I find David Brook's lies offensive

[MissWaverly]

My letter to the News Hour

It irks me that you really don't address the statements that David Brooks
has been making on your show regarding "Ambassador Wilson's lies",
quite frankly you say that your show reports the news not opnion but this
is just the opposite: see sworn testimony yesterday from Valerie Plame,
what you seem to forget is that this administration doesn't just attack
shifty eye bloggers, which I am one of and I am also a PBS supporter but
it is devouring the infrastructure of the government it heads, it has placed
the CIA at risk through it's actions, (that was not caused by democrats,
Bill Clinton or wide eyed leftists), you should be presenting the facts not
lying about them, I find this highly offensive.

We know through sworn testimony of Valerie Plame that a co-worker who submitted written testimony to a former republican chaired committee almost tearfully related to her that he had his words twisted and misrepresented, then publicly reported by that committee as fact. And when he requested opportunity to return and correct this record, he was summarily denied . That CIA agents original submitted testimony has been ordered to be produced

[scarletwoman]

1. I don't understand your opening sentence: "Ambassador Wilson's lies"

It sounds like you're saying that WILSON is lying -- is that really what you mean?

[MissWaverly]

4. no, I am quoting David Brook's statement last night

that's one of his main talking points about Plame, Ambassador Wilson's lies.

[blm]

7. The media let GOP operatives present lies about Wilson and Plame throughout 2003-4

because they were protecting Bush's campaign then, even though they knew full well that the WH orchestrated the Plame outing within the first week of the story - but none would come clean about what they knew.

PBS became part of that corpmedia when they sold their souls to the GOP congress in the mid90s.

[MissWaverly]

8. If they want my $$$$$, they are going to have EARN it

I am tired of the mantra that they have no accountability to their readers, yes they do,
they are trying to make a profit like everyone else, they rely on their viewers and their
advertisers, we can change the tune the Wurlitzer plays, we just have to stand up.

[spooky3]

9. just a suggestion but if you put quotation marks around the

phrases you are quoting, then it would be easier for us to understand. Good job writing to them and holding their feet to the fire!!!

http://mediamatters.org

may want to hear about this too.

[MissWaverly]

10. thanks, will do

[MissWaverly]

14. hey, I revised the letter and sent to Media Matters

David Brooks statement on PBS Newshour 3/16/07

see statements that David Brooks has been making on Newshour with Jim Lehrer regarding "Ambassador Wilson's lies", quite frankly the Newshour states that it reports the news not opnion but this is just the opposite: see sworn testimony yesterday from Valerie Plame, it should be presenting the facts not lying about them, I find this highly offensive.

We know through sworn testimony of Valerie Plame that a co-worker who submitted written testimony to a former republican chaired committee almost tearfully related to her that he had his words twisted and misrepresented, then publicly reported by that committee as fact. And when he requested opportunity to return and correct this record, he was summarily denied . That CIA agents original submitted testimony has been ordered to be produced

[spooky3]

19. Eggg--xcellent!!!!

Thanks!

[MissWaverly]

20. not only did I sent it to Media Matters

I resent the letter to PBS and I told them that I was contacting Media Matters about his
lies about Ambassador Wilson.

[brainy]

22. Didn't you know this?

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors
David Brock is... He is the President and CEO of Media Matters for America.

[MissWaverly]

27. it's not David Brock, David Brooks, he writes for NY Times

[ginnyinWI]

28. David Brooks, not David Brock.

David Brooks works for the NYT as a conservative editorial writer, and also is a regular on Newshour on Friday nights. David Brock is a different guy.

[midnight]

34. Good of you to point out to News Hour that the facts were being

replaced by opinion. Let us know what they have to say.

[MissWaverly]

35. Yes, I will get the same BS statement like the WhiteHouse sent

I sent a letter imploring them to NOT INVADE Iran, they sent be this blah, blah letter
back saying that they were happy to hear from me. Yeah, right.

[scarletwoman]

11. I see that you edited and put quotation marks around that phrase.

Now it makes sense.

Good for you for writing to PBS and voicing your objections.

sw

[MissWaverly]

21. thanks and I resent the letter to PBS

hey, I know that I am not a great writer but every little bit helps.

[Robbien]

2. Perfect

That is exactly the way to combat the media, contact them. And contact them often.

Your rant was perfect.

[MissWaverly]

3. thank you, I am hoping they deal with this

[Bronyraurus]

52. Feh,

It would be more perfect if you threw some periods in there.

(You're a blogger? How are your hits?)

[zulchzulu]

5. I was cussing up a storm watching Brooks be a Bush apologist

I usually find him to be wrong on everything, but his comments on Friday's Newshour was just disgusting. I thought Jim Lehrer was equally baffled.

Brooks commented that the Plame case like it was "old news", nothing to look at, "we need to move on" and all the other comments you might hear Hannity think.

PBS is better than that. They are better than paying people like Brooks to come on and absolutely prove he's a clueless ass on so many issues.

From the transcript:

JIM LEHRER: What was your reaction to her story?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Well, just on that subject, there are laws about who is covert and who is not. And once you're covert, you're not always covert, as she claimed. You have to be in the field and such things. I'm not an expert on the law, but that is a matter of dispute.

And then as we saw, as the Republicans said, did the Republicans intentionally out her? I personally think this story is over and done with, to be honest with you.

I thought that the story was hot as long as people thought Rove and Cheney might be at the end of the line from the investigation. Once it became clear it was Richard Armitage, interest in the story died down. The prosecution went on. The only trial that is going to be has concluded, so I basically think the story is over.

JIM LEHRER: You don't think she's a victim?

DAVID BROOKS: No, no, she certainly was a victim. No, she certainly was a victim of a campaign to out her. And I thought -- you know, I've said on this program before, I thought the whole process was terrible.

I thought it started with the misleading things her husband said. I think it continued with the vicious campaign by the White House to destroy her and to overreact to the op-ed piece. And then it continued, I thought, with a prosecution that went off in the direction it was not supposed to go on.

It was supposed to be about outing a CIA officer, not about going after the vice president. And so I thought it was a travesty from beginning to end with no real influence on policy.

Further in the interview:

DAVID BROOKS: I feel like I'm getting involved in a dispute about the Dead Sea scrolls. I mean, this is ancient history, but Wilson's report, as a bipartisan commission found, was not disputing what the president said in those 16 words. It was mildly supportive.

He was dishonest about what it said. I mean, there's a whole series, as I said, of dishonesties building upon dishonesties, which is not to exculpate, whatever that word is.

Then I can see that maybe Brooks can't handle his job since it's all so boring...

DAVID BROOKS: The vice president -- I will never say it on television again. The vice president and the way they reacted, but it was just one, long, tawdry series of events after another.

Aw, poor bored little Dave. It's all so...tawdry...



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/sb_03-16.html


On edit: added the transcript sections

[MissWaverly]

6. My favorite comment of his was:

and I am paraphrasing: Who could imagine that this event could go as far as the Office of
the Vice President. We all know who he is cheerleading for, Cheney.

[zulchzulu]

12. The transcript is online

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/sb_03-16.html

I just noticed it was available. I edited in the parts I was disgusted by in the thread above yours...

[MissWaverly]

16. thank you, I hope that they will change the tone on the NewsHour

I don't expect David Brooks to become a democrat but I do expect him to present the facts
and not lies about things critical to our country.

[MissWaverly]

33. you have done a wonderful job with that, thanks

we have to stand up, this has to stop, the time for spin is over.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Your first sentence is a huge paragraph of a run-on sentence.

It would be far more readable with a period or two.

Also how about 'on your show regarding what Mr. Brooks claims are "Ambassador Wilson's lies"'?

And another nit pick: 'shifty eyed bloggers', not 'shifty eye bloggers'.

[MissWaverly]

15. sorry, but I did revise the letter and resent it to PBS

I had my friends on my blog look at it and they helped me edit my letter
to you regarding David Brooks' offensive remarks, they also suggested
that I contact Media Matters which I did, here is the revised letter. Did I
mention that there are over 100,000 people on my blog, I must have forgotten
to mention it.

My letter to the News Hour

It irks me that you really don't address the statements that David Brooks
has been making on your show regarding "Ambassador Wilson's lies"-this
is his main talking point in talking about the Plame Leak.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Regrettably, only Democracy Now and the

programing at Al Jazeera even come close to being more balanced as they are not funded by the Military Industrial Complex and the RNC. :shrug:

Because I have broadband and enjoy an eight dollars and a few cents monthly subscription to Video Digital Cable http://www.vdc.com

I'm thrilled with this service: It includes Democracy Now, Al Jazeera and The Pentagon Channel.

I must admit that I can't stomach The Pentagon Channel for much more than a half hour at a shot. :blush: :yoiks:

[MissWaverly]

18. 30 minutes of the Pentagon channel would be torture

I applaud your commitment to getting the news.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Thanks, I need to keep track of "the mischief" that they are up to.

I was raised in a militaristic family. Back to the Civil War (Henry G. fought for the North!), I can claim ancestors who have fought in the US Army. My father was battlefield commissioned in WWII and my brother fought in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam. Oh, how idealistic I was because my father and I were kindred souls and he loved the fact that the military got him and our family off of the farm and into the middle class.

Since serving four four years during peace time and losing my beloved father, I've developed a more realistic view of The Military in General. Perhaps a B.S. and M.S. in Physiological Psychology and work as an Addiction Counselor has made me MUCH more moderate, if not a bleeding heart liberal.

Still, when I go back to the midwest to visit my cousins getting up at 4 AM to milk cows or work in the field, I agree with my beloved late dad: "Every day in the Army is like Sunday on the Farm." :patriot: :applause: :-)

The military is a HUGE lumbering bureaucracy, but many of the individual soldiers, especially within the enlisted ranks are intelligent and thoughtful people.

Based on my family's experience and mine within the Military, I conclude that it is truly those who are looking for a better life financially who make up the lion's share of the recruits. No Doubt!

So I sometimes get "a goofy kick" out of watching the channel because it takes me back to the days when I was young and idealistic. Training for war can be fun: Patrolling, weapons firing, Airborne Training, Air Assault, etc. etc. However, when you mature into your late twenties and early thirties, the thrill is mostly gone.

IMO, we should not ever send our military to go kill and die unless it's The Last Resort because

WAR IS TERRORISM. :grr:

[MissWaverly]

29. Yes, I understand, I have friends in the military, myself

and I don't want them to fight and die for some corporation's bottom line, I think that
wars will always be with us, but we should fight only when the risk to our country is
certain not over some extremist's plan for a new world order.

[nosmokes]

24. thank-you!

Joe Wilson has been the *only* stand-up guy through out this whole despicable exercise. He is the honorable man in the mix FCOL, and for scarborough and brooks and the rest of the talking heads to try and say he misled or outright call him a liar is reprehensible. they should hung by their scrote. when it's all said and done i wish he and plame would file a civil suit and get millions for all this shit they've been put through but i have a feeling they have too much class for that and are probably just anxious have it over with.

[MissWaverly]

30. Yes, it is up to us to stand up and say NO MORE

I am tired of this bs smear about good and honorable people who SERVE our country, isn't
national security supposed to be the republican mantra. The Wilsons are the people who
should be protected, they were doing their best to protect our country's interests,
instead they have been villified and smeared.

[spooky3]

36. they HAVE filed a civil suit

it is pending.

you can support them here: http://www.wilsonsupport.org/


They are also moving to New Mexico, probably to get away from the stresses in DC.

[nosmokes]

37. thanks for that info spooky3!

i'll check that link right now.

[spooky3]

42. you're welcome!

:hi:

[MissWaverly]

38. well, I donated, here's the message I got

Thank you so very much for your generous support in our fight to hold this administration accountable for their actions. You are helping us make a stand against those who would abuse their positions of public trust.

But every day they are smeared, today's hardcopy of the Wash Post, has a hit piece
on her, saying that her testifying is for revenge. It's not about revenge, it's about
justice and accountability and having a rule of law in this country. It was sprinkled
with a photo caption: Plame strolls in to testify and states one of the congressman
supposedly asked a question in a flirting way. They did not post this version on-line, they
know better.

[spooky3]

41. yes, I have the paper and I found it outrageous.

She isn't seeking anything by agreeing to appear yesterday. She may be seeking justice in her civil suit, as she should.

The Dems called her to testify, and THEY are seeking JUSTICE and ACCOUNTABILITY and PROTECTION of our government employees risking their lives for us.

[MissWaverly]

43. well, please write them a letter

go read the sanitized version that they put on-line, it has none of that Act 1, Scene 2
garbage that the hard copy does.

[paulk]

25. me, too.

He told the same lies two nights in a row, even after Shields called him on it.

He's just another right wing apologist, more interested in pushing the party line than being an honest pundit. I don't understand why he is given a platform the the News Hour(or a place at the NYT)to spread his bullshit from. He has no credibility, AFAIC.

I'd been thinking of writing the News Hour about this - now, your letter has given me the motivation to do so.

[MissWaverly]

31. Your words are music to my ears

esp. since I know that I am not the world's most eloquent writer, the more the better,
I say. My sister said there was a vicious smear in the Washington Post today about
Valerie Plames' testimony being revenge. It's not about revenge but about a dedicated
public servant doing her duty.

[EVDebs]

26. Wilson's lies ? That's a good one, Bush's lies are what MSM needs to reveal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x267177

Babylonsister's post shows us that Brewster Jennings was the legit intel op that the GOP wanted to scuttle. Treason now, beyond high crimes and misdemeanors, is the charge Congress needs to bring up. Comity be damned.

[MissWaverly]

32. You have gotten to the heart of the matter

It's about the spin regarding the run up to war, they scuttled the intelligence about WMDs
by outing Plame, why, becuz they wanted to run to war with the stovepiped intelligence.

[EVDebs]

46. Read about the 'pre 9-11 NSA policy shift' if you stomach can stand it...

http://www.gregpalast.com/khan-job-bush-spiked-probe-of-pakistan%E2%80%99s-dr-strangelove-bbc-reported-in-2001/

[MissWaverly]

47. this all goes back to Arbusto, Harken Industries & Mr. Bath

and the Saudi investment in George W. Bush, Jr.

[EVDebs]

50. But M$M won't cover this re Operation Mockingbird commitments

Should Congress decide to investigate this further...domestic operations against political 'enemies' would be revealed.

[MissWaverly]

51. yes, Congress has an obligation to the American people

to set the record straight.

[rosesaylavee]

39. Sorry to hear that Lehrer didn't address that...

I think his style during this commentary segment is let them (Brooks and Shields) battle themselves and if Mark Shields doesn't address something, it doesn' get called out by the referee Lehrer. I think I remember Jim Lehrer only once responding in a gasp to something Brooks said... can't remember what that was but he does try to not get involved and be a neutral party.

But, good on you for telling PBS and Media Matters what you think of this practice of allowing misinformation to pass without comment through the air waves.

I missed it last night - and sorry I did. Perhaps sending your letter to the New York Times may help them see that their pet David is not pleasing to all.

[MissWaverly]

40. well, I did mention that I posted it on my blog

I noticed that Jim Lehrer tries to be impartial but this is the second time that Brooks has
said that Joseph Wilson lied, Shields has called him on it both times. Also to compare
the Plame incident to the dead sea scrolls is insulting. There was no hesitancy in going
after Clinton every single day, there was no old news with Whitewater and Monica.

[fooj]

44. Good going, Miss Waverly!

You might consider sending this to the NYT OP-ED. That way you'll BE CERTAIN that Brooks sees it as will many of his readers. :hi:

[MissWaverly]

45. Thanks, Fooj

I may do that, I will be interested to read what he posts in the NY Times tomorrow, I
am tired of him propping them up.

[mnhtnbb]

48. We stopped watching News Hour several years ago when we got fed up

with Gwen. Often she would have 2/3 guests who were right-wingers. She would
editorialize in favor of Bushie boy.

We really felt that Jim Lehrer had gone over to the dark side trying to tone down what was the only news show reporting the truth in favor of spewing more Republican propaganda.

But hubby said, why don't we watch it Friday. We were sorry we had.
Brooks was so squirmy, it made me remark to hubby that I think he knows he's lying--most of the time--and is guilty about it.

We were pretty surprised to hear Brooks talk about all the Repubs that wish
Bush were out of office.

[MissWaverly]

49. well, Brooks also said Pukes will jump Iraq ship by summer

if there is no real progress, which there will not be.

but they do try to in-depth news reports, they show more of the senate and house hearings
than cbs, abc or nbc, I think they just need some prodding from us to cut the fat.