Reply With Quote
So...
How many people are going to catch this madcow disease?
Rachel Maddow is looking to ruffle feathers, going where Obama or Congress wouldn’t dare to tread, in publicizing the “deceptions” of the Bush Iraq Team which launched a long and costly war.
Because of a ten year mainstream media whitewash, it’s been generally accepted that “mistakes” resulted in a war that claimed over 4,800 US troops. But this week, MSNBC will rock the boat, suggesting false pretenses took us to war, meaning the nation should start debating consequences.
Rachel Maddow is teasing there will be great “political upset” when the do entary Hubris: The Selling of The Iraq War airs on Monday Feb. 18.
If proven deliberate, the Iraq WMD intel debacle could cons ute domestic and international war crimes. Someone must have had a long fight behind the scenes to get this controversy on the air because most of the facts have been readily available for years through indie media, articles (and even in drips and drabs on MSNBC). A book version of Hubris was co-authored by David Corn and Michael Isikoff in 2007.
Perhaps most striking is the way most media has ignored Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a top level Bush administration insider who has offered to testify directly against Cheney and others. So what actionable allegations will Maddow present?
Plamegate was just one WMD related scandal resulting in conviction. Scooter Libby lied to investigators, taking the fall for Vice President Cheney before receiving a pardon from President Bush. But that story is old, so what’s new, what’s different?
http://my.firedoglake.com/amerigus/2...pset/#comments
So...
How many people are going to catch this madcow disease?
Nothing like a lame pun to discredit a Rhodes scholar. As big a lefty as she is ideologically, she's a pretty damn good and uncommonly honest investigative journalist. Whether the same can be said for the do entary she's plugging remains to be seen, I guess.
I'm sorry, but if you think she's honest...
Mancow...
You have it bad for her...
Hurk hurk hurk...
Provide a specific example of Rachel Maddow being dishonest.
WC's ideologies and policies and politicians get slapped every night by RM, so she's "dishonest".
Maddow is one of the VERY few I can stomach on msm tv. She is very good, problem is she didn't do much drone stories, NDAA, etc during election time when it really mattered, and she hardly speaks on those issues when she is on someone else's panel when they are talking Obama up as some kind of hero. Does a great story, then fades away. Be consistent. Not politically convenient. But yes she can be very good sometimes. After what MSNBC did to Cenk Uyger, I guess she has to hold back.
I'm glad Rachel is doing this "exposé". Fresh material. From the network played a 20-minute loop of Marco Rubio drinking bottled water, a.k.a. "watergate", I expect fair and objective reporting.
Seriously, hasn't this been covered?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
This is pretty much it. Since Fox News is MSNBC's business model, it shouldn't be surprising that they put the gag on narratives that make Democrats look bad -- particularly at election time.
She's not -- it's somebody else's film/book.
she's exposing the exposé
Cheney in Chains will make a great hit song!
Sung to the tune "Chain of Fools" no doubt.
Fair enough -- just pointing out that this is a fairly worn path.
No argument here. If there is actual, damning proof of the administration's dishonesty in making the case for the war as opposed to the persuasive-but-unsubstantiated su ions we're accustomed to, however, it will be pretty news-worthy, and it will turn Washington into as big a partisan grudge-match as we're likely to see in our lifetimes.
I'm hoping Elizabeth Warren is able to do something similar to Obama/Geithner's likely collusion with Wall St. banks and insurers... woman has more balls than the rest of the Senate put together.
I hope so too
not by the MSM or DC. They all have vested interest in maintaining the huge LIE that The Establishment Corporatocracy is infallible, to be trusted implicitly, is good for ALL of us.
This isn't honesty. This trying to bring something up that takes away from all Obama is doing wrong. Whatever keeps her from reporting about the economy, gitmo, eroding rights of Americans, drones, spending, and anything else she attacked bush for but is giving bho a pass on.
If you think you can depend on one news source to tell you everything you need to know, you're being dishonest with yourself -- the world is bigger and more complicated than that, and I expect you know it. We've already discussed that she isn't able to run all her stories, and the conditions which restrict her work, but those stories she does run are better-sourced than any other broadcast TV journalism I can think of. Are there more journalists to read? When aren't there?
RM has been HARD on Barry for the drone murder business.
Every now and again
Do you watch her every night?
That's the only way you can possibly make an argument about what she is NOT reporting.
Dude. You consume the ing blaze.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
