More CNN anchors join "kneepads for Bush" disinformation corps

[RainDog]

After watching Blitzer discredit himself after the Clarke testimony, (check out Atrios' link for that one btw...great stuff!!) now Bush has the CNN female anchors swallowing Bush lies...then they spit...

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

From Atrios via reader d-

On Monday night, (Letterman) showed a long clip of a Bush speech (headlined as "George W. Bush energizes the youth of America," or something like that) with this young boy (around 12 years old) on the stage behind him who was obviously having a really hard time concentrating. As the clip jumped forward in time, he gradually got more fidgetty--the kid was yawning, checking his watch, cracking his neck, bending over and touching his toes. It was absolutely hysterical.

Last night, Dave says that earlier on Tuesday, CNN showed the clip from his show. Afterwards, the anchor came on and said that the White House informed them that the Letterman people edited the boy into the clip. Dave came back and said that that was a flat-out lie! Then he showed a CNN broadcast from later on Tuesday when they repeated the clip, and a different anchor said that the White House now said that, yes, the boy was at the speech, but not actually on stage behind George. Dave reiterated that, in fact, they were big LIARS!

A few minutes later, Dave's producer informs him that CNN contacted the show and said that the White House had never actually contacted them, and the anchor had made a mistake. For the rest of the show, Dave was lamenting that he had accused the Bush administration of being liars, when he didn't have his facts straight. Off mike, you could see the producer mouth the same thing I was thinking, which was that TWO different anchors each reported being given information by the White House-how could they both just make that up?

this is supposed to be a link to the show, but I haven't used it yet.

http://www.overspun.com/video/AmericasYouth.rm

[tom_paine]

1. CNN is Corporate TV Pravda, pure and simple

They may be even WORSE than Faux in that most people still believe them to be reliable whereas NOBODY who isn't under the influence of Goebbels v2.0 believes that about Faux.

[RainDog]

3. This is a prime example of how pathologically sick

Bush and this crew really are...

They attack Letterman for showing a kid who fell asleep during a Bush speech??

...and then CNN tried to defend the White House??

[SW FL Dem]

2. I watched the clip several times

The kid kept switching places with an old man. Sometimes he was on the left of him, sometimes on the right. Made me suspicious even though I would love for it to be true.

[RainDog]

4. He says the clip jumped forward in time

as the kid fidgeted, etc...

but isn't the whole point that this is really, really not worth the time of either CNN or Bush???

But, since the Bush gang is all about politics, and never about policy, as Diulio noted long ago...typical.

[jean]

5. Kneepads for Bush - could that be made into lapel pins and sent as gifts?

[Supormom]

7. Good idea for the O'Franken show

the "Knee Pad" awards!

[rumguy]

6. In some ways the little lies and distortions like this are the worst

I mean, if they'll lie about this, is there anything on god's green earth they won't lie about?

It's like lying is a sport for them, it's just automatic.

[tandot]

8. I sent an email to Kagan asking her if CNN is the mouth piece of the

White House. I asked her to explain to her audience why she claimed that the White House called her. I also suggested that if the phone call really happened to bring a story about "how the White House is manipulating the media with lies"

I haven't heard back, of course.

[Dookus]

10. I sent emails to Kagan, Phillips, and CNN General

asking if the White House did call, and if they did, who was it? And why did they deny it later. OR... if the White house did NOT call, why did they lie about it? And asking if, in either case, they will issue an on-air apology to Letterman for accusing him of misleading his audience.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. Blitzer's response to Krugman makes no sense --

Eschaton's CNN transcript of Wolf's response to Krugman's column:

BLITZER (3/30/04): Last Wednesday, while I was debriefing our senior White House correspondent, John King, I asked him if White House officials were suggesting there were some weird aspects to Richard Clarke's life. Clarke, of course, is the former counter-terrorism adviser who has sharply criticized the president's handling of the war on terror. I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I was simply seeking to flesh out what Bush National Security Council spokesman Jim Wilkinson had said on this program two days earlier.

WILKINSON (videotape): Let me also point something. If you look in this book, you find interesting things such as reported in the Washington Post this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and how bin Laden has some sort of mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of X-Files stuff. And what I'd say is, this is a man who was in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who was supposed to be focused on that. And he was focused on meetings.

BLITZER: Other than that, John Kerry (sic) reported White House officials were not talking about Clarke's personal life in any way. Lou Dobbs Tonight starts right now.


(Note, this from transcript above: "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called UNNAMED WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.")


Now the transcript of Wolf's original statement that Krugman referred to in his column:

BLITZER (question to King, Wednesday, 3/24/04): What ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president. Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?


Must have been Wolf's nervousness trying to pull off that lame excuse that caused him to misspeak and refer to WH correspondent John King, as John Kerry --