Defending media's war coverage, NBC's Gregory asked, "Where was Congress?" (Answer: Most Dems were voting against the bill)
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.
SUMMARY: Discussing the run-up to the Iraq war on Hardball, David Gregory said, "If there wasn't a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about, why not? Where was Congress? Where was the House? Where was the Senate?" In fact, a majority of congressional Democrats voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002. Of the 258 Democrats in Congress at the time, 147 voted against the resolution, while 110 voted for it. One Democrat did not vote.
Defending "the media" and their performance in the run-up to the Iraq war, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory asserted during the May 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, "I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that." He then said, "If there wasn't a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about, why not? Where was Congress? Where was the House? Where was the Senate?" In fact, a majority of congressional Democrats voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002 -- as Media Matters for America noted in previously highlighting comments by a Hardball participant ignoring opposition by congressional Democrats to the war authorization bill. Of the 258 Democrats in Congress at the time, 147 voted against the resolution, while 110 voted for it. One Democrat did not vote.
Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert wrote in a May 28 column that when given the opportunity to report on Democrats' opposition to the Iraq war, "[t]he press was going to downplay them, marginalize them, and ignore them. Even if those critics included high-wattage political stars like Ted Kennedy." Boehlert went on to write that a September 27, 2002, speech by Sen. Kennedy (MA), explaining in detail his opposition to invading Iraq, went largely unreported in the media. Indeed, according to the Nexis database, Gregory did five reports on NBC's Nightly News that mentioned Iraq in the month following Kennedy's speech, and none mentioned Kennedy.
From the May 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): Let's take a look at what McClellan had to say here about the media.
Here he is, faulting the press. He wrote, quote, "If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war should never have come as such a surprise. In this case, the," quote, "liberal media," close quote, "didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
David?
GREGORY: I think he's wrong. He makes the same kind of argument a lot of people on the left have made. I tried not to be defensive about it. I've thought a lot about this over a number of years, and I disagree with that assessment.
I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that.
If there wasn't a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about, why not? Where was Congress? Where was the House? Where was the Senate? Where was public opinion about the war? What did the former president believe about the prewar intelligence? He agreed that -- in fact, Bill Clinton agreed that Saddam had WMD.
The right questions were asked. I think there's a lot of critics -- and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one -- who thinks that if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go to -- let me go to Mike Allen.
Where was the House? In Washington
Where was the media? In George Bush's pocket.
Where was the Senate? In Washington
Where was the House? In Washington
Where was the media? In George Bush's pocket.
And where was Bush's head? He was too busy trying to figure out the hidden meaning in "My Pet Goat".
Isn't it lovely seeing the media running around looking for cover? They are finally feeling what it is like to be in the crosshairs of the firing line.They seem to be able to dish it out but cannot take it.
"Where was Congress?" No, sir, where were YOU?
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.
Gregory is in deep denial (much like Bush).
Mr Gregory.....
At times I appreciate what you do, at others, like this time, I hate you for your lack of decency!
Do not waste our time or insult our intelligence by trying to blame the Dems, or liberals, select parts of the Congress, or anyone else for the part you played in allowing this illegal invasion and subsequent occupation to take place with little interest in hearing out those that were aginst it all from the very beginning!
It is time for you Mr Gregory and every single 'journalist' that refused to do the job of reporting the TRUTH! You gave up integrity and our democracy for being given a seat at the White House table!
Shame on you.... and every reporter that had anything to do with allowing this to take place! It's high time to start looking at the proverbial mirror!
"This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role.
Of course it's your role.
You bet your ass it's his role Loonz...
And Gregory rolled over like a corporate wimp. He wasn't alone, but he was right there doing the bidding for the corporations.
I expect nothing less than a circling of the wagons from these guys. What are they gonna say? "He's right! I played a major part in creating the ease of the run up to the war, instead of asking hard questions. I am a terrible journalist."
(Mind you, they of course SHOULD say that.)
"Bill Clinton agreed that Saddam had WMD"
Um, no David, not exactly.
Bill Clinton agreed that there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for."
He also added, "So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
It's that silly conflation of WMDs as a catch-all for biological, chemical, and NUCULAR weapons.
It's this conflating that allowed Bush to call Saddam an "imminent threat" to the U.S.
It's that same conflating that led us into this war.
From now on, when you hear "WMDs" put your fingers in your ears and yell "lalala, I can't hear you, nuclear weapons are not the same as biological or chemical weapons, lalala"
But seriously, some s**t is going to hit the fan before November, and who knows...perhaps the Clinton camp may get their first female President, it just may not be Clinton.
It's the fact that Bush knew almost to a certainty that Iraq didn't have WMD's based upon the findings of the inspectors who did return to Iraq.
He began the war anyway. And I didn't hear a single newscast pushing that point in late February or early March.
That's when they really feel down on the job. Sure, most everyone thought Iraq had WMD's. When we found out he didn't, our reason for invaded evaporated, and no media made a point of that newly uncovered info.
Do you mean a "President Pelosi"? It would be nice wouldn't it? W. and BIG DICK gonzo? (I'm not sure I'd like to see Pelosi as prez in her own right, but I could live with it if it meant W. and BIG DICK going down!)
You forgot these William Jefferson Clinton quotes:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "
"The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
LH,
What year were those from and what actions were taken as a result?
"What year were those from and what actions were taken as a result?"
I have no doubt that they are from 1998 or so..... right in the middle of that pesky impeachment trial for lying about sex that was oh so damn important for the Republicans to do that the world was going to end if the great Satan Bill Clinton wasn't impeached!
If Clinton had been able to do his fricken job (going after bin Laden) instead of having his every move considered a Wag the Dog moment and questioned as a change the subject situation..... perhaps 9/11 never occures?
Sadly, Capt, we will never know. Have you read the quotes supporting Clinton's impeachment lately, they are hilarious!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/28/164530/31
Or the anti-war ones:
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." ---Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." ---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" ---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) discussing Kosovo, Houston Chronicle, 04-09-99
http://republicofdogs.blogspot.com/2005/06/on-supporting-our-troops.html
HYPOCRITES!
ROUNDHOUSE:
Hmmm. Sounds like Saddam had to be done away with because Bush was JEALOUS of all his tactics, and wished to adopt them HERE.
Saddam was a dangerous man when he had WMD's at his disposal.
When he had no WMD's at his disposal, he was a blowhard.
We knew he was only a blowhard in February of 2003 and Bush still invaded in March of 2003. What say you to that?
My quote: July 2003
Your quotes: Dec 1998, at the beginning of Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD programs.
LEATHER:
Those discredited talking points only work with that "stubborn" 27%, of which you are a die-hard example. It's not Bill Clinton, it's BUSH who has made a hash of the past eight years.
Bush has no excuses. He's solidified as America's worst president EVER. Defending him, you look ever more foolish. The Hannity/Drudge smear politics is no longer working ... haven't you noticed?
Is that why Clinton refused to retaliate against anyone who attacked us (repeatedly) until around, say, the Lewinsky era?
Luckily the conservative media isn't standing for the old "smear" politics anymore. It's why Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. Everyone in America has overcome the Bush propaganda media machine via their own critical thinking skills and recognized the problems facing the country are entirely Bush's fault. I'm so proud of the intelligence of our fellow citizens.
Uh, wrong Pete. Clinton most certainly agreed there were WMD. That is why he signed the IRAQ LIBERATION ACT.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
Look closely at what Clinton said about;
LOONZ:
Don't forget, in 1998 Clinton ordered the largest bombing campaign since VietNam to hit suspected WMD targets identified by our military and intelligence ops. To back up his suspicions, Clinton to very bold, very military action, and it must have worked, because Bush couldn't find a single WMD to justify his conclusions years later.
Of course, while Clinton was doing this bombing of suspected WMD sites, the GOP was busy accusing him of "Wag the Dog" actions. By attempting to cripple our Commander in Chief, the GOP showed themselves to place partisan zeal over the good of this nation. No surpirse to those of us who know the rightwing, their motivations, their tactics, and their true agenda.
Yes he threatened regime change, but Clinton fostered pro-democracy groups within Iraq to bring this about. The numbskull neoconservatives believed they could force democracy on Iraq from without with invasion.
"On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8
million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify,
work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the
Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will
include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups."
This is the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative thinking. Cons rely on brute force for compliance while libs facilitate political participation to foster change.
If you want to defend your violent worldview, just look at how well violence has purchased liberation in Iraq.
Roundhouse posted:
"Big difference is that Clinton wasn't pushing the political narrative that the existence of WMD was an immenent threat to the American people."
___________________________________________
Clinton BELIEVED WMD was an imminent threat to the US. Clinton's own word:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Now Roundhouse. Are YOU lying or was Slick Willie lying at the time?
Do you still want to continue down this road of blind left-wing talking points or face the facts that your hero with his veep were complicit in the bombing of Iraq over WMD?
The record is clear. No amount of wink-wink-nod-nod, from the clinton's will change that fact.
Let's try that link again. Got a new Mac and can't figure out how the link works on this puppy:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
But apparently, since WMD have not been found in Iraq, the Clinton ordered surgical strikes were successful. As you may recall though, WMD was not the only rationale for the numbskull neocon agenda of invasion. Links between Hussein and Al Queada, spreading democracy and the myriad shifting arguments were presented.
It's the spreading democracy argument I find particularly amusing. As with so much of the conservative agenda, their methods are actually the antithesis of democracy as they seek to force their will on the populace. You can't spread democracy by the barrel of a gun. It has to bubble up from the ground, the people have to want it.
And for the record, Clinton is no hero in my book. He gutted welfare and approved NAFTA.
So in your opinion, the situation in Iraq in 1998 was the same as it was in 2003 (even after the inspectors were readmitted to Iraq and said there is no there there)?
So, where's your reply to this?
In 1998, and even into the fall of 2002, we still thought that Saddam had WMD's. After the inspectors came back, they discovered that he didn't, and he was just a blowhard and bully trying to scare people.
Given that info, Bush invaded anyway.
Clinton agreed with our best info. Bush learned new info but didn't change his plans. And you want to attack Clinton and exonerate Bush?
According to David Kay, the last vestiges of Saddam's WMD programs were destroyed by the Clinton bombings in 1998 along with Desert Storm and 13 years of continued sanctions. What Clinton said was obviously accurate at the time he said it. from David Kay's statement regarding the Kay Report:
Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.
It is disingenuous to pick and choose different points in time to make your point. Such statements were accurate before or during the bombings in 1998, but apparently they simply were not accurate or supported by the available intelligence (which was very scarce after 1998) if they were made after the last of Saddam's wmd capability was destroyed. It is the difference between someone calling hitler a threat in 1939 and someone else calling hitler the same threat today. What is missing in your argument is context.
This should not be so hard to understand.
Gregory's disgraceful, buck-passing, lapdog-like words attempting to justify his and other corporatist conservative Republican sheepish lapdogs rubber stamping THE BUSH CABAL's lies:
"The right questions were asked. I think there's a lot of critics -- and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one -- who thinks that if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."
Your role is not to rubber stamp each and every word you know and/or suspect to be a lie coming from the lying Bush administration as truth, just so you can stay in tight with THE BUSH CABAL and the Republicans, either.
"Did you notice that Rachel Maddow was left out of the show on the 28th , when they discussed the media's role in the build up to to the illegal invasion of Iraq . Perhaps she would have mentioned that NBC hired every GENERAL , EVERY Colonel and neocon they could get their hands , to promote the Invasion , along with their weapons glorification , the strategic war maps and the total Lack of balance , that would have enabled anti - invasion to lay out the case , that the war was unjust and based on LIES .
Or maybe how cool their " Operation Iraqi Freedom " Banner was , that they used to pimp the war ." David Gregory , you're a loyal little corporate LAPDOG.
Kahoneez
Well... why not? NBC is owned by GE. And GE is the worlds largest MILITARY CONTRACTOR and stood to make tens of billions of dollars in profit from the war.
Thats why CEO Jack Welsh was in the NBC newsroom HQ on the night of November 7, 2000. And why he reneged on his pledge to show the tapes of what went on behind the scenes on that evening of the stolen election.
The media was pathetic - and the Democrats weren't much better. The vote was scheduled for the beginning of October - right before the 2002 elections which scared the crap out of the Dems - who were afraid of being called weak on National Security. About half of them decided it was better to look strong on security and be re-elected than to seriously question the Whitehouse.
Putin declared just a day or so after the vote that there was nothing in the information shown to Congress that supported what the Whitehouse was saying. Nothing. I am cynical enough to expect Republicans not to question anything out of the Whitehouse (although Lincoln Chafee and a couple Republicans did), but the Democrats - many of them were simply too cowardly to do it. Shame on them as well.
OpenMind,
"The media was pathetic"
Is it me or was Keith Olbermann the only media figure that was against the war from day one? Who else was?
Prove me wrong if anyone can.... but I do believe that KO was the sole visionary against the invasion from the begining?
Mind you.... If I remember correctly, his show started after the occupation began? What was he doing prior to his Countdown that might give some insight?
Roundhouse is correct, Donahue opposed the war. In fact that was THE reason his show was cancelled, considering he had the highest ratings on MSNBC at the time.
Bill Press has said recently on his radio show that he and Pat Buchanann had a show on MSNBC at the time, and they were fired because they opposed the war. It was the one thing they agreed on.:)
Capt. Foster's Comments and Question
OpenMind,
"The media was pathetic"
"Is it me or was Keith Olbermann the only media figure that was against the war from day one? Who else was?
Prove me wrong if anyone can.... but I do believe that KO was the sole visionary against the invasion from the begining?"
Phil Donahue opposed the war, and GOP-GE-NBC fired him for opposing Liar Bush's war.
OUTSIDE of the corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media, Clifford Kelley of Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM [WVON-AM 1450 in 2003, now WVON-AM 1690] opposed Liar Bush's war in 2000.
I think we challenged the president.
LOL Yeah what a challenge
"He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics." He added: "Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. Chris Matthews on MSNBC
PBS's Gwen Ifill said Bush was "part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan."
Bob Schieffer on CBS said: "As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time." His guest, Joe Klein, responded: "Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me." Everyone agreed the Democrats and antiwar critics were now on the run.
May 1--President Bush's made-for-television address tonight on the carrier Abraham Lincoln was a powerful, Reaganesque finale to a six-week war. Elisabeth Bumiller
He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape. G. Gordon Liddy
Great post! Great summary!
When David Gregory said, "That's not our job", I nearly gagged. YOU DAMN BETTER
BELIEVE IT'S YOUR JOB. What did they teach you in Journalism School? The function of a "free press" is to remain outside and above the prevailing administration. A "free" press is one that not only reports the news, but to QUESTION it. Any idiot knows that you don't get the "facts" from the White House Press Conferences, certainly not from the Press Secretary! It is thrilling to see the sniveling, cowardly. and gullible media cringe in the corner since they have been finally accused of aiding and abetting the Bush thugs in their goal to bring down the United States. "Not our job". Really?
Too bad there isn't an impeachment process for the media.
If the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media and their corporate conservative Republican media hacks call all that cheerleading and Bush-loving smoochfest "challenging", I'd hate to hear what they define as being lapdogs for Bush, and lapdogs are exactly what they were, and STILL are, to lesser degrees.
"Speaking of lapdogs, instead of reading McClelland's late-azz "tell-all" telling us all things we knew a long time ago--such as the press was complicit in the invasion of Iraq--well duh--I would highly recommend that you read--or reread--Eric Boehlert's most excellent tome on the topic, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush, in which he incisively outlines, contrary to Gregory and others' toothless denials, just how meek and ingloriously said press acted before the invasion, effectively making it nothing more than a propaganda arm of the bush regime. (The section describing bush's tightly scripted pre-invasion press conference is especially instructive in its almost surreal depiction of the press corps being rendered as passive and pliable as a herd of castrated sheep.)"
Knowing David Gregory's near outward display of UN-righteous indignation, he and/or the rest of the corporate conservative Republican media hacks will attack Eric Boehlert as a "left wing hater." Or has Republican Media Hack Liar Mike Allen already trademarked that insult?
Bottom line, IMO, is that most people, including members of the media, found it hard to believe that a White House could be that mendacious...particularly in a critical time after our country had been attacked and the whole country was expected to pull together. Also, IMO, there were members of Congress and the media who might have had doubts but wondered what would happen to their careers if they opposed the White House and were wrong about their suspicions that we were being duped.
We elect representatives to represent us, and we TRUST that they will conduct business with honor, honesty, and "in good faith". We Americans TRUST that our leaders "know better" because of their access to all the information.
When a leader proves himself UNTRUSTWORTHY, it is a betrayal of all Americans. Bush lied to us. He knew better, or SHOULD have known better. He lined up his minions to SELL those lies to us. His Administration destroyed the credibility of Colin Powell, and then Scott McClellan.
McClellan has decided that the American people deserve THE TRUTH, seen by an insider.
Bush and Cheney SHOULD be impeached and removed from office.
Do you really think Bush CARES that he is exposed as the worst president-EVER? Why. after these past almost 8 years of shameless lying and smarmy tricks, would you even entertain the notion that he gives a s**t what anyone thinks? Forgive me for taking it too personally, but I live in New Orleans. His heartless and un-american treatment of the people of New Orleans should have been proof enough that he cares very little about you or anyone else. A characteristic of a sociopath is a total absence of empathy. No wonder the Reptilicans hated FDR. He betrayed their "survival of the fittest" view of the world. (Did you know that 80% of New Orleaneans voted Democratic in the previous election? Was there a connection? Remember how Kaiser Bush regards any disloyality?)
Donald:
I live in New Orleans, too...born and raised. Actually, I am presently living (if you want to call it living) in Metairie about 2 blocks from the 17th St. Canal while we try to rebuild our home in Lakeview that was destroyed by Katrina. Road Home has been a joke... And, BTW, I don't know if you've heard but the 17th St. Canal is leaking again. Very encouraging news indeed...
What I meant about Bush is that I've always seen him as a very insecure man who is concerned about his legacy. Bush aspired to greatness but, deep down, IMO he's known since day one that he was in over his head. I honestly think it bothers him a great deal that his presidency will go down as the worst in U.S. history...at least a very compelling argument can be made that it will. I would have preferred to have seen him lose in 2004, or to be impeached, but that hasn't happened. My only consolation is that he's going to have to live the rest of his life knowing what a failure he was...regardless how much money he makes after he leaves office.
I don't know about you but the last almost eight years have worn me out...even aside from the hurricane. Bush has worn me out. I am so sick of what he has done to this country that I will celebrate on inauguration day regardless who is elected. I am looking forward to better things...
Now if we can only survive until Mayor Ray Nagin leaves office in 2010... ;>)
Glad to know a fellow New Orleanian. I love this town. Came back in 1994 after being a teacher in New York for 30 years. Tulane, '68. I was shocked and dismayed at what had happened to my town: all the department stores, gone. All the music stores, gone.
But being here in the '60's told me what a hell it would be with the racism and the "White Flight" and the oil bust. Katrina was horrible, but the aftermath and Bush and Michael What's His Name just was the icing on the cake. The citizens asked for it by re-electing C. Ray Nagin. Governor Blanc-O saying, "Just make a lot of peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches and be nice to each other..." "Just pretend you're going camping."
Who Dat, Dog? :>)
Yea, New Orleans is a trip...no place like it. I used to complain so much about New Orleans...the stupidity, the corruption, you know what I mean, but after Katrina I realized there's no other place I'd rather be but home. Some of my friends left but I'm here for good. I tell my friends who cut and ran after the storm that we get to vote whether to let them ever come back. ;>)
As for Mayor C. Ray...everywhere I go people ask why did you all re-elect that fool? I sure as hell didn't vote for him. It's a tough job for whoever is mayor here but at least Mitch Landrieu would have brought more energy and organization to the table. But, things are improving. I say in another couple of years we'll see some return of normalcy...let's hope at least.
This didn't even ask the correct questions of Gregory.
1. Were you and other members of the press manipulated by the administration in order to pass lies and propaganda to the American people?
2. If you feel this is true, do you feel any guilt or remorse for all the thousands of people who have died or been maimed as a result?
3. if you do feel remorse, how could you have put it aside to do deferential skits with Rove just last year?
That's what gets to the heart of this matter. Any normal human would feel extreme remorse for allowing themselves to be used to launch a war that affected millions. And you can't just not care about this stuff - I'd assume that people become White House reporters because they have a strong interest in politics. I just don't see how someone can happily play on stage with Rove afterwards, whether you held them responsible for duping you or you held yourself responsible for buying into it.
Like many mainstream media types, Gregory probably believes in the profit driven credo “fair and balanced” and probably never heard of the original journalists credo ”seek truth and report it”. The result is the American citizen is stuck with fact deficient newsertainers and “pundits” who serve only their egos and bank accounts (what clan to you have to join to be ordained a pundit anyway?). Their job is to keep consumers fixated not to inform voters.
I remember when journalism was a noble profession. Reporters were cynical about all politicians and corporations and skeptical of all answers. The majority of them were poor but honest seekers of truth. Facts were facts and they were not fair, balanced, liberal or conservative. The debate was about the facts and how they affect citizens. Sure, opinions were expressed and sides taken but they were identified and filed as such.
I remember that Ed Murrow not only questioned the ultimate un-american, Senator Joe McCarthy, but CONFRONTED him. We have no journalists like Murrow any more, alas. We have Fox. We have Wolfie Blitzer. We have Charles Gibson. They are all in the corner scrambling to hide their nuts from US. I wish I could live long enough to see the complete overhaul of the Media. Unfortunately, they have the air-time and the press and the rest of it. What can we do? Nobody listens to us. They have it made.
News Flash: The media failed horribly in the run up to the war.
It's a shame that I have to point out the obvious. A reporter pushes, prods and digs for the truth. It's much easier to push talking points and treat them as if they were newsworthy. It's easy to talk about lapel pins, "bitter" comments, Obama's "pastor problems" - the hard hitting stuff.
Nice try Mr Gregory but we're not buying it.
Why ask David Gregory? He's a dupe. He was part of the problem and he still doesn't get it.
The only Whitehouse reporter I'm interested in hearing from on this is Helen Thomas. She's experienced enough to know that the Washington press corps has been complicit in the Republican's manipulation of the media for the past two decades.
When evaluated objectively in future, history will pick George Bush's bones clean as the worst president ever. Unfortunately, you and I had to live through it. Hopefully, America takes this experience to heart and will be better for it.
It's not the job of a Reporter or Journalist to be a Political Activist, or to engage the President or any other Public Official in a debate, in a manner like that of someone who opposes them politically. This idea of Journalists as Political Activists just confuses the role and responsibilities of a Journalist, and of Political Activists. And where I say Political Activist, I mean also our Agents in Congress, and any of our other Representatives who have Legal Authority from us. Because Journalists are not elected or appointed Officials with any Legal Authority, nor are they charged with representing any Political cause. It's this confusion that seems justify certain "media corporations" (such as Newscorp.) into thinking what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as in "fine, if that's what these reporters do, if they're supposed to take political stances and represent political opinions, then fine, we'll do that!" This confusion opens a door better left closed in these things: it makes for two wrongs, instead of a single right.
This is not a defense of what Fox News Channel does, or what Newscorp. does... I'd just as soon see those stains washed from our PUBLIC AIRWAVES... this is a defense of what Journalists do, and a distinction of their role... and the more that we require them to be Political Activists, and to take a political stance against the President on our behalf (as though they were our Agents in Congress), is the more we ask them to fight our Political battles for us: and that confusion of roles has us sitting on the sidelines, like kids too weak or afraid to get into the game themselves, but bitterly complaining instead, of the play we watch...
And this brings me to our true and real Representatives in this matter, to those whom we grant Legal Authority and charge with Political obligations (unlike Journalists)... this brings me to our Agents in Congress. It is true how the votes were cast on H.J.Res.114... yes, a majority of House Democrats did vote against giving George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld the authority to invade Iraq with our U.S. Armed Forces, and yes 22 Democrats in the Senate (if my memory serves me) likewise voted against granting that authority... those Democratic Senators didn't even make a majority of their own Party in the Senate (unlike House Democrats did when they voted against H.J.Res.114), and as far as the House goes, it's a "majority rules" institution... a Democracy is a "majority rules" ideal... and when you are in the minority as House Democrats were, and as those Senate Democrats were (those Senate Democrats were a minority within their own Party!)... when that happens, an OPPOSITION is created: an OPPOSITION PARTY.
The various Journalists we might find today, having no Legal Authority from us to perform any Public Office or further any Political cause (such as our Agents in Congress do, as our Legally empowered Political Activists)... and for us to require this of those Journalists anyway, all at once makes us into ineffectual children in a Democracy, and relieves our true Congressional Agents from their responsibility as an OPPOSITION PARTY, and creates Fox News Channel as a reaction (because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, they rationalize).
We sulk on the sidelines, blaming Journalists for failing us, Fox News Channel for misinforming us, and overlooking completely the failure of an OPPOSITION PARTY to Represent us against the Bush Cheney Rove Rumsfeld administration and invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I've said it before and I'm unhappy to say it again: The Democratic Congressional Delegation in Washington D.C., presently under the leadership of Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid, is an absolute spectacle of ineffectiveness and lameness as an OPPOSITION PARTY in the United States of America.
I am no qualified expert in U.S. History, but I'll dare to assert it anyway: The present Democratic Party nationally, as evidenced by and led by the Democratic Congressional Delegation in D.C., is the worst most ineffective most lame spectacle of an OPPOSITION POLITICAL PARTY the United States has ever had, or that We the American People have ever had to suffer.
And the thing that compounds their failure, is our own failure, in not recognizing just who it is we Legally empower to Represent us Politically (and it's not Journalists I say)... we sulk on the sidelines, and complain bitterly because we aren't in the game... and we can't even get it right, as to just who it is to blame, and who's responsible for it all.
You are a level-headed and well informed individual and I am always educated by your cool and reasoned approach to these posts. Everything you said about the media and the ineffectiveness of the "Opposition Party" is right in the pocket. (Oops, wrong use of the word, "pocket", since that is one aspect of the media problem.) I do, however, have a slightly different opinion on the role of journalists in a Democratic society. Perhaps I use the word "confrontational" where you use the term "activist". In either case, the role of the journalist is to get at the TRUTH, not support the President in whatever decision he makes. You say that you are not a history expert. Well, I expect journalists to be a lot more informed, not only about the day-to-day machinery of politics, but the history of events as well. This includes a knowledge of those parts of the world in which we intrude ourselves. The shameful ignorance of the Middle East is one vital flaw in the "run-up" to the war. Journalists should have been better informed about the customs, attitudes, and HISTORY of the region. Colin Powell had a pretty good grasp of that history when he warned us NOT to undertake the invasion of Iraq. But, he backed off and, as a consequence of his even questioning the administration, was back OUT, to be replaced by Convolutioner Rice. Every single step taken to convince the population of this country and that will include the media, was expertly calculated to maximize Bush's "rationale" for the war, and, even MORE importantly, to squash disagreement or even QUESTION. The history of dictatorships proves that, to be effective, the FIRST move is to CONTROL THE PRESS. Use the media to control the information fed to the population. There was little resistance from that media. ADD to that the spineless "opposition party" and Bush had little trouble in validating his idiotic agenda. OUR biggest mistake was in TRUSTING our "leaders" and gutless "opposition party" and, eventually, the MEDIA, itself.
If anything positive results from our horrible experience of the last 8 years, it is small comfort: WE SHOULD NEVER AGAIN TRUST ANYONE IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION OR THE MEDIA. We should confront, not only the people we elect to the highest office in the land, but the very credentials of the individuals formally trusted to REPORT on that office.
I agree as to the powerful role played by a free Press in a Democracy, and that it is their work and diligence that keeps us informed: and if we're informed, then we make a better Democracy, because if we're to elect our own Legislators and Administrators of our Government, how can we do this if we don't know all about those who petiton us for those Offices... or once in Office, if we don't truthfully know what it is they're doing with the powers we have granted them?
We can't make for a better Democracy unless we know these things... and the less we know, the more that our Democracy is no such thing... then the more it is turned into something more like a Tyranny, or a Kingdom, where we are oppressed and are mere subjects, for being so ignorant as to not know who to elect to those Offices, or who to re-elect, or who even to Impeach.
And so we're in agreement as to the seriousness of the matter.
But I can never fool myself into thinking that anything less than or other than Power, can ever oppose Power... or that the Law and the Officer of it, can ever be corrected by anything less than or other than Law, and Law Enforcement Officers. And that is why I think so little of Congressional Democrats: because while all of us can cry foul and protest, at the abuses of the Bush administration, it is only the Law and the Officers of it, who have any Power in these matters... a Power we gave to Congressional Democrats, in 2006, and what did they do with it, and how are they holding the Bush administration accountable by it?
They did and do nothing, and that's the truth. And that's what I point out: That our only recourse in the matter of our Laws being abused and of our Law Enforcement Officers (the administration of our Government) being corrupted, is a recourse to the Law itself, and to those Officers who we know (or at least believe) to be uncorrupted... because it is to them also we have granted the Power of the Law (and not to the Press), and again as I said, it is only a like Power that can equal exceed or correct, another Power.
What has the Press done to inform the American People of the abuses of the Bush administration? While it's true that Fox News Channel and CNN et al are aiders and abettors in the Bush administration's crimes, the fact remains that the truths of these things have always been available to us, from other and better sources (the Internet Wire for certain, and some newspapers also: just not television, and certainly not cable "news" outlets).
But what has the Democratic Congressional Delegation done with the Power we gave them, to oppose the Bush administration? For that matter, even when they were only in the minority in the House, and were a minority in the Senate but still had numbers enough to "filibuster", what did they do with even that minority Power, and with the Power of Voice and of Speech and of Protest and Rally, not to mention the Power of the Law... what did Congressional Democrats do then when in the minority?
They mostly did then what they mostly do now: nothing.
I had said Congressional Democrats were the most ineffectual and lame OPPOSITION PARTY the United States and We the People have ever had to suffer... I will add to that: Congressional Democrats are at present the most ineffectual and lame CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY to ever OPPOSE an administration of our Federal Government, that We a majority of the People of the United States have ever had to suffer...
With Congressional Democrats as an OPPOSITION PARTY, well we might as well have lived under a Tyranny, or in the Kingdom of George, for the lame spectacle of OPPOSITION that Congessional Democrats have made...
And with them as a CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY?
They make Democracy look like an experiment gone terribly wrong.
The Press is not to blame, because the Power of Law and of Legal Representation, is not their power.
AGAIN. you add more to my growing stockpile of "food for thought". Thank you for the superb analysis. Why don't you start your own blog, or, better yet, your own show on MCNBC. I would be a loyal fan. Maybe a Summer Replacement for Bill O'Rielly? You know I'm kidding.
Even with the growing influence of the internet, there are still huge numbers of people who get their information from television or mainstream newspapers and magazines. The blessing of the internet is the number of doors open to alternative points of view. I am relatively new to this marvelous medium, having resisted getting a computer until after the horror of Katrina. If everyone had the advantage of accessing the various news services on the web, perhaps we, as a nation, could be better informed and therefore better able to confront our enemies. It is the level of ignorance in America that plays well with this or any administration. I still insist that journalists have a mandate to provide the facts and the truth for our edification and not to serve the Powers That Be. My gripe with the media is just that: they have been the sometimes willing tool of the government and therefore contributing to the ignorance on the nation. You speak of Power. Knowledge is Power.
Keep it coming, my friend.
You mention how you've come to use this People's News Wire, the Internet Wire, and how marvelous it is, for the extraordinary number of portals it has: not for simply opinion and commentary, but for the far more valuable information and facts. Among the most amazing of these sources is the Congressional Record online: this is extraordinary... you can know what Congress is doing at all times, in real-time... you can read the entire text of Legislation, before it is even voted on or becomes Law! You can see what were the Roll Call Votes on any Congressional matter, within 24 hours of those Votes being cast. You have all the Committee web-sites of Congress, all the schedules of Hearings, and Witness lists... all before they even take place! You maybe already know of this Library of Congress portal to all things Congress...
http://thomas.loc.gov/
But you may not have known about this awesome web-site...
http://www.opencongress.org/
Explore the information found at just those two places: be better informed: and that's just Congress! All the Departments and Agencies of our Government, Federal and State and to some degree Municipal and local, all on-line!
With the Internet Wire available to you, why would you listen to the stupid words or look at the idiot face of bill o'reilly ever again?
You wouldn't!
That's the thing about being exposed to the truth, and having knowledge: it makes you sensitive to lies, and aware of ignorance... it makes you spot Fox News Channel for what they are, and hate them for it.
I had mentioned above that only a like Power can be applied, to equal exceed or correct, another like Power: and it was the Law I was referring to... but that truth applies just as well to the matter of the Press also. Because only a better source of information and of truth, can exceed or correct a poor source... only a better Press, uncorrupted and uncontrolled and available 24/7 and containing thousands and millions of portals of information, can exceed and correct this wicked and privately-owned and corrupted televised "media" that plagues us and threatens our Democracy.
Only a like Power can exceed or correct another like Power. This is true of the Law: it is true of the Press... and you are looking right this moment, right this very instant, at that better uncorrupted uncontrolled not-privately-owned corrective Power...
Hail and All Praise, for the People's News Wire...
Praise the Internet Wire!
Let us take thise Wire, and wrap it around the Fox's neck, and strangle the life out of that malicious creature.
You would think that a majority of Dems voting to not give Bush war authority would be a story - would be worth following-up.
However since that majority of Dem votes represented a minority overall in the Congress, Gregory must conclude the press had ZERO responsibility in fully representing and exploring their view.