Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DSM on Hardball was total crap

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 11:08 PM
Original message
DSM on Hardball was total crap
well, DU got me again ... after more than a year, i reluctantly tuned in to Hardball after all the recommendations that were made here about the DSM discussion ...

some DU'ers said it was a great show on the DSM ...

well, it sucked ...

David Gregory asked Michael Smith about the republican line about the DSM memo that bush "went to the UN" after the memo was written ... "didn't his going to the UN prove that he never intended to "rush to war"?"

perhaps someone can provide the response Smith gave ... here's what i don't remember hearing ...

the right response is that the question about "going to the UN" is total bullshit ... yeah, what a great guy bush was for going to the UN ...

first of all, he sends Colin Powell up there to lie his ass off with George Tenet the CIA Director sitting right behind him ... the whole point of the DSM is that the intelligence was "fixed" ... how does having Powell go to the UN and lying his ass off using fixed evidence defend bush against allegations that the "evidence was being fixed around the policy"????

secondly, the UN never authorized bush to invade Iraq so claiming that bush went to the UN for authorization means nothing ...

thirdly, bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to allow the weapons inspectors back in and Saddam complied ... in November, 2001, when he was asked by a journalist what would happen if the inspectors failed to find any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld replied that all “it would prove would be that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis”. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't ... the inspections were used to condemn Saddam and to justify invasion; not to look for weapons ...

Gregory also did not mention that bush had been bombing Iraq without any Congressional authorization and in direct violation of international law ... isn't that sufficient proof that no evidence was needed to justify attacking Iraq ... they just bombed Iraq without presenting any evidence at all, without UN authorization and without Congressional authorization ...

next time someone recommends that lame Hardball show, i'll know better ... you'll find me right here reading the posts on DU instead ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. It was lame......... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. I agree with you.
Edited on Mon Jun-20-05 11:37 PM by Carolab
They rushed Michael Smith off so he couldn't participate, as Woolsey and Kay continued to spin.

They keep forgetting the key point: the letter that Bonifaz produced from * saying that the "diplomacy" failed, the inspections failed and there was no alternative but to use military force.

That letter incriminates * in his lies.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5

{snip}

In his book Worse Than Watergate (Little, Brown and Company-NY, 2004), John W. Dean writes that ?the evidence is overwhelming, certainly sufficient for a prima facie case, that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense.? Id. at 155. Dean focuses, in particular, on a formal letter and report which the President submitted to the United States Congress within forty-eight hours after having launched the invasion of Iraq. In the letter, dated March 18, 2003, the President makes a formal determination, as required by the Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2002, that military action against Iraq was necessary to ?protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...? Dean states that the report accompanying the letter ?is closer to a blatant fraud than to a fulfillment of the president?s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law.? Worse Than Watergate at 148.
If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President?s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. ? 371, which makes it a felony ?to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...?; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. ? 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A Resolution of Inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drnaline Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I believe Michael Smith's story was very credible!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. "They rushed Michael Smith off ..."
Proving that there is no place for a real journalist in cable news. What's he going to do? Tell the truth? Ask Woolsey how much PNAC dues are?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. yes, a longer interview would have been appropriate!
Smith did well, and managed at the last minute to slip in the idea that other documents in his reports are more incriminating than the so-called memo. The British knew a pre-emptive strike for regime change (as Bush said he wanted)was illegal and their efforts were aimed at finding ways to make the invasion look legal. THAT is the crime we all need to be talking about re the memos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-20-05 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. The UN issue was mentioned in the memos, I believe.
If Smith didn't address it correctly, it's really his fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinksrival Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. I sent an email to Hardball


Hardball,


Hypocracy..... total unabashed hypocrisy. You have one of the authors of the PNAC policy to take out Sadam, Whoosley, written way before 9-11 arguing that there was preconceived plan to attack Iraq. His fucking signature is on the letter PNAC sent to then President Clinton urging him to satisfy the neocon wet dream!
Gregory is suppose to be a journalist and doesn't bother to INQUIRE about this, let alone INFORM the viewer of just who is Whoosley and where he's coming from. Then Whoosley starts comparing how much better off Iraq is now as to if Sadam was still in power, "thousands tortured, rape rooms"
Don't they see its not the what but the how.
This has been so completely mishandled and bungled from the very beginning. It could have been done so differently without the lies without the deaths of so many. So Mr.Whoosley do not give me that tired neocon line "the world is better off without Sadam" Because the truth is the world is better off without Sadam and the PNAC neocon lies, greed, and lust for power.

Yes I, working two jobs mom in the Midwest, have done my homework.
So Gregory, how much do they pay you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. I thought it was fine until the last segment. Much better than if Tweety
was running it. Gregory made some points for our side. I have trouble faulting him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cindyw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. Bush went to the UN to get a resolution that make the invasion legal.
This is backed up by the memo that talks about the fact that they had an illegal war that had to made legal. The UN was a part of the game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. the UN did NOT authorize an invasion of Iraq
the UN vote, that was so heavily manipulated by the US (threats of no more US funding for the UN) and was built on the same lies bush manufactured (i.e. Colin Powell's very detailed testimony at the UN that was all lies), acknowledged that Saddam was not in compliance with UN Resolution 1441 ...

However, the UN vote did NOT authorize bush and blair to invade Iraq ... Iraq was a sovereign nation and the "Coalition of the Lying" had no legal justification for their invasion ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Text of 1441- you are right- not only is it vague the US was in violation
The US violated (from my reading) #10

W and gang wrote the damned thing and THEY couldn't stick by it. Remember "No automaticity" that Negorponte was screaming to everyone? Well as soon as this passed (note #12) and the missiles were found they started screaming "AUTOMATICITY AUTOMATICITY!!!"

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
8. Total crap...and infuriating.
That wasn't about journalism...that was media trying to avoid their responsibility for willingly helping to sell the invasion with lies that they now admit were obvious to them at the time.

Chris Matthews doesn't have the hardballs to do even a watered-down fake investigative piece on the DSM himself - he gets Gregory to do it. I hope they're proud of themselves for asking James Woolsey, a PNAC shill for his "expert opinion" - without revealing that he is a PNAC shill.

The media whores must be held accountable - especially now that some of them have admitted that they knew that Bush et al were lying during the "run-up to the war." How complicated an exercise in logic is this? If you repeat a lie that you know is a lie, then you are a liar.

Well, at least I find that my capacity for outrage is not diminished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. What sucked was that they had necon Woolsey, who supported the war
together with David Kay, trying to downplay the significance of the earlier guest, the man that broke the DSM story.
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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