media allow unquestioned hammering of Clarke's veracity

[buycitgo]

unquestioned and unabated

they've had WH spokesmen on CNN and MSNBC within the last half hour, casting the most serious aspersions on Clarke's memory, integrity, credibility, ALL the while with unquestioning acceptance by the "journalists" who merely note the assertions being made, taking it all in without a single remonstration.

this is how it always works, though, with this regime, isn't it?

funny how they didn't behave in such a supine manner during the WJC admin

Judy Woodruff's show just played the McLellan "deeply irresponsible" quote

saying pugs call him a "shill....politically motivated"

[buycitgo]

1. malveaux quoting the "american grandstand" garbage

now they're running Clarke saying bush "ignored" terrorism when he cam into office

[buycitgo]

3. Dan Bartlett coming up, then, RAND BEERS!

Malveaux mentions the sudden "unprecedented access" to WH officials, in response to Clarke

are they scared shitless, or what?

she says that Condi has scheduled FIFTEEN cable/radio appearances to refute Clarke's charges

I'd give anything to witness those, except that they'll no doubt be in front of fawning, drooling supplicants, and her lies won't be as obvious as they are in the face of even mild skepticism

[TankLV]

9. but they don't have time to appear before an official investigation.

Who's lying here?

Simple answer.

Who'w willing and scheduled to testify, UNDER OATH, INDEFINITELY?

Hint - it isn't bunkerboy or any of his gang of thugs.

[lancdem]

2. It's been this way for years

Frankly, I think Clarke has a lot of guts for doing this, given that he knew this onslaught was coming.

[tom_paine]

4. Exactly. Is anyone foolish enough to expect Amerikan Corporate TV Pravda

to behave like the Press of Free Nations?

Well, if they do they have quite a surprise in store for them.

[Malva Zebrina]

5. what a shame that my country has turned into a circus of journalists

like Weedruff

we cannot let this go on like this.

It would not matter if Bush I, himself was running against Bush II--they would find something to smear him with just to win the election, that is how desperate they are.

Someone has got to take over the reins and beat the crap out of these mealy mouthed media shills. Otherwise they will give the election to Bush again.

[buycitgo]

6. dan bartlett on now

bartlett saying:

bush understood threat of terrorism, kept Clarke on staff to keep transition

says EVER policy recommendation Clarke suggested was acted upon

Bartlett repeats the meme of the day: Clarke was wrapped up in the PROCESS, not the results of admin's actions

[buycitgo]

8. bartlett just contradicted Hadley!

accepts that the meeting took place that Hadley denied ever happened after checking on it

Judy, of course, doesn't know this, fails to call him on that

she is giving it to him a little bit, though, on peripheral issues, but they're from her notes. she's not responding to his lying babble

Bartlett sounds just like Goebbels, spewing jingoistic garbage

why does she put up with such crap?

[glarius]

7. How many of these former White House people does the American public

need to hear from (O'Neill, Clarke, another one whose name I forget) before they become aware of the truth about Bush and company????
P.S....It looks like the White House's present strategy is to paint Clarke as a disgruntled former employee....:puke:

[jmags]

10. I know...this is ridiculous.

I've done myself well lately by avoiding cable news. But in light of the Clarke allegations I've been flipping through CNN and MSNBC this afternoon. When this story is brought up, Clarke's allegations are paraphrased (and of course the most damning parts of his allegations are ignored) and then a nice 10 second clip of the administration is given, then more paraphrasing of what the administration says. All of it unquestioned despite very simple refutations.

[glarius]

11. Can Bill Schneider actually be saying he believes Clarke?

I'm really amazed to hear him backing up Clarke's story like this!

[buycitgo]

12. is there anybody worse than John King?

he just put out the RNC talking points on Lou Dobbs, playing the role of WH stenographer to the T

[buycitgo]

13. and what about this "swatting flies" context?

"We agreed that Tenet would insure that the PDB's would continue to be replete with threat information on al Qaeda. President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed.

from another thread here....don't know the provenance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1268187#1268301

[SharonAnn]

14. I think Bush wanted big bombs that go BOOM and make a big

noise. Also, lots of machine gun fire, some rockets or missiles or something that goes up, up, up and then comes down and goes BOOM!

You know, little boy stuff.

[librechik]

15. any parent will recognize this

typical guilty response.

It's shameful, but they look like weasels chasing their own tails.

Nobody but the most delusional freepers will believe their pathetic excuses.

[kentuck]

16. They are a confused bunch, indeed !

They are supposed to question those in authority and be skeptical of the responses they receive from those in power and give the benefit of the doubt to those that question the actions of those in power. But, they do the exact opposite with this bunch of lying crooks. Anybody that would have the audacity to challenge this regime is instantly looked at as if he/she is some kind of kook?? Those in power are given the benefit of the doubt - even if there is little doubt there?

When charges such as those by Clarke are made, the media should have those in power in the box and answering questions to clarify the charges to find out if they are true or false. But, they only shrug their shoulders and fake incredulity that someone would actually charge the powerful with doing something untoward or dishonest...

[buycitgo]

17. thanks for that! you got it exactly right

Lehrer's show just had that beaming, smirking clown Dan Bartlett on, and somebody here said Ray Suarez swallowed his entire horrorshow WHOLE, with not a single disputatious question

and did you hear how Lehrer came on and APOLOGIZED for airing a nonbalanced segment on Halliburton?

this, after countless appearances by thugs like Bartlett, who are allowed to spew their BS unallayed by any counterquestioning

truly astounding

[krkaufman]

20. Egg-freaking-zactly

That's exactly what I was thinking while watching Stahl interview Clarke last night. She was severely critical of Clarke and continually challenged him, and highlighted possibly duplicitous motivations for his statements. Yet, when it came to Hadley, he pretty much had free reign, and Leslie just sat back -- except for her one zinger regarding the meeting that wasn't that was.

[kentuck]

21. Right on!

She should have challenged those in authority, Hadley and the WH crowd, not Clarke! Those in power do not get the benefit of the doubt - it is those that make charges against those in power. The media's job is to be skeptical of those in authority - not those challenging authority. However, it did seem they were skeptical of the Democrats when they were in power.

[krkaufman]

22. Skeptical of the Democrats when they were in power

I think "skeptical" doesn't quite cover it.

[Corgigal]

18. Of course they will

because if they don't then they will tell the viewers that they have been asleep at the wheel. They knew and heard of this but didn't think it was news worthy enough to actually tell us news that flipping matters.

[krkaufman]

19. Heck, it started with Stahl

I was grateful that '60 Minutes' broadcast the Clarke segments; a definite plus. But Stahl did not come across, to me, as an unbiased journalist. Her tone and body language all spoke to her having bought in to the pro-Bush One Leader, One Way propaganda.

Here's my favorite, most-telling image from the Stahl interview of Clarke... her grimace in response to Clarke commenting on Bush putting American lives at risk...

Clarke: "... when the President starts doing things that risk American lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside."

Stahl: (grimace)

Aside from the grimace, Stahl came across as amazingingly uninformed considering the gravity of the topic and that she did the interview back in January with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill -- where O'Neill commented that Bush was "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people" and that Iraq was the immediate focus of the Bush admin as soon as they took office (to the exclusion of Al Qaeda).

Clarke's book and statements aren't news, they're corroboration; yet Stahl doesn't challenge Hadley with any other facts -- other than refuting his statement that the one meeting hadn't occurred. See O'Neill's book and this Time magazine article.

Hadley is fingered in the above Time article as a main ball-dropper on global terrorism early in the Bush admin, and was the man who knew the Niger uranium (yellowcake) claims were false, yet allowed their inclusion in the 2003 State of the Union. Hadley and Rice should have been removed from their positions ages ago, and they'll likely be highlighted by the Kean Commission for their failures.

I don't feel certain that Leslie is biased; I just don't think she's a very good journalist. But then I'm not sure I've seen any reporter/journalist/anchor who isn't a little cowed by the right-wing, from Dan Rather to Charlie Rose to Tim Russert.