Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Isikoff on Franken next to talk about Downing St....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:28 PM
Original message
Isikoff on Franken next to talk about Downing St....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Shelby Knox was great
She should be on every TV news show. What a brilliant young woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. She was on NOW on PBS, I think her movie will be on TV too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
38. I saw that on Sunday
I may miss Bill Moyers, but NOW has been dynamite for the last month or two. I HAVE to see this movie; she's quite something. For those who don't know who she is, she's a 16 year old girl from Lubbock who has taken on the Fundies about sex education. There's a documentary film showing next week in some PBS markets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkhawk32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hmmm... this should be interesting. Will he play it down? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. Let's see if Isikoff echoes NYT Frank Rich line.
"It's not important."

:grr:

Hopefully Franken asks about the Dana Milbank
fiasco.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. on now....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Isikoff: 9 memos
all from the same source
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Isikoff: memo's retyped
not photocopied, retyped to replicate original.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Isikoff: they have been authenticated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Isikoff: option paper memo
intelligence was poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Franken played audio of Cheney saying there was no doubt
that Saddam had WMD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Isikoff: every one thought that would be true
however, he starting stretching it when saying that they were going to use it at any time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Isikoff: Saddam may have WMD, but was no threat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Isikoff: Condi was wrong about the aluminum tubes
Franken: she was deliberately deceiving people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Isikoff: his "favorite" memo was the Wolfowitz meeting
Edited on Mon Jun-20-05 01:52 PM by sabra
Wolfowitz said it was absurd not to think there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. They were looking in all ways of connecting the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Isikoff: Wolfowitz was essentially trying in all ways to connect
Saddam and 9/11. The debunked Atta meeting with Iraqi official.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. Press coverage "cautious" because they were retyped???
:wtf:

More excuses from a media whore.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemsUnited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Fine, frame the debate based on authenticity
Remember that the very first question that John Conyers asked in his letter to Bush: "Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?"

So, are the memos authentic? Because, if they are, they're damning!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Not the point.

We went a whole month after the first minutes were
released before anyone in the American media would
deign to pay attention.

This stuff was too damning to bush for them to touch,
and now they're looking to cover their asses for why
it took them so long to finally pay attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. Most of the memos were revealed in September 2004
by Michael Smith (including images of a couple):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

March 8, 2002 Options Paper for Tony Blair
March 14, 2002 from Sir David Manning to Tony Blair
March 18, 2002 from Sir Cristopher Meyer to Sir David Manning
March 22 2002 from Peter Ricketts to Jack Straw
March 25, 2002 memo from Jack Straw to Tony Blair

and noted on DU by cal04:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=835625

so they have little excuse for not following up then. What would have happened in the US election is there had been more US publicity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
43. Frankly, I'd be careful too
I don't know why they couldn't have just used a black magic marker on anything incriminating, then photocopy that copy and destroy it after the copies are made. It doesn't excuse waiting 27 freaking days, but it would make me cautious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. 27 freaking days is right.

It's documentary evidence, the kind that stands
up in any courtroom. That's why McGovern is making
such a big deal about it.

I just don't trust any mainstream outlet anymore.
They've gotten so good at making excuses for Bush
that now they're just doing the same themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. please summarize for the cube rats
thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fryguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. hasn't the UK gov acknowledged the memos authenticity?
and the excuse * and blair used to explain them was that they were sent before the US went to the UN. a perfectly IDIOTIC argument, but they ADMITTED the memo (or memos) are real so why is this even an issue now???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Played Cheney quote that "there is no doubt" about WMD
and asked Isikoff to explain that given the memo
said evidence thin.

Isikoff hmmed and hawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. Isikoff's being overly careful
Isn't he the same reporter that was summarily reamed by the attack machine over the Newsweek article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. One and the same.

His karmic payback for the glee with which he went
after Clinton on the Monica story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. same, indeed.
careful but not dismissive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. yes, he is
And, Isikoff is pretty conservative, if I'm not mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
20. Al is holding Isikoff's feet to the fire!
Isikoff is hemming and hawing and Al is giving him what for.

Condi wasn't WRONG, she was LYING when she said the aluminum tubes could be used for no other purpose besides enriching uranium. She knew it at the time, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. Hell, YES!! A "BOXED" section of the NIE on Iraq explicitly stated other..
... uses. Not only that, this was the "dissenting" opinion from the State Department and the Department of Energy, the latter being our BEST experts on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They felt that the aluminum tubes could NOT have been for uranium enrichment, and felt that that they were likely for the purpose Iraq had claimed they were for: conventional artillery.

This was also, by the way, being publicly stated as the most likely use by the I.A.E.A. (the world's experts on nuclear energy and weapons).

So we're supposed to believe Condi Rice, the National Security Adviser to the president helping to decide whether or not we should go to war with Iraq, simply missed that? The NIE on the Iraqi "threat" was all of 90 pages!

She's either the most incompetent NSA we've ever had, or a bald-faced liar.

I vote the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
25. taking break, will continue...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Good recaps.
After we both picked out the same stuff to highlight,
I figured it was good on you.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. thanks, I tired to make them decent.
and thanks for help too! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. I'm sure the cube rats thank you.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comsymp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. We thank you both... all!
Edited on Mon Jun-20-05 02:13 PM by comsymp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. Go Al! Isikoff keeps saying, "We know NOW..."
And Al interrupts and says "We knew THEN!" Isikoff stammers and says well, these memos go to what the British were saying and thinking at the time. And Al says abruptly, "Well, if they knew, then we knew it too." And goes to commercial.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. "EEEhhhhhh, AAAAHHhhhh, which memo is that from?"
"Wellll, maybeee!!!"

Isikoff is pathetic. Grow some man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. Why are so many news memo's coming out now?
Isikoff: People inside the UK gov't who are upset, and are willing to reveal this information. Put heat on the Bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Franken: hints that it's all about Oil
Isikoff: strays away from that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Franken: memo mentions about a potential Sunni fight
Isikoff: not sure which memo that came from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. it is telling that OIL is NEVER discussed in our M$M
only dismissed as silly CT :eyes:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorPlum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
30. Isakoff . . .
what a whore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorPlum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
34. Isakoff: Uh . . Uh. . . Uh. . .. ..
"must not admit that Al is right and the wingers are full of crap."

What a waste of time. Can't Al talk about this issue with a reporter who didn't spend three years sniffing Monica's panties?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
36. I am sick and tired of the MSM idiots diminishing the importance of
the DSM by saying "it is nothing new" and "we knew it all along". The fact of the matter is that the MSM did know from the get go that it was all smoke and mirrors (lies to me and you)- but, the problem is they forgot to tell their readers.

No one seems to be calling out reporters directly on the fact that they were part of the secret keeping for the administration. Al is missing an opportunity here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC