Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, should we try to decode Today's Show message to gwb's followers?

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 09:27 AM
Original message
OK, should we try to decode Today's Show message to gwb's followers?
Edited on Tue Sep-05-06 09:44 AM by BleedingHeartPatriot
The first "in depth" story, during Natalie Morales's headline portion:

Kelly O'Donnell reporting on "report" from the WH, complete with a show and tell of the report called "Combating Terrorism" and saying that this war is "not like Vietnam, but more like the Cold War." (a patently ridiculous comment, BTW).


Then, of course, the Steve Irwin story.

Now comes a several minutes examination of the current political situation two months before mid-terms.

It startes with the Close Up feature,with a WH correspondent who isn't David Gregory.
His name is Chip Reid.

Anyway, the first seat focused upon is the Chicago district where Tammy Duckworth is running.

A map graphic of the Dems' potential gains. Then, the comment, "unless something big happens" between now and election day, the Dems will get control of the House.

Then, an example of an R ad, distancing self from gwb.

And, then Chip Reid says the Democrats aren't celebrating, because "anything can happen" in the next two months.

Now, it's Chris Matthews and Matt doing an "analysis" of the midterms.
Chris is desperately trying to get the R talking points in, bringing up the "be afraid of Nancy Pelosi as SOH" and, "they'll have subpoena power and won't be afraid to use it."

Chris is also saying that the Dems are voting "no confidence" on Rumsfeld, a move that puzzles him (Matthews) and, again, reminding the viewers that Pelosi is a "liberal from San Francisco." (a couple of "some people say" statements from Matthews during his "analysis".)

Now, thankfully, a report on the health issues of 9/11 rescuers. Except, they've added pathos music and slow mo images of the towers burning to the film.

That's the first 14 minutes. Lots of "be afraid" moments, including the panicked looks in eyes of Lauer and Matthews. :-)

Dare I hope that most people can see through this? MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Navy SEALs Rock!
Edited on Tue Sep-05-06 09:41 AM by mahatmakanejeeves
Oh, she's gone now, isn't she?

Edited to capitalize SEALs; it's an acronym.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. I was listening while working and it was nauseating. There is no wisdom
or ethical responsibility to get to the motives of this administration. If they had any journalistic responsibility they would refuse to play up to this corrupt Republican strangle hold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting
Edited on Tue Sep-05-06 10:01 AM by EarlG
Kelly O'Donnell reporting on "report" from the WH, complete with a show and tell of the report called "Combating Terrorism" and saying that this war is "not like Vietnam, but more like the Cold War." (a patently ridiculous comment, BTW).

They're comparing it to the Cold War now? I guess they figure that Americans would be more likely to support a war which is like one that was "won" rather than one that was "lost." (Hence all the WWII comparisons as well.)

I highly recommend "The Power Of Nightmares" if you haven't seen it already. Sheds a lot of light on this Cold War comparison.

VO: For the neoconservatives, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a triumph. And out of that triumph was going to come the central myth that still inspires them today: that through the aggressive use of American power, they could transform the world and spread democracy. But in reality, their victory was an illusion. They had conquered a phantom enemy, an exaggerated and distorted fantasy they had created in their own minds. The real reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because it was a decrepit system, decaying from within.

MELVIN GOODMAN , Head of Office of Soviet Affairs CIA, 1976-1987: I think probably one of the greatest myths in America, in the political discourse now, right now, is that actions of the American government were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed like a house of cards because it was a house of cards. It rotted away from within. The economy was rotten, the political process was rotten, they had developed a central government that was no longer believed by people outside of Moscow, there was total cynicism throughout the Soviet system of governance, there was no real civil society. But the Reagan Administration and their—the minions of the Reagan Administration, will tell you that Afghanistan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself—the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the collapse of the East European empire. We were saying that this was entirely fanciful. And the United States missed all of this, because they believed their own myths and their own fanciful notions. They had become their own victims of their own lies.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm (this is part two, the link above goes to part one)

VO: But now, the neoconservatives became all-powerful, because this terror network proved that what they had been predicting through the 1990s was correct: that America was at risk from terrifying new forces in a hostile world. A small group formed that began to shape America’s response to the attacks. At its heart were Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, along with the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and Richard Perle, who was a senior advisor to the Pentagon. The last time these men had been in power together was 20 years before, under President Reagan. Back then, they had taken on and, as they saw it, defeated a source of evil that wanted to take over America: the Soviet Union. And now they saw this new war on terror in the same epic terms.

RICHARD PERLE , CHAIRMAN PENTAGON DEFENSE POLICY BOARD 2001-2003: The struggle against Soviet totalitarianism was a struggle between fundamental value questions. “Good” and “evil” is about as effective a shorthand as I can imagine in this regard, and there’s something rather similar going on in the war on terror. It isn’t a war on terror, it’s a war on terrorists who want to impose an intolerant tyranny on all mankind, an Islamic universe in which we are all compelled to accept their beliefs and live by their lights, and in that sense this is a battle between good and evil.

VO: But, as previous episodes have shown, the neoconservatives distorted and exaggerated the Soviet threat. They created the image of a hidden, international web of evil run from Moscow that planned to dominate the world, when, in reality, the Soviet Union was on its last legs, collapsing from within. Now, they did the same with the Islamists. They took a failing movement which had lost mass support and began to reconstruct it into the image of a powerful network of evil, controlled from the center by bin Laden from his lair in Afghanistan. They did this because it fitted with their vision of America’s unique destiny to fight an epic battle against the forces of evil throughout the world.

VINCENT CANNISTRARO , HEAD OF COUNTER – TERRORISM , CIA , 1988-90: What the neoconservatives are doing is taking a concept that they developed during the competition with the Soviet Union, i.e., Soviet Communism was evil, it wanted to take over our country, wanted to take over our people, our classrooms, our society. It was that kind of concept of evil that they took—an exaggerated one, to be sure—and then apply it to a new threat, where it didn’t apply at all, and yet it was layered with the same kind of cultural baggage. The policy says there’s a network, the policy says that network is evil, they want to infiltrate our classrooms, they want to take our society, they want all our women to wear, you know, veils, and this is what we have to deal with and therefore since we know it’s evil let’s just kill it, and that will make it go away.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm (part three)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-05-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thank you. Bookmarked for viewing this weekend. n/t
MKJ
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 Apr 19th 2024, 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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