TWEETY says BUSH has "NEVER BEEN HONEST" about insurgency...

[Harper_is_Bush]

"Wasn't it the first time he (Bush) was honest and really did lay out that distinction?"

"Distinction" being the distinction between the insurgency and terrorists.

Yes Chris, it was. Good job. Don't hold your breath though...he'll remove the distinction tomorrow!!

LINK:
Murtha on Hardball Nov. 30, 2005
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/murthadec105bushspeech.wmv

[babylonsister]

1. According to Tweety, this speech showed * exhibited

confidence and clarity. :eyes: He said that right after the speech at Annapolis and I wrote it down for future reference.
Yes, maybe it did (confidence-yes, clarity-not so much). The blivet gave us his ultimatum on the war, that it will be waged until we are victorious. :eyes:
What ever happened to him being the representative of the people? From everything I know, read, and hear, the majority of Americans think this war is bogus.
He is not representing us!

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. Why roll your eyes? Do you want partisan journalists...

or honest ones.

I didn't watch the speech, but I know often when Bush makes speeches the little twit does seem confident. I did hear that he gave more specifics on Iraq than ever before (which could mean ANY specifics at all), so maybe that's the clarity referred to?

I think Tweety is doing an excellent job of cutting to the truth these days.

Agree with rest of what you said.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

3. "Tweety is doing an excellent job of cutting to the truth these days"

:popcorn:

[Vickers]

4. "Tweety is doing an excellent job of cutting to the truth these days"

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

:toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

Oh....you were serious.

Sorry. :evilfrown:

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Yes, I was serious.

What is your purpose or point?

Are you one of those dems who think the media should be the leftwing equivalent of FOX?

I can provide examples of excellent examples from canofun.com or crooksandliars.com of truthful and HARDBALL stories that are FAR from favorable to Bush because they are truthful.

Before I do so, and before you ask me to do so...how about weighing in on the Hardball clip I linked in the topic post with something more than emoticons and sarcasm.

Thx.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. I'd be appreciative of some examples.

I provided one.

This is a hammering attack against Bush with the truth. Hardly a "tidbit".

However, I will wait to see what you can produce in terms of "cock gobbling for the right" before I form my opinion.

Thx.

[Vickers]

10. You already saw some in the "pay for good press!" thread

:eyes:

Hey, if you like the guy, fantastic, but I think he is a total RW tool. Him saying George has "never been honest" is about as thrilling from a journalistic viewpoint as someone pointing out that "manned flight is now possible!"

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. Are you talking about this video?????

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/asskickreaganbuchdec105.wmv

If so, maybe you should actually watch it.

If not, please provide me with a reference with what you're talking about.

I'm new here, yes...but so far all I've seen regarding tweety is misguided knee-jerks in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2286070
Everyone in that thread who jumped on the anti-tweety bandwagon betrayed themselves as folks who throw out strong opinions on something they know zip about. Were you one of them?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

24. From the "How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules" page

"You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so."

:eyes:

Edit: here's the link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Item 8 under Civility.

[No Exit]

17. Here's a f**king example

A couple of weeks ago the Tweetster had Lindsay Graham on his show. This was at the height of the story about how Graham is seeking to limit habeas corpus.

Tweety let the rather dissipated, washed-out, face of Lindsay Graham yammer on unchecked for quite a few minutes, as the Great Statesman explained to us how torturing of prisoners is, wailll, it's jus' un-'merican, see. But nary a word was ever said to Senatuh Graham about how his quest to limit/weaken/possibly kill habeas corpus was ALSO a severe abuse of prisoners.

Yes, I am against torture. But I am also against holding people prisoner indefinitely, without any attempt at impartial review of WHY they are being kept prisoner. I call that kidnapping.

Usually Tweety is up there, blathering on in his mile-a-minute (and saliva-spewing) questions, interrupting his guest by changing the topic 10 times per minute. But he let Graham go on and on w/o the slightest question...for all the world, just as though Graham WERE some kind of great statesman (which he is NOT.)

As a result, Graham was never confronted with the contradiction of his chest-thumping stance as Mr. American Anti-torture, while he was simultaneously being Mr. Anti-habeas-corpus.

I have previously posted that I was grateful to Tweety for his staying on the subject of the CIA leak. I am. But that doesn't mean Tweety is as hard on repukelicans as he should be. He is not.

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. I'll look for that and weigh in...

it sounds like a bit of a wet noodle complaint. Although your point about habeas corpus is correct, tweety missing a hypocrisy is hardly "cock gobbling for the right".

[No Exit]

34. Thank you for confirming that my point about habeas corpus is correct.

I feel relieved to know that I am able to read the news correctly.

A wet noodle sounds just right for the Tweetster.

I have praised Tweety before, for keeping up continuous coverage of the CIA leak case.

I have watched Tweety for years--since the time of the Clinton administration. For a while, though, I gave him up, because his fast-talking was annoying and because he has a habit of interviewing himself. He often will not let his guests get a word in edgewise. What's the point of having guests, then?

Since October of this year, I try not to miss Tweety's show. (Would that be a show with which you are somehow connected? I guess you can ignore that question... it's not like journalists and their crews are exactly into "full disclosure" these days.) Why? Because I want to hear all the coverage of the CIA leak case. Tell Tweety to keep that coverage up!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

7. Unfortunately, Chris Mathews, like his little feathered friend

blows easily and conveniently with the political winds. One day bush is way up, the other he is way down. Chris, like Tweety, often freaks and screams, "I taut I taw a pooty tat."

[MADem]

9. You clearly don't watch the guy on a regular basis, or if you do, you fail

to hear what he says most days. He is a Kool Aid drinker of the first order.

You also should know that he used to have a direct line to Rover. He was one of the recipients of the "Valerie is fair game" message. Conveniently, he neglected to notify his viewers of this until it all came out in the wash, preferring to play the disinterested third party. He came off looking as soiled as Russert.

Only someone who hasn't been paying attention might not notice what side his bread is buttered on. He dare not stray too far from the reservation, even with all the scandal, because his little brother, Jim, is running as a GOP candidate for LT GOV in PA. He has to balance his Hardball with a double dose of softballs, to shake loose some of that RNC dough for the baby bro.

That whirring sound you hear is Tip O'Neill spinning in his grave.

[jbnow]

23. He called Wilson right away

and warned him about the call. I think that was great.

Though he doesn't talk about getting the call and does talk about the case he is one who definitely thinks cheney and gang were angry at Wilson and di this on purpose. He says cheney knew, even told libby to do it.

He talks about them using the press from misinformation, now they tell judy, she prints it and they all go out on Sunday and refer to the article they planted in the first place,

He says we we duped into war.

I love watching him on this. He likes bush too much as a "nice guy", but he has been speaking out pretty strongly on the leak and the lies into war.
Credit where credit is due.
I ignored him for a long, long time, but he has been worth watching.

[MADem]

25. He had Ed Rendell on the other day

And he was completely nice to the guy, up to the point where he started talking about the PA GOV race. At that point it was like he went off his meds...his agenda, IMO, is convoluted, if viewed in the BEST possible light.

This clip is instructive, and keep in mind, if you do not like Bush, you are a one of those "whack jobs on the left" (Tweety's term, not mine): http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/matthewswhackjobsnov2805.wmv

By their words we shall know them.

[TheFarseer]

28. Tweety is so bipolar

Sometimes he is honest and objective, then the next time he goes even farther bush cheer leading that Hanitty or Rush. I used to like him, but now I wonder what the heck is wrong with him because he says such different and conflicting things all the time.

[Neil Lisst]

31. Amen, bro. He's all over the place.

Tweety doesn't know what he believes any more. He's a leaf in the wind, and it blows him wherever. Some days he's eating spoonfuls of Bush propaganda and spitting it back up. Some days he's on the game and saying something intelligent.

On the whole, he's simply too eager to say whatever he thinks will sound good right then.

[Writer]

36. "Are you one of those dems who think the media should be the leftwing..."

equivalent of FOX?"

Bless you, you brave, brave soul.

[No Exit]

20. "Everyone likes Prethident Bush except the real left-wing wackos"..

..after all, "Prethident Bush does have a certain sort of sunny nobility.":eyes: :puke: :eyes: :puke: :eyes: :puke: :eyes: :puke: :eyes: :puke:

Yeah, Tweety sure cuts to the truth.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[senseandsensibility]

11. Uh, what?

Twit seemed confident. You lost me. Oh, and welcome to DU, where we generally don't think chimp is confident.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. Yes, he often does come off as confident.

It's a little intelectually bereft to make the claim about DU you've made.

A person can come accross as confident regardless of how truthful or forthcoming they are.

Don't let partisanship make you unable to see reality.

[senseandsensibility]

15. Thanks for the advice. Really.

It was so kind, as was the lecture. I have never heard anyone describe chimp as confident on DU. Now I realize you've been here a long time and seen everything. But this is what I've seen in two years. No one thinks he's confident. He's a pretender. This is a board for people who don't like chimp. Later, and enjoy your stay here.

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. Are you assuming something about me?

I don't like Bush either, thankyou.

If you cannot admit that John and Jane Q. Public might not often view his swaggering as confident during his speaches just because you don't like him, then oh well.

"No one thinks he's confident"
What a bizarre statement!

Please don't consider this a "lecture" (heaven forbit!) but consider the difference between perception and reality.

thanks.

[No Exit]

19. Okay, everyone, drop the partisanship!

It's terribly unbecoming!

We must all be fair and balanced.

Fair and balanced, in the face of the faux hype that there is a "war on Christmas", when we are surrounded with--no, buried in-- the trappings of yet another commercial Christmas.

Fair and balanced, in the face of assertions by Tweety and (snicker) Tucker Carlson, that "all the politicians of both parties are equally corrupt all the time", as we watch the Republican senate majority leader under an SEC cloud, and the Republican house majority leader under indictment(s), and numerous Republican congresspersons and senators all being revealed as having willingly taken part in Jack Abramoff's dirty games, and Republican Duke Cunningham having taken $2.4 million in bribes, forcing him to resign after his FELONY conviction, and Irving Scooter Libby, member of both Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's staffs, being indicted for FIVE crimes, and the Republican VP being credibly accused of war crimes by a man who once worked in the same administration with him, and Republican Gossip/Verbal Assassin Karl Rove's misdeeds becoming clearer by the day, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Fair and balanced, in the face of Hyper-Christian Pat Robertson advocating the death of a fellow human being who has committed no crime.

Fair and balanced, in the face of Madman-Pervert O'Reilly advocating the bombing/destruction of a whole American city, because that city had the TEMERITY to try to protect its CHILDREN from being recruited to a war where they would likely die solely to protect rich men's profits.

I was a republican voter for many years. I was not anti-war. I ceased to hold these beliefs when I realized that our republican president, for whom *I* had voted, was taking us into a totally unjustified killing spree in a country which did NOT present a threat to our safety. My "epiphany" (to use an expression currently popularized by the highly confident Donald Rumsfeld) occurred in early 2003. I have seen both sides of the partisan coin.

And I maintain that it's ABOUT FRIKKIN TIME we heard SOMETHING, ANYTHING besides the constant state-sponsored propaganda that "republicans are all good and are the epitome of what is Christian". And I don't give a tinker's damn if someone whines that it's "partisan". They INVENTED "partisan".

[newspeak]

30. ah, yes I remember the 2000 election

all those hard questions to Bush about his insider trading to a tune of over 800,000 dollars that would put Martha Stewart to shame. Then there was a question about his drug usage, but he didn't want to answer-- you know, he might influence the kiddies. And how about his fine record as the governor of Texas--Tweety was all over that one. Then, there's Bush's military record. Yep, don't want to be partisan--don't want to be a lefty by asking real hard questions to a potential leader of our country. Yep, Bush is a really nice guy, a guy you'd like to have a beer with, but I don't think you want to have too many beers with him cause he might be a nasty person drunk. Of course, we heard about the trashing of the White House lie 24/7 by our glorious press, but how about Bush trashing a place he rented when he was younger and stiffed the landlady. Because he's always been such a responsible person. And he is so well educated that he knows that "The Grapes of Wrath" is a stinking, pinko book. You know, that there book talks about hardworking poor folk. Partisan? How about the truth--the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Is that partisan?

[Harper_is_Bush]

32. I think you've got tweety confused with a court of law....

One with Al Frankin as judge and Janeane Garofalo as prosecutor!

I don't know which interview you're referring to, but a link might make your case a lot more than 10 lines of outraged sarsasm.

How about the debates....were the folks who asked the questions at the debates (picked because they were considered by peers and others to be fair and non-partisan) not asking any "hard" questions because they didn't touch upon all the subjects you've referenced?

[No Exit]

35. Pardon me, your bias is showing.

Straw man? What do "Al Franken" and "Janeane (sic) Garofalo" have to do with it?

Your friend Tweety is not some citizen who was "picked" to ask questions at a debate. Your friend Tweety is SUPPOSED to be an experienced journalist.

"Court of law", my foot. Your friend told me everything I needed to know when he referred to "sunny nobility" in the same sentence with "Bush". Give me a break.

Your tactic of demanding instant links for everything is, in my opinion, just another old internet forum canard.

Here's MY "source", or you can call it a "link": I have watched numerous episodes of "Hardball". That's good enough--for a critique of "Hardball". I'm still watching, but when I see something that looks like a full frontal assault on all criticism of Tweety's efforts, it makes "Hardball" look like the Bush administration--which also engages in a full frontal assault on all ITS critics.

Why, exactly, do you find it necessary to take on so many posters in this effort to defend Chris Matthews? Just curious.

[Harper_is_Bush]

37. Just returning 10 lines of sarcasm with 1 or 2

the sarsastic reference to Janeane (sic) Garofalo and Al Franken presiding in a court of law over Bush was illustrating the silliness of the expectations you have for Tweety.

"full frontal assault on all criticism of Tweety's efforts" you say?
Just simmer down, I have no problem with critisism of Tweety's efforts. I have disagreed with posters who treat him like he's a rightwing...."cock knobbler" I believe was the phrase someone used.

I find him to be in the center...I can imagine folks over at FR ranting and frothing over the mans journalism as much as a few posters around here do. That's a good sign for Tweety.

[No Exit]

38. Considering that he consistently covers the CIA leak scandal,

I could have almost agreed with you that Tweety is an eyes-open journalist... until I heard his "sunny nobility" comment about the Crawford Criminal, and his comment about how "everyone likes Prethident Bush except left-wing wackos."

He's basically full of crap. Luckily for him, he sometimes hosts a few guests who are not full of crap.

[No Exit]

18. If you try watching Hardball after a month of not watching any Fox

News Channel, you might see why the other poster was rolling his eyes in response to the assertion that Tweety is a great one for "cutting to the truth".

In comparison with the Fox Propaganda Channel, Tweety looks great. But in comparison with... well, actual unbiased reporting, Tweety gets maybe a "C".

Have you heard of Tweety's comment that Bush has "a certain amount of sunny nobility"? If you could hear such a comment without bursting into helpless laughter, then perhaps your disillusion with Bush is just too recent for you to yet see all that some others have seen for 5-6 years. Tweety said this with a straight face.

Have you heard of Tweety's comment that "everyone likes the president... I like him... I guess everyone but maybe the real lefty wackos likes him"? The Tweetster said that one with a straight face, too.

I AM NOT A FRIKKIN LEFTY WACKO!!! AND I PRAY FOR BUSH'S DEMISE/IMPEACHMENT/WHATEVER, JUST-GET-HIM-OUTA-HERE, EVERY NIGHT! I VOTED FOR THE SONOFABITCH IN 2000! I WAS FORMERLY A REPUBLICAN VOTER!I WANT BUSH GONE!! I WOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON LONG BEFORE I WOULD EVER VOTE FOR ANY BUSH AGAIN!

The Tweetster is not the worst, but he is a brownnosing SAP. Please face reality.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Provide me with the examples you're talking about if possible..

please. I have not seen him say Bush has "a certain amout of sunny nobility". It's quite possible that the context is missing, as it was
in the case of this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2286070

In that case, the poster was outraged becaused tweety had said
"What's wrong with buying journalists to sell the war HERE?"
Problem is, tweety was CLEARLY being sarsastic in asking the question and the entire piece was an admirable look at the facts which are very embarrassing for the Pentagon (& thus Bush)

[No Exit]

33. I HEARD with my own EARS when Tweety referred to Bush's "sunny nobility"

That's good enough for me. You're so full of videos of Tweety, just find it. I can tell you that it was in October or November. I think it may have been around the time Libby was indicted.

I also already provided you with another example: Tweety's unfair characterization of "everyone" who "doesn't like Bush" as "left-wing wackos". I HEARD that one with my own ears, too, and it was within about the last couple of weeks.

Now, I know about Tweety's recent, "What'swrongwithbuyingjournaliststosellthewarHERE?" I recognized it as a rather sarcastic comment, and I think he asked the question to bait Pat Buchanan, who was on there that day with a ridiculous "rah rah" defense of the indefensible practice of buying journalists to "sell" good news. In fact, I defended Tweety on this point on another thread. YOU were also present on that thread.

The reason I ran the words together above is b/c Tweety talks so fast, he often leaves several syllables out of his words. He also has a bad habit of interviewing himself instead of letting the guest get even a word in edgewise. EXCEPT, of course, when he let the dissipated-looking Lindsay Graham go on and on and on and on--Graham singing Graham's own praises.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

13. First of all, my apologies. I gave you smarmy answers to your

your honest questions.

Here is the thing. Mathews may have stumbled on yet another fact that shows this administration for what it is, and he probably reacted with righteous indignation. However, don't be misled, Chris no more blames bush for any of these mistakes than he blames the man in the moon. As far as he is concerned, bush is a man of the people with noble tendencies, who just gets himself into a jam because he is surrounded by guys who are making bad choices. Chris is an apologist, and most of us don't believe this for a second. And I guess that's why we are more than skeptical of anything he might say or do. Not because we don't see your point, but because Chris has over the years proven himself to be easily duped.

Secondly, a belated hello and welcome to DU. :hi:

[grasswire]

21. just yesterday........

....Tweety let Senator Warner get away with a bald-faced lie. Didn't call him on it.

One trouble with Tweety is that he is so eager to push his own viewpoint (which often is shallow and uninformed) that he talks over the guests and does not allow them to actually inform the audience.

[snowbear]

22. Tweety (surprisingly) did an awesome job today!

Despite what that other post said..

It's rare that he does a good job.. so when he does, it's worthy of mention.

Kudos to Tweety (for today anyway) ~~~