the downing street memo brought little notice in this country.  in britain, it was headlines for weeks because it was released in the middle of an election, but to this day there are many in this country who have no idea what it is or says.  but it is exhibit a in the whole debate.  the decision to invade had been made by the bush administration months before the war, and the "facts were being fixed around the policy".

and the press has never ever called bush directly on the biggest lie he told.  he claimed we had to invade because saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in".  which is truth stood on it's head.  they were there, finding nothing at the sites we directed them to, and finding nothing.  they were withdrawn because bush told the united nations to pull them out.

just watched mcclellan on meet the press.  russert asked him if he was donating part of his book profits to families of soldiers affected by the war, apparentlly because he bears some responsibility for the invasion.  i don't recall timmy asking cheney if he and his pals were going to fork over any of their halliburton millions. 

russert was also doing the why didn't you quit, why didn't you speak out,  thing.  mcclellan was not involved in policy, he reported policy.  there are a lot more people who bear far more responsibility, including colin powell.  it's also not true that mclellan is just speaking up now.  he said many months ago that rove and libby lied to him.  russert also tried the "bush promised to fire anyone indicted in the plame leak" line.  mcclellan correctly pointed out that bush "moved the goal posts" on that, because the original promise was to fire "anyone involved", and it became clear very quickly that rove and libby were involved.  it seems now that rove is trying to claim that mcclellan asked if rove "was involved in leaking her identity".  mcclellan made it clear that the question was if he was involved "in any way", and he pointed out that rove made statements on news shows denying any involvement.

Rove's nonsense-pretending-to-be-a-defense argument is that it was Richard Armitage who told someone first, and so anyone who told anyone else after that first leak was made wasn't a leaker.

Like somehow only one person could leak the name. That's just not true.

Moveon.org was putting a petition (or maybe it was a letter) out to Scott McClellan asking him to donate profits to soldiers. Maybe that's where Tim got that question.

And shurb's blood lust has in no way abated. He's not gone yet. The media continues to be little but a mouth piece for this lust.

Fortunatly I think its finally reached the point where more people ignore the media than believe it.

The media is an absolute train wreck that will never learn or improve.  It will only dwindle and fade.  As they lose more and more of their audience, they will make no changes.  They will only continue to lose still more.

A corporate media would seek to improve its ratings.  It would cater to the majority and promote policies that don't destroy the economy.  We do not have a corporate media.  We have a deeply partisan and deeply stupid media.

Everyone forgets that the best documentation of the media's love affair with the war was Michael Moore's Farenheit 911. 

Remember Katie Couric's famous, "Navy seals rock!"?

There were gasps in the audience every time that scene came up. Moore has immortalized those morons-- which is why they hate him so much and never fail to ridicule him. Matthews comes off very badly, too.

Allen barely managed to stop short of offering to peel Bush a grape. And yet he wonders why people suggest that the press has been "too deferential to the administration."

The lyrics to that song "Peel Me a Grape" do apply to the MSM synchophants:

http://music.yahoo.com/Diana-Krall/Peel-Me-A-Grape/lyrics/1321583#lyricstop

Julia, you've hit it exactly!  I think this lyric tapped into Dick Cheney speaking to Judith Miller, Tim Russert, etc etc.:

"Peel me a grape, crush me some ice
Skin me a peach, save the fuzz for my pillow
Talk to me nice, talk to me nice
You've got to wine and dine me

Don't try to fool me bejewel me
Either amuse me or lose me
I'm getting hungry, peel me a grape

Pop me a cork, french me a fry
Crack me a nut, bring a bowl full of bon-bons
Chill me some wine, keep standing by
Just entertain me, champagne me
Show me you love me, kid glove me
Best way to cheer me, cashmere me
I'm getting hungry, peel me grape

Here's how to be an agreeable chap
Love me and leave me in luxury's lap
Hop when I holler, skip when I snap
When I say, "do it," jump to it

Send out for scotch, call me a cab
Cut me a rose, make my tea with the petals
Just hang around, pick up the tab
Never out think me, just mink me
Polar bear rug me, don't bug me
New Thunderbird me, you heard me
I'm getting hungry, peel me a grape"

Mary, I didn't think anyone else would appreciate these lyrics as applied to the MSM. It sounds like that cozy talk that I imagined between Scooter Libby and Judith Miller from that weird little letter. Remember that letter?

At any rate, I love this song as sung by Ms. Krall especially since she sings in my key. And I once had a boyfriend from France send me a nice (faux) polar bear rug one Christmas. "Polar bear rug me, don't bug me! I'm getting hungry........."

Did your boyfriend french you a fry? ;-)

Oh, the poetry of Scooter to Judith: Someone please decode this?

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work---and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers."

That was some freaky letter. But as predicted it didn't garner as much attention as the identity of that vain guy in Carly Simon's song :-0)).

The boyfriend did not French me a fry. But he was an agreeable chap (at least for a while). Ah, the adventures and vagaries of youth. You couldn't pay me to be 20 again.

The Corporate Media's pimping for Republicans didn't start with 9/11 or the war either, it's been going on since they trashed the Fairness Doctrine. It doesn't have anything to do with patriotic fervor, ratings or concerns about access, it's about right wing corporate ideology something the owners of the media share with the Republican party.

Besides, McClellan's other revelations were years removed from being timely. Does anybody who isn't employed by or related to George Bush still deny that the administration wasn't truthful about Iraq?

THis has been interesting watching the reaction to McClellan's book. The rightys have several defenses in place-- the editor re-wrote it , this is not the Scotty we knew, aliens took our press secretary,SMcC is a whore (not during his WHite House years, but now).I'm not sure who the target demo is for the book. True, those who have been paying attention are not going to be surprised by anything in it, and those who are still buying the GOP line are probably pretty resistant to anything exposed by the book.

Dick Morris was on the tube last night, and he pulled the "nothing to see here" angle. Fascinating, as he was simultaneously dismissing the book as unimportant because everybody knows that this administration is built on BS, while ignoring the fact that he has been cheerleading for them and shoveling the sh*t the entire time.

 

 

Wow !!!! They went work for Petraeus ???  You could have fooled me. Who knew? Let's test this hypothesis with one of those reliable (not) Pew Polls.

 

Well,

WE can expect more 'tell-all 'episodes from former White House insiders. Reason being, the American people are just now beginning to get it..... AND by that I mean THAT after some 8 years of unadulterated LYING,  continuous obfuscating of the truth and outright pandering to falsehoods,  chicanery and mischievous skullduggery, the complicit PRESS is now in a feigned sigh of reality-grasping stating : 'OH', Perhaps we should have looked  deeper into the rationale for invading Iraq  AND at the very least attempted to live up to the cherished ideals of a FOURTH Estate ( The final arbiter of TRUTH) WHICH was bestowed and chartered  upon them by the Founding Fathers .By sheepishly and yes COWARDLY  following the announcements of a legion of 'War Criminals' beholding to their own preconceived notions of deceit and self-interest, this  shameful cowardice has resulted in 4000 untimely American deaths, young men and women butchered  and LEFT to a lifetime of agonized healing, both physically and spiritually, a generation of lost Iraqi souls and enough Moolah , $$$  squandered to blood- bathe the Insiders of the Military-Media Industrial Complex for a thousand life times.

These high -priced pimps for the Administration deserve nothing but OUR utter contempt for they have traitorously misled the AMERICAN PEOPLE to engage in a war of 'CHOICE' not based on the merits of a just 'casus belli' BUT a War of Profit for any criminal entity willing to shed any sense of its common HUMANITY.

In a perfect and JUST world, The entire monstrous charade would be exposed and the participants  incarcerated for a lifetime in CHAINS. 

NAVY GUY:

They should be deeply ashamed.

Ah, but SHAME require a conscience. They have none ... only greed.

Well, Tex, since you bring up lack of shame, maybe this article will shed light on why there is a lack of shame from these Machiavellis. 

 

From "The Despoiling of America": http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm#_ednref25

 

How comforting the Calvinistic idea of a “justified sinner” is when one is utilizing Machiavellian techniques to gain political control of a state. It’s more than comforting; it is a required doctrine for “Christians” who believe they must use evil to bring about good. It justifies lying, murder, fraud and all other criminal acts without the fuss of having to deal with guilt feelings or to feel remorse for the lives lost through executions, military actions, or assassinations.

Julia, I saw this too. A friend of mine who is of Iranian descent but grew up in Germany forwarded it to me; he is a Christian and is very concerned about this small group of insane zealots with close ties to Bush.

It just isn't getting enough attention.

All real Christians should be concerned about this. That's why I'm always on AA so much since he seems to epitomize the type of Christian in the article (the unaware type of Christian, not the murderous type).

Ironically, these "christians" seem to mimic the very people in the Gospels that Jesus railed against.

The willingness to be lied to, the willingness to beleive their own set of "facts" (facts with no empirical basis), the willingness to forgive AND  explain away evil behaviors does make them very complicit in those activities examined in the article. And they don't seem to be moved by any rational OR emotional (or even spititual) appeal to real goodness. It has turned into a brand of grubby radical partisan Christianity that is no longer recognizable to the one I grew up with. You know when people like Ann Coulter are invited to speak to church groups that something is very wrong.

Hey, Mary, I forgot to ask you how you liked that picture of GWB as Jesus?

Ugh! That's not any Jesus I know...

 

I have no real knowledge of what the former Bush Press Secretary's book contains, outside of hearing/reading these several references to it. There's something I see though in these several references to the book. One is that they seem to be implying that the book contains information that, while nothing new, is nevertheless someway embarrassing to the Bush administration, or otherwise has them on the defensive. I watch little to no cable/television news, but in seeing fleeting bits of the danged thing, and in seeing MMFA's items here, it seems as though television and cable news commentary shows have shown an intense interest in the book this past week: I see a number of items here at MMFA, which seem to cite several different appearences on Fox News Channel by Karl Rove, discussing the book at length... in addition, from seeing the items here at MMFA, there seems to be some clucking and squawking about the book by chris matthews I think, and on certain morning network shows, like GMA or Today (I'm recalling this vaguely: I have not the real interest to research the specifics)...

Here's what I know, and in particular, with reference to Karl Rove discussing the book at length, on Fox News Channel... here's what I know: It is not now, nor has it ever been, the modus operandi of the Bush administration and their many co-conspirators and stooges and hacks, to devote much if any public attention and/or commentary, to matters that truly embarrass them, or truly threaten them and have them defensive... again, this is not what they do, no more than did they take to the airwaves to dispute or even counter-spin, the DEFENSE LOBBYISTS disguised as "military analysts" scandal.

What was the Bush administration's response, to the DEFENSE LOBBYISTS disguised as "military analysts" scandal, a truly threatening and serious scandal?

They ignored it with silence, as you know... and it has nearly gone away (but not really: not to people like me, and millions of others like me).

What has been the Bush administration's response to charges of using falsified intelligence to impel an invasion of Iraq? It has variously been to ignore the charges, usually in silence, but when they speak, it is in hushed and confused tones, and otherwise in a manner you might describe as "stone-walling".

Again, it is not now nor has it ever been their habit to make a big noise about something that threatens or embarrasses them.

How much air-play has Karl Rove been giving this matter? How much has Dan Bartlett been giving it? Dana Perino?

I watch little to none television/cable news, and yet in only an incidental manner, I know those names be in the news, squawking and honking about the former Press Secretary's book.

This is not their modus operandi, and you should be suspicious, as I am.

Suspicious of what? That someone is just trying to sell books? Maybe... maybe the book paints a non-criminal simply delusional and incompetent picture of George W. Bush, maybe that's what it's supposed to do, and maybe that's what they want... I don't know if that's what the book does, but I do know that's what they want: delusion and arrogance and self-deceit and incompetence are all the lesser charges this gang happily pleads to, in lieu of criminal ones.

There is something though that catches my eye, in this MMFA item... it is supposedly part of an advance excerpt of the book, and it is related and repeated above, in the very first sentence of the column:

"...McClellan's claim that President Bush cannot remember whether he has ever used cocaine"

Now, why was that part of an advanced excerpt from the book? What does that have to do with anything? Why would the Press Secretary ever even be interested in such a strange little observation as that, let alone repeat it to us in a book, and make it part of an advance excerpt?

I said it was not the Bush administration's modus operandi to speak much if at all about things that threaten them... but they happily and readily talk, and take to the airwaves, about things that threaten others.

 

I'm suspicious of whatever it is in Scott McClellan's book that we're supposed to read and repeat, for him and his interests, past and present... I'm made more suspicious at the sight of Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett and Dana Perino (and many others I'm sure) taking to the airwaves, giving this book so much free publicity that I understand it's #1 with a bullet at Amazon...

This is not their modus operandi, if indeed the book or anything in it truly threatened them.

 

"...McClellan's claim that President Bush cannot remember whether he has ever used cocaine"

I'm going to leave you with that eye-catching but strange little observation of Scott McClellan's book, now #1 with a bullet, thanks to the great efforts of Karl Rove et al, on Fox News Channel... and I'll pay you the compliment of knowing how these things work, and of knowing the Republican's modus operandi, to see for yourselves just who that strange little observation might do harm to, and how.

 

The WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS WAS LATE! Not Scott McClellan. Reflect back on a bunch of those press
conferences he "gave" during those recent years as Deputy WH Press Sec. It is my belief, McClellan's
answers to some of the questions conveyed an OBVIOUS message to those who were listening.
I am convinced some members of the White House Press got the message. But... DID NOTHING.
As usual, most of the esteem WH Press Corps were... waiting... to be handed the Official White House Press
Release before they could submit "their" story. Already, some are on the defensive...
They are "puzzled" and Scott is "not the Scott McClellan they knew"... Talk about better late than never.

 

"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?"---David Gregory

If public opinion was stronger then the Congress may have had more courage, but if the media just did their jobs public opinion would would have been stronger.

Very well done. 

 

 

Great insight; a double standard I had never thought about.

The media actively attempts to shape public opinion.  They practically tell you who to vote for.  But when the media's wrong, it becomes the public's fault.

When the media is caught peddling too much gossip, it's because the public supposedly wants it.  When the media is caught pushing right-wing smear campaigns, it's because they had to do it since the story was "out there".  When the media's candidate wins an election and proceeds to ruin the country, it's because the voters didn't warm to the other guy.

Well said.

Gregory's spent eight years covering the Bush Administration.

Just like Duhhbya and most of his dogmaniacs, he's got a real problem with the concept of honesty and responsibility.

 

Exactly, Eddy! 

GE's NBC and its David Gregory and Disney's ABC and Charlie Gibson are very sad excuses for "journalists".  Didn't they ever bother to view the Bill Moyers Journal, "Buying the War"?  Didn't they ever read Helen Thomas's book highly critical of her colleagues?  Of course they did, but both are in abject denial because of their "performance" as "journalists,"  And their utter lack of professionalism continues to this day.  Examples: Gibson's bright yellow performance, along with his wannabe partner George Stephanopolas, in the Obama-Clinton debate; and Gregory's FAUX NEWS imitation on his MSNBC "cable news" show, "Race for the White House."  Oh yes, Gregory has his "War Room" and features neo-fascist Pat Buchanan and that dimwit, former Republican congressman, Joe Scarborough.  Oh! and let's not forget Gregory's "smart takes."  Problem is: these two--and there are many others like them--are opportunists.  They are making a whole lot of money and will do and say anything--ANYTHING--to keep those ratings up to bolster the bottom line for their corporate holders.  Corporate "journalism" is fast wrecking this democracy of ours.  Let us pray . . .

The specific things that the media failed, were not items about the war, ie: WMDs, and evildoers...but the lack of forcing the White House to define evildoers, and how that was actually a threat to our security.

I can only hope that the media, becomes a fact quoting mob of torch carrying villagers storming the castle of political spin.

Burn the witches, I say! They turned a House Speaker into a newt!

Mike Allen is a Republican operative. He has been for years. He should be identified as sucj any time he's quoted or cited in any news story: something like "GOP spokesman Mike Allen" or some such.  Maybe you guys can begin doing that and it might spread.

Fools rush in!

For me, all McClellan did was to reaffirm my beliefs about Cheney and bush, having the feeling that even before they came to power, they'd be extremely damaging to America. On Iraq, I'm even more cynical than most; I believe Cheney and Rove fashioned the 2002 Gulf build-up simply to provide the patriotism theme for Republicans to use that year in the November elections and that after their election victory, would disengage and return to the policy of containing Saddam. But, bush ignorantly bought into the idea, took what was an expensive marketing theme and began lying to himself in believing that he could knock out Saddam and make himself a hero. The more he lied, the more he and those around him started to believe the lie, too. So now through bush's war we have lost almost 4100 US soldiers with 10's of thousands scared for life, brought about the deaths of 10's of thousands of human beings and displaced millions more, wasted untold hundreds of trillions of dollars, destabilized a region of the World and created a humanitarian disaster just so george bush could become a hero. It's too late to impeach the fool, but we hope and pray the international courts will at some point take-up the challenge to prosecute bush and his co-conspirators for crimes against humanity.

Was the left wing media complicit in the bush/Cheney Iraq War?  You bet, the key words being "patriotism" and  "embedded."  Think of the cable and network news programming opportunities.  The media bought into the notion of being able to have their people right on the front lines covering the War.  To this day, for whatever reasons, the media remains protective of this most vicious, incompetent and corrupt US administration.

And for everyone who keeps saying everyone had the same intelligence let's not forget the Knight Ridder (nor McClatchy) reporters who consistently questioned the intelligence before the war. All it took was a bit of that old-time journalistic digging.

 

<http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3725>

Good point, Latichever.  <a href="http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html">Lewis Carrol </a> springs to mind in describing the corporate press and the Bush administration.  The walrus press and the carpenter Bushco, out eating all the oysters while crying over it all.

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html

Those poor media oysters! And they were so accommodating. Nice.

Mary, I think we came to different conclusions on who was who. But I have some other scenarios: Your Walrus/carpenter with the oysters being the American people; your walrus/carpenter and the oysters being the gullible cons (the old oysters being the liberals who knew this war was a disaster from the inception. Hey, even John Lennon was confused (as I am) on who the walrus was. And was LC on drugs?

I have some other permutations that could apply to Congress as well. But I digress since this article is about the fawning press.

Iraqi Oil Lament

The beltwaypress and the Bushco Cons

Were walking close at hand;

They wept like anything to see

Such quantities of sand:

"If this were only cleared away,"

They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven brigades with seven mops

Swept it for half a year.

Do you suppose," the presscorps said,

"That they could get it clear?"

"Without a doubt," said the neo-cons,

And shed a bitter tear.

"O viewers, come and walk with us!"

The presscorps did beseech.

"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,

Along the briny beach:

We cannot do with more than four,

To give a hand to each."

The eldest statesman looked at them,

They wouldn't report a word he said:

The eldest statesman winked his eye,

And shook his heavy head--

Meaning to say he did not choose

To celebrate the sands turning red.

But oyster/sheeple followed them,

And yet another four;

And thick and fast they came at last,

And more, and more, and more--

All hopping through the frothy waves,

And scrambling to the shore.



The presscorps and the neo-cons

Walked on a mile or so,

And then they rested on a rock

Conveniently low:

And all the brain-dead public stood

And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the press corps said,

"To talk of many things:

Of Brittany--and ships--and missing girls--

Of winning Iraq--and kings--

And why the sea is boiling hot--

And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the public cried,

"Before we have our chat;

For some of us are out of breath,

And all of us are fat!"

"No hurry!" said the Neo-Cons.

They thanked him much for that.

"A lot of flags," the Walrus said,

"Is what we chiefly need:

Lapel pins and bombs besides

Are very good indeed--

Now if you're ready, sheeple dear,

We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the people cried,

Turning a little blue.

"After such kindness, that would be

A dismal thing to do!"

"The night is fine," the presscorps said.

"Do you admire the view?



"It was so kind of you to come!

And you are very nice!"

The Neocons said nothing but

"Cut us another slice:

I wish you were not quite so deaf--

I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the presscorps said,

"To play them such a trick,

After we've brought them out so far,

And made them trot so quick!"

The Neocons said nothing but

"The propoganda's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the presscorps said:

"I deeply sympathize."

With sobs and tears they sorted out

Those of the largest size,

Holding their pocket-handkerchief

Before their streaming eyes.

"O sheeple," said the Neocons,

"You've had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?'

But answer came there none--

And this was scarcely odd, because

They'd eaten every one.

Brava!!!!!!

It's with cultic devices like the anti-concept "left" that people can easily dismiss criticism. Allen's use of it is a perfect example. Oh critics...they were "leftists" right?

Horowtiz and FPM and others have been working long and hard on distorting what "left" and "progressive" even mean in reasonable context. These people honestly think that like Vietnam, victory would already be ours in Iraq if it weren't for "leftist haters".

All I can say is I'm completely confident that the MSM will finally regain their traditional skepticism -- just in time for the incoming Democratic Administration.

We can all look forward to a refreshing break with the past and a dramatic shift over to hard-hitting Whitewateresque/Monica reporting starting Jan. 20, 2009.

The most revolting part of David Gregory's report was the insinuations that by coming forward McClellan was disloyal. McClellan's first loyalty should be to the American people. If he was disloyal it was when he helped Bush lie. Gregory not only used  loyalty questions attributed to the White House.  Gregory observed on his own, "The debate on this book is so heated because it raises a fundamental question. Is a memoir like this important for history, or is it an unforgivable act of betrayal?"Of course the truth is important to history. Gregory wonders if the book is an act of betrayal because Gregory is part of the clique composed of the White House, big corporations, and network personalities. Gregory sees only the value free us versus them type view Bush has. To Gregory, McClellan's revelations were an unforgivable act of betrayal to the clique which Gregory is a part of. That shows how far toward fascism the nation has traveled.