Why is MTP going to have on Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden Sunday??

[jenmito]

To trash the Obama administration, of course. Does anyone remember EVER having officials from the Clinton admin. all over tv to give their opinions of 9/11, for example? I don't!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. I'd love to see someone grill Chertoff over his Katrina performance which he successfully managed to

lob off onto fall guy patsy Brownie.

Wasn't Brownie supposed to write tell-all book?

[jenmito]

2. I doubt David Gregory will bring up ANY failures of the Bush admin.

I bet they'll be treated as "political analysts" or "security experts."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. David Gregory - for your edification-------

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/17/754678/-Meet-the-Press-More-Like-Stroke-the-Guest
Meet the Press? More Like Stroke the Guest
by BarbinMD
Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 04:20:04 PM PST

skip

In the middle of the breaking scandal, Gregory not only offered to let Sanford guide the story, he was willing to give him a platform to change the subject. And then Gregory would "move on."

What these emails reveal should raise the question of whether this is the standard offer made to every guest on Meet the Press. But of course now that the traditional media has been implicated in the story, chances are they will all be moving on.
*****************************************************

Meet the Press with David Gregory is not worth a damn. As much as Timmeh pushed my buttons, he always asked a few uncomfortable questions although soft on the follow-up with those he favored. I miss all those leading questions and the fake astonishment -

"Really? Well the staff happened to find your kindergarten graduation day speech where you clearly come out in favor of brownies WITH nuts. Your response?"

[liberal N proud]

3. To help meet the republican agenda

Politicizing a terror act (which the GOP is really good at), and to attack the Obama Administration to weaken all Democrats ahead of 2010 and 2012 elections.

M$M = GOP Propaganda Machine.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Have any of them been asked about what THEY would've done differently

You know, other than holding up important administration officials charged with security (TSA) for silly ideological reasons and sending terrorists from Gitmo to Saudi Arabia for "art therapy"?
:rofl:

[liberal N proud]

34. In the M$M you can not ask the tough questions to the republicans

They wouldn't want to embarrass them.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

35. Of course not

Any (potential) embarrassment caused by tough questions from the "liberal media" will simply NOT be tolerated by the high and mighty Repubs!!!! :banghead: :mad:

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Chertoff was on NPR yesterday

pushing full body scanners. He did admit upon questioning that he represents manufacturers of said scanners. But he was quick to point out that he'd been advocating for scanners even before he had this job.

Is it a chicken-egg question?

[monmouth]

5. Because relevant, important and smart people avoid MTP like the plague...n/t

[avaistheone1]

6. Got to agree with you on this one.

I never saw Clinton officials on the MTP criticizing Bush officials. If it ever happened that would be a rarity - if it happened.

[jenmito]

10. I guess there's a first time for everything.

;)

[Orsino]

7. To militarize America further, and cheerlead for our next invasion/conquest. n/t

[jenmito]

11. I doubt Obama is going to take advice from Chertoff and Hayden. n/t

[Orsino]

17. I think he'll avoid it as long as he can.

But when the TV calls for war, it tends to get it.

[jenmito]

18. I doubt "the tv" or anyone ON it can make Obama start another war. n/t

[Orsino]

24. Give 'em a couple of years to gin up a pretext.

I think that given sufficient momentum, screaming yellow "journalists" could make us do about anything.

[jenmito]

26. Sorry, but I don't believe that Obama can be "made" to start a war by journalists on tv

or anyone ELSE for that matter.

[Orsino]

37. I'll hope that you are right. n/t

[asjr]

9. David Gregory has got to be

blackmailing someone at NBC.

[seafan]

12. Chertoff has pushed for invasive strip-search scanning of airline passengers since 2005.

Funny, how it seems these guys have *never left* the stage.


I will wager that he will be all over TV now, hyping full body scanning even if you just want to visit the Grand Ole Opry... Sheesh. These nuts are overdone.






Chertoff is behind all of this. In February, 2005 he became DHS head., October 11, 2007

Airport strip scanners: A *chalk outline*? Not bloody likely., March 12, 2009



NYT, December 29, 2009

.....

“If they’d been deployed, this would pick up this kind of device,” Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, said in an interview, referring to the packet of chemicals hidden in the underwear of the Nigerian man who federal officials say tried to blow up the Northwest Airlines flight.

But others say that the technology is no security panacea, and that its use should be carefully controlled because of the risks to privacy, including the potential for its ghostly naked images to show up on the Internet.

.....

Since the Christmas Day bombing attempt, supporters of tighter security have raised their voices in criticism of privacy advocates. “I do think the privacy groups have some explaining to do,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former homeland security official in the administration of President George W. Bush.

However, he added, body imaging technology has its limits — the machines cannot, for example, detect objects stowed in bodily orifices or concealed within the folds of an obese person’s flesh.
Bruce Schneier, a security expert who has been critical of the technology, said the latest incident had not changed his mind.
“If there are a hundred tactics and I protect against two of them, I’m not making you safer,” he said. “If we use full-body scanning, they’re going to do something else.”

The millions of dollars being spent on new equipment, he said, would be better invested in investigation and intelligence work to detect bombers before they get to any airport.

<<<NO S*@!>>>

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said his group had not objected to the use of the devices, as long as they were designed not to store and record images.

Mr. Chertoff said he found such statements a “strategic retreat” from more strident positions taken before last week’s terrorism attempt. He acknowledged that “nothing is 100 percent,” but added, “The more difficult you make it for someone to conceal weapons, the fewer people who are going to be willing or capable of concealment” and the harder it would be to make effective weapons.

How about utilizing explosives-sniffing dogs; checking/scanning every piece of baggage in the plane's hold; matching names on the watchlists; using conventional scanning techniques properly; proper background checks of airline employees, baggage handlers, etc.;...

...and enforcing Michael "Skeletor" Chertoff to shut his trap and go back to his dungeon.




Let's all expect to see him on the teevee machine now.

[Enrique]

13. if Rachel Maddow was there asking questions, I'd be ok with it

but of course they would never allow that.

You're right, it's bizarre to have them on.

[SeattleGirl]

14. This would be a time when I really wish Timmy were still around.

When they started spewing their lies, he'd roll video to show they were lying.

Unfortunately, Gregory will just stick his nose further up their asses.

[jenmito]

16. Exactly. The only time Gregory shows video is

when he wants Repubs. to comment on something Obama or another Dem. said. It's an all-out bash fest.

[Ikonoklast]

15. Because Novak is dead?

They are running out of useful tools.

[ljm2002]

19. I wonder if anyone will ask him...

...why we need full body scanning, when all it would have taken is for the fucking intelligence agencies to pay attention to the fucking warnings they got directly from the fucking terrorist's fucking father.

[zulchzulu]

20. Wasn't Chertoff one of those aliens in the movie Avatar?

Maybe they'll talk about how space aliens are usually odd...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. Well, you definitely answered your first question

As to the second question, no, I sure don't recall officials from the Clinton admin. all over tv to give their opinions of 9/11- although a lot of them (especially Bill Clinton) got trashed by Bushco and the rest of what Al Franken rightly called the "Blame America's Ex-President First" crowd and they were given a LOT of airtime to do so. The only person from the Bush (mis-)administration (though he was also formerly from the Clinton administration as well) that I believe is anywhere near credible on national security/counterterrorism issues is Richard Clarke- possibly the only official who took any shred of accountability and apologized for the 9/11 attacks, which is all the more gracious because he seemed to be only one TRYING to do something about preventing it during the months leading up to 9/11. He was also one of the few (only?) officials whom confronted Bush about his desire to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. It's a shame that there aren't more officials like him. I saw him on an ABC news interview the other night and felt that he gave a good clear-eyed and evenhanded analysis of the situation (and resisted efforts from the interviewer to get him to call for Napolitano to resign).

[jenmito]

27. Thanks for your reply.

I agree and wish somebody called out the media for doing what they're doing. I'd love to see the reactions of some of these people when a Dem. asks them WHY they're interviewing the people from the last admin. and why it didn't happen after 9/11.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. Me too

I've become somewhat resigned to the fact that the corporate media whores will ALWAYS work their hardest to spin things against the Democrats and in favor of the Republicans. We now have some corporate media personalities on MSNBC like Maddow, Olbermann, and Schultz (though I haven't really seen his show yet) whom ARE willing to call out and ask the tough questions about Republicans but they are, unfortunately, "voices in the wildnerness compared to the almost overwhelming number of media personalities whom push this crazy notion of "balance" at all costs and/or whom deliberately prominently display and "softball" Republicans and their talking points. I just wish that we could figure out how to create a media apparatus of our own that can respond faster and more effectively to them. :shrug: Thanks for keeping us posted! :hi:

[jenmito]

33. Me, too...

your post is right on.

My pleasure. :hi:

[Undercurrent]

23. Question:

Why is MTP going to have on Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden Sunday?

Answer:

[jenmito]

28. Yuck...

but I'm sure that's right.

[Cha]

25. Rec'd.

No Dems on?

[jenmito]

29. Thanks, Cha...

They are having a Dem. on first (John Brennan-Deputy National Security Adviser) and then they'll have the Repubs. to probably bash whatever he says.

[Cha]

31. Hopefully John Brennan

will make his case so well that chertoff will only come off as a jerk.

[jenmito]

30. Looks like it will be an entire Obama admin. bash-fest:

From the MTP website (in part):

"One week after the thwarted Christmas terrorist attack the fight in Washington heats up as more intelligence failures are revealed. How could the attack have been prevented? Where did communication between intelligence communities break down? And how will the Obama administration tackle the growing national security challenges in the new year? We'll ask the assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Terrorism, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan.

Plus, in an exclusive interview, two former heads of intelligence agencies in the Bush administration shed light on today's growing threats to global security. How is the Obama administration handling the continued fight against terror? What decisions regarding Guantanamo have increased the threat and what should the future of the prison be? We'll ask the former head of homeland security, Michael Chertoff and the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, retired General Michael Hayden..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/ns/meet_the_press/

[ipaint]

36. Chertoff works as a consultant, it's about money.

Recent, Dec. 29th, npr interview-


Mr. MICHAEL CHERTOFF (Former Secretary, Homeland Security, Bush Administration): Good to be on the show.

SIEGEL: You're calling for the installation of full-body scanners at airport checkpoints. Why aren't there already full-body scanners at airports?

Mr. CHERTOFF: Well, a couple of years ago we began the process of testing them to see, first of all, if they worked and second, if they could be deployed without unduely restricting the flow of traffic. And the good news is that we were able to demonstrate that they were successful. We could use them without slowing up traffic and we could also protect privacy.

The difficulty is the ACLU and other similar organizations began a very aggressive campaign to limit or prevent the use of these machines and it culminated frankly last year in a vote by the House of Representatives to be very sharply restricted of the use of these machines. So, although we have acquired these machines, they are not as widely deployed as they should be.

SIEGEL: In your current role as a consultant, do you have an interest in body scanners?

Mr. CHERTOFF: You know, I, to be - we consult with all kinds of firms including firms that you manufacture body scanners.

SIEGEL: You do have some interest in

Mr. CHERTOFF: Correct. That's correct.

SIEGEL: in more sales of body scanners.

Mr. CHERTOFF: As well as a lot of other security measures. But I would point out that I've talked about this for probably the last three years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122018593


MTP = Infomercial on behalf of chertoff's clients.

[FrenchieCat]

38. I don't know why, but I sure in the fuck won't be watching to find out!

[YvonneCa]

39. Really REALLY...

...dumb. Period. DUMB.

[IndianaGreen]

40. MTP sucks, and David Gregory sucks a lot as well.

discuss.