no disresp-- well, a lot of disrespect, actually. Melanie, you're playing a very dangerous game because when, in American history, leaders start to say that critical speech is treason or that critical speech is disloyal or unpatriotic -- I mean, that's what they did in the McCarthy era.
MORGAN: It is unpatriotic.
WOLF: That's what they did in World War I.
MORGAN: We have -- we have real --
WOLF: -- with the anti-- let me finish.
MORGAN: -- men and women who are in a blistering sandbox in Iraq right now facing 130 degree temperatures, and their lives and limbs are being shot off --
WOLF: Exactly.
MORGAN: And for you --
WOLF: Which is why you --
MORGAN: -- and for you and anybody else to say that it is patriotic to backstab their mission is just flat wrong.
WOLF: It is patriotic to ask --
MORGAN: And there is a lot of disrespect intended there to you, too.
WOLF: OK. So, Melanie, constructively, what I want to remind you is that Thomas Jefferson and the Founders made it very, very difficult to call anyone a traitor because they understood how charges of treason were swept around and that they themselves were -- could have been accused of treason for prosecuting the Revolutionary War. And so they made it very difficult because they understood that in times of war, anyone who criticized the prosecution of the war could be called a traitor and that that was dangerous for democracy. And what I'm saying is that the game that you and the White House is [sic] playing by saying that critics of the war --
MORGAN: Don't lump me together with the White House. I have nothing to do with the White House.
WOLF: OK, then you.
MORGAN: I don't have anything to do with the White House.
WOLF: Fine. I think that it is very dangerous and un-American to engage in this very dark history, to resurrect this very dark history of smearing people who are asking hard questions, as they should.
MORGAN: Oh, that's interesting because Senator Clinton is one of the very finest operators of the smear machine. She and her husband, Bill, during all the impeachment hearings, and the women -- the 15 women who made allegations against him, they were the ones who were smeared, so please don't turn that on me.
BARNICLE: OK.
WOLF: Well, I --
BARNICLE: Wait, wait.
WOLF: -- think I'm bringing up a very substantive and important point --
BARNICLE: Melanie.
WOLF: -- and it's germane to what happened to Mrs. Clinton today, which is that in America, the people need the representatives to ask hard questions --
BARNICLE: OK.
WOLF: -- and this administration should be ashamed of themselves for saying that that's un-American.
BARNICLE: Naomi, we have to take a break. We're going to be back with Melanie and Naomi Wolf and treason and executions and everything and homework.
[...]
BARNICLE: Welcome back to Hardball, and we're with radio talk-show host Melanie Morgan and Democratic activist Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America.
Melanie, clear this up for me. I didn't quite get in that last segment -- who were you calling to be executed? You were talking about executing someone or some people or some group of people.
MORGAN: Chris Matthews, yeah -- Chris Matthews on this very program about a year or so ago asked me about what I thought should be the penalty for whoever leaked the valuable SWIFT database program to The New York Times, and I said, I wasn't aware of what the treason charge would carry. And it turns out it carries the death penalty, so I said, "Yes, I would agree if he were -- if Bill Keller of The New York Times were to be tried of treason and convicted, I would have no problem whatsoever with him facing the death penalty." And apparently 62 percent --
BARNICLE: You're kidding, right?
MORGAN: -- of the American public feels the same way when they were asked the same question.
WOLF: I've gotta jump in, Mike. You know, what you should is that this is how dictators talk. I mean, in Stalin's show trials, the sec-- the third Moscow show trial, the editor of Izvestia was actually charged with treason in a show trial, found guilty, and executed. And in America, we do not execute people for their opinions. And that's the way the Founders set it up. And honestly, Melanie, you should go read the Constitution.
MORGAN: It's not an opinion when you publish top-secret information in your newspaper. That is endangering the lives of men and women on the battlefield in a time of war. And Naomi, you should know that.
WOLF: I certainly do know that. And I want you to really think long and hard about what kind of America you want to see, where people are afraid to speak and afraid to, you know, call governments to account because they're afraid that there will be calls for the death penalty.
MORGAN: And I don't want to be lectured to by you, Naomi, because we have men and women who are right now serving in battle, and you should be appreciative and grateful and do everything that you can to support them. I do that at Move America Forward, which has over a million members, the largest pro-troop organization in the country. And I would hope that you might make a donation or a contribution of cookies and coffee --
WOLF: Let me invite you, Melanie, to make a donation or a contribution to the American Freedom Campaign or the American Freedom Agenda, which is starting a pro-democracy movement in this country so we can restore the Constitution and the rule of law, which is what those men and women are fighting for in the desert.
BARNICLE: Naomi Wolf, Melanie Morgan, thanks both very much.
Since outing one of our CIA operatives is treasonous, I am sure that Melanie Morgan is really calling for the execution of Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage.
More importantly, a year later and a thousand SIMILAR comments later, this mentally ill woman is still given national exposure to give her "opinions". On what criteria would ANYONE be interested in what this sick individual has to say? Why do the powers-that-be at these networks book this particular person, instead of a random inmate from an insane asylum?
Oh, that's right. She will reliably spout the RIGHTWING LINE, so that puts her high on the "Important Guest 'A' List"
Propaganda ... gotta stick with those who deliver the proper message.
"Mental illness" is being nice Tex.....at least that can be treated. I think Morgan has defective wiring.
Wolf really gave her a good fight though, it was great to hear someone challenging her over the edge logic. I felt that for a moment she was ready to lose it, when she repeated twice that she's not connected to the White House.
her transistors are arcing acroos and causing a biological malfuction above her neck. Is she vying for Hannity's top spot at FOX ??
She's probably trying out to be his vacation fill-in
Morgan; "There Sean, [pant, pant] how was that? See how vile I can be?"
Hannity; "That was better, you smeared Clinton a couple times, got the troops thing in, and painted Liberals as being UnAmerican. But I'd like to see a few more slaps at Hillary. If you can't think of anything, I've got a cheat sheet tacked on the wall above camera two."
Tex, just another example of you being extremely dense. Morgan's comments are very straightforward and very clear. So I have a couple of questions for you
1) Do you believe that it is right and legal to publish a secret government actitivty (COMPLETELY LEGAL btw) which is assisting the US in catching and tracking terrorists?
2) If so, do you not want to catch terrorists using any LEGAL means necessary?
3) If not, then what punishment should be invoked on those who intentionally publish the details of completely LEGAL and secret programs which help the govt. track terrorists?
Give me a break. This program had been exposed a couple of years before the Times "broke" the story. Of course, you don't mention that the NYT sat on the story for over a year despite finding out about its existence prior to the 2004 election. They witheld crucial information to the public to help get Bush re-elected.
And there are serious concerns about its legailty, so spare us the spurious argument that it is legitimate.
You are wrong on 3 counts
1) The exact details of the program were not exposed years before this article. That is completely untrue and I'd like to see an article to back up your false assertion. The program may have been mentioned by name, but it was not explored in anywhere near the same detail as the NYT did it.
2) The NYT should have sat on the story forever or at least until all of our troops are out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
3) There are no questions about the legality of the program. None. Maybe you can find some far-left kook professor who thinks that it should be looked at, but I have yet to see any respected lawyer anywhere who questioned the legality of it.
And you are wrong on every count imaginable.
Given your comments on this issue of secrecy what have you said about the Plame leaks. Do you feel comfortable with an administration that does not even bother to ask the CIA before it gives out information about the CIA to the press. If not why the double standard.
I tried to get on Morgan's radio show once.
I ctually got through, but when I started to ask about the huge failures in Iraq, I was muted and then hung up on. In less than 3 minutes.
For several minutes after, Morgan described me as a "traitor," "Al-Qaeda sympathizer," "Saddam groupie," you name it.
I can't answer to this, since I've been hung up on.
Morgan is a fascist and liar, who ONLY wants people who agree with her to call in.
I saw this segment when it was aired.
This Morgan woman made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. That's how batshit crazy she is.
Kudos to Wolf for keeping her cool and not turning it into a shouting match which is what Morgan wanted.
Wolf had a great point in that the troops in Iraq Morgan claims to support are dying to preserve our right to question our leaders.
Wolf Blitzer is feeling the winds of change, foir a more civilized debate. I don't believe such a remark would have been possible a year ago.
Barnicle was pretty funny though, not quite believing what he was hearing:
BARNICLE: Who -- what was this? Who were you going to execute?
She gets all indignant about the troops getting shot at in the 130 degree sand--
--but she never calls for people to enlist.
--but she never calls for higher taxes to get the soldiers better equipment.
--but she neverr calls for people to cut down on travel, buy war bonds, recycle, or make any of the sacrifices made in WWII.
In fact, the ONLY sacrifice she and her ilk have required is that the liberals shut up.
But their main policy to try to make the war invisible--no coffins, no Prez at funerals, not one call for enlistment--is that the war has lost its reality for the great center. No Ernie Pyle, no Bill Mauldin--and no Walter Cronkite. And like a bassline from the next apartment, what they get is that it's dragging on and on and on and American kids are dying and nothing changes betond it getting worse.
But that's how unAmerican Ms. Morgan is: as a nation, we'll enlist, we'll sacrifice, we'll tighten our belts--but we won't shut up.
And that's the only thing they want.
I've said it before: if the American Armed Forces, the best equipped, best trained, best supported military machine in history, fails miserably when exposed to criticism--what kind of military is that? If we're to believe Ms. Morgan, they're a bunch of wusses who crumble from their fear of rejection. And that's about as insulting as it gets.
Yes, but if we all send them cookies and coffee, then everything will be just fine!!!
Remember that, according to right wing pundits, American troops can handle 130 degree heat, the psychological stress of knowing that they could be attacked at any moment, the physical danger of armed insurgents and IED's... they can handle all of that. They're the best in the world, after all. But if an American war critic speaks out, THAT would bring the troops to their knees.
So yeah, of course we don't have to enlist new soldiers or pay for their material needs. That would, after all, entail some form of public expense. Instead, conservative pundits propose to fuel their wars with the renewable energy of chickenhawkish cheerleading and hot air, because that's what the soldiers really need.
I believe that the tide has finally turned and as a majority of the American people see and understand the truth of how the likes of Melanie Morgan encouraged, then supported, and now are covering up for the miserable Bush administration prosecution of the Iraq invasion; they will be more and more tested to prove what they’ve been saying are not lies and more lies.
When historians write the final chapter on this era of United States history, she and those like her can only be portrayed as the war mongers they are.
I support Morgan having her own 24 hour TV channel, just her rooting for the President and the war. OK, she has to sleep, she could split the shift with Ann Coulter.
There can not be a more effective voice out there to discredit everything Morgan stands for than Morgan herself.
I've seen her before. She has such repressed anger at anyone who believes differently than she does that at times she seems about to go ballistic. I think she has huge gender issues, and her stupid opinions about the goodness of the war in Iraq are compensatory in her mind. Her smugness about knowing what's right is astonishing. I watched her facial twitches last night in her appearance with Naomi Wolfe. What they said was, "got ya."
I would estimate her IQ to be no more than about 105 to 110, hardly in the smart category. What she has going is a decent face and the ability to repeat over and over the same lines. I would bet her actual information, let alone knowledge, of world history and economics are at about a sixth grade level. I know plenty of people like her, and their behavior is the same. If you were to ask her if she's "saved," you already know the answer. It's the same thing Bush would say, and it's at the core of their stupidity. When God is whispering in your ear directives about going to war, calling people traitors, or otherwise trashing those who disagree, it's hard to not be smug.
Morgan really never had a chance in this debate. She is among the very best at name calling but thats about it.
Naomi Wolf gave her a good spanking...and it was delicious.
I watched this "debate" as it happened and couldn't believe my ears. This Morgan woman did everything but hurl lightening bolts at Naomi Wolf and yet Ms. Wolf kept her cool and responded to her point for point, but in a calm, sensible and dignified manner.
I live in Canada where our political chat shows rarely, if ever, devolve into shouting matches or screaming hysteria. When we watch these shows we actually have the opportunity of hearing different sides to an argument and learn something to boot. Naomi Wolf epitomized the kind of discourse we are accustomed to on this side of the border.
As an American living abroad, I follow U.S. politics closely and vote in every election, but I have to say, for the most part, I learn little or nothing from most of the American political shoutfests. I much prefer the way Ms. Wolf handled this situation and wish more participants in these forums emulated her example.
Most here echo your wish ZASU. The how to of fullfillment is the nutbreaker.
Underdog fans, you have a movie coming out. I hope it works better the Rocky and Bullwinkle.
Underdog fans, you have a movie coming out. I hope it works better the Rocky and Bullwinkle.
Impossible. It's live action. The trailers are full of people marvelling at a talking dog. Does not bode well...
You're right, LL. My 12-year-old's reaction to the trailer: "Lame."
Wonder if Morgan feels the same way about outing an undercover CIA agent and her entire front company.
Probably not.
curious to hear your explanation how naming a CIA desk jockey hurts our ability to track terrorists, which is exactly what the NYT did by publishing the SWIFT banking piece..
First, she was no "desk jockey". This is a talking point (i.e. lie) that has been repeated so much by the radiocons that you actually believe it.
Second, can you quantitatively prove that the publishing of that article on SWIFT damages our national security, or did you just pull that statement out of your ass.
Grhino, is there no right-wing talking point that you haven't swallowed - hook, line, and sinker.
Do us all a favor and post your full name, address, and home phone number. The sales industry is looking for patsies like you....
In all the commentary from the proLibby side I have NEVER yet heard anyone claim that Rove, Libby, Armitage etc. called the CIA and first determined that there could be no harm in revealing that Mrs. Wilson worked at the CIA. therefore even if you were right, none of the leakers knew this when they leaked. therefore I must conclude that they didnt really care if they were giving out potentially harmful information about who or how we were tracking WMD's. Why do you want such careless people in charge unless your comments are insincere and YOU dont really care either.
I would also like to hear how an insignifcant desk jockey had the pull to get her allegedly unqualified husband appointed to make the Niger trip.
Melanie Morgan talks from both sides
If it's New York Times she will decide
That Keller commits treason
But for Scooter there's good reason
So his treasonous acts she'll abide
Since Melanie's such an expert,
she'll see Keller's column can't hurt.
'Cause one thing we got
from what right-wingers taught;
There's no proof that Swift was covert.
Ha! Hoist them on their own petard.
Listening to Melanies a bummer
to those of us not ranked as "dummer"
The BS is flying
No crime underlying
At least nothing bad, like a hummer
There's very few things that I know
But I'm sure that this site will show
their standards ain't sagged
when this one gets flagged.
So now that's been said, here we go:
Righties' anger with hummers, now, Beach,
is just 'cause they seem out of reach.
But their wives don't need training,
maybe just some explaining;
Ladies, "blow"'s just a figure of speech.
I've been gone a few days. What's this thing with hummers about?
I put the full blame on the one who brought it up first - HBL.
I think the topic was brought it up as an extension to the Scooter reference > perjury & "no underlying crime" > Clinton > perjury & underlying crime = hummer.
So you see now what can happen here without adult supervision.
Well, it's more fun and more elucidating writing limericks about this creepy woman than arguing with Rino about abortion:
I'd rather talk about Mel
And the ignorant swill that she sells
Than to get all out of proportion
Of talk on abortion
With Rino's "polls" that aren't so swell
If the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed during the Reagan Administration, Melanie Morgan would be doing the only job she's qualified for today - asking people "Do you want fries with that?"......