Imus said Kerry still for IWR vote

[karynnj]

Talking to Barnickle (who questioned it saying "Kerry, told you that?" which Imus sort of ignored.) Chris Matthews also did this yesterday. Is this another RW/Media disinformation efort? It's bad enough that they hardly covered Kerry's Iraq speech.

Imus praised Harold Ford for saying he was now sorry he voted that way. (Ford wasn't on during the above comments)

[whometense]

1. I missed the Imus comment

(haven't watched him in over a year), but heard what Matthews said. It was an outright lie, and jumped out at me. I had the same thought you did - "oh, I see you read Rove's fax today."

I heard one other person say this yesterday, but can't remember who it was. It got to me, and I had to stop watching the news. There certainly appears to be a coordinated attempt to marginalize JK, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for his supposed allies to jump to his defense. Not if they think it will help position them for 2008.

Sorry to be so cynical - brain's tired this morning....

[Mass]

2. Sadly, I have to agree with you on both points.

There seems to be a very concerted effort of both sides to marginalize him and never refer to him when you speak about something he advocated and always when it is something negative.

I guess today is a bad day. Too many memories, but I feel really depressed when I should feel happy that Dems in the Senate made a significant move.

[whometense]

3. Unfortunately, me too.

I feel sad today, and have lost the exuberance I felt yesterday afternoon.

Heard Larisa on Morning Sedition this morning, and she said she'll be excited about the Intelligence Committee followup report when she sees it. She was very appreciative of Reid's maneuver yesterday, but believes Roberts is way too hard core to actually give in on substance.

[Mass]

4. I think Dems know it - this is probably why Kerry asked for an independant

commission in his statement, but they had to make the move in the Senate first.

[karynnj]

5. It just seems so unfair. I emailed both shows, but

knew even as I was doing it that it would do nothing other than let me feel I responded.

I had thought that Kerry being first on both issues on Iraq would be obvious - but it's like he's invisible. Still there are 5 million people minimum who know what he is doing. It shows how far our media has come when an unknown, but articulate and charismatic 27 year old decorated vet could get extensive coverage on every network that existed while the same man - wiser and more knowlegable and every bit as articuate can not get any decent coverage although he's a respected Senator and the Democratic Nominee last year.

There is something wrong here.

[karynnj]

6. I am now turning off the TV - but not breaking it

Nora O'Donell had Mehlman on to discus the Pre-war Iraq problem:
- he says there is an unheard of breakdown in civility in the Senate because of the Democrats
- he said Kerry voted for the war and then not to fund it (I wish I could do a Dean scream - it might help.)
- he attacked Schumer (pre-empitively) on the SC

Then they had NO Democratic response. Pravda would be proud!

[ginnyinWI]

8. washington journal (cspan) was pretty good this morning

The question was, "what effect did the the closed session in the Senate have?" or something like that. They had some very good Democratic supporters saying that we really need to get to the bottom of the use of intelligence that led us to war. The other side pretty much just said that it would have no effect. I didn't hear anybody strongly defending the Republicans. But this is only one day--some days it's really depressing.

[whometense]

7. Madison 2004

[_dynamicdems]

9. This makes me so angry!

There is more than an effort to marginalize John Kerry. The media is afraid to even speak his name. When Tweety interviewed Howard Dean, and Dean had the effrontery to mention the Senator's name, Tweety nearly freaked out and cut off Governor Dean in mid-statement. The online transcripts do not show this! I could have kissed Howard Dean for his courage in trying to speak out on John Kerry's behalf. As for Imus: he's plain freaking nuts! Too many drugs: one minute he loves JK, the next he's dissing him. Kerry has been very generous to consider the I-Man his "friend."

Here is the limited transcript of the beginning of the exchange, but MSNBC.com didn't print the part where Tweety cut off Howard Dean or his bizarre reaction to John Kerry's name. If anyone has a full transcript of the interview with Tweety's complete words, please print it or put up a link to it. I can't remember the wording, but it was pretty shocking to see such a vehement reaction to the mere mention of Kerry's name by the host of "Hardball." Hardball...more like limp biscuit!

MATTHEWS: How come 80 percent of your party is opposed to the war in Iraq, believes we shouldn't have gone, and the leadership continues to stick with the war? John Kerry won't come out against the war, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton. They're all for war.

DEAN: Look, first of all, when you say this, look, I was very much against the war as you know, because I suspected...

MATTHEWS: You're with the 80 percent.

DEAN: I suspected we were also not being told the truth, which turns out, we weren't. But I thought John Kerry's speech the other week was very good. We're there now, and whether you know, I was on one side, John Kerry was on the other, whatever. We're now in Iraq, and now we have to figure out how to get out, and Kerry has a plan to get out, which is more than the president.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. Kudos to Dean for trying to mention Kerry's plan

However, it's not entirely honest to suggest that they were on opposing sides, implying that Kerry was once for war and now is not. SO that rubs me the wrong way. Still, Dean WAS trying to bring up Kerry's plan and give him credit, so of course Tweety had to intervene :eyes:

[karynnj]

11. Glad you said that! I can see that it would take a lot to expect

Dean, to reject Matthews frame, and say "Look 2004 is over, Kerry wouldn't have gone to war in March 2003. In fact, he was with me in asking Bush to not go to war at that point in time, 6 months after the IWR." It would have been cool, because Matthews head would have exploded, but Dean would have been admitting that his campaign created a difference that didn't exist. (In fairness, Kerry and other jumped on Dean's mainly accurate but not political "the world isn't safer because we captured Saddam" in Dec 2003.)

So, it is good that he is behind Kerry's plan. (Won't certain DU heads explode if in 2008, Dean pushes Kerry, while Frome pushes Hillary?)

[_dynamicdems]

14. I think Dean was speaking to his supporters

when he mentioned the differences between himself and Senator Kerry on the decision to go to war. (We all know that the burden of the decision was not on Dean's shoulders, but Deniacs do not make this distinction.) He may be trying to ease them into support of Kerry in 2008, which would be awesome, assuming that there is another Kerry run.

If Senator Kerry doesn't run for President, I'll certainly support my candidate's candidate of choice, a decision which, for me, epitomizes loyalty and trust. The question is: do Deniacs have that same loyalty and trust? Would they support the candidate of Governor Dean's choosing? Or would they just latch onto the next new thing?

[_dynamicdems]

12. I don't think Dean mean it that way.

In the interview, Dean was trying to speak through Tweety's interruptions. It didn't sound like criticism the way he said it. It sounded more like he was trying to address the folks who are criticizing Kerry for his vote (primarily Deaniacs). The "whatever" acted to diminish his statement about opposite sides as not his own particular point-of-view. I think that one word changes the context of Dean's statement. Dean can insert foot in mouth on occasion, so I listen to the gist of what he is saying. And the gist was pro-Kerry so I wouldn't put too much stock in the opposite sides comment.

[karynnj]

15. I should have reversed my paragraphs - Dean did more good

I agree that Dean bringing up Kerry's plan which the media seems to suppressing as well as they can is the main thing he's doing.

My point was that Dean knows he and Kerry were never on opposite sides - except over who should be President. Both capitalized on the others weaker points - that's politics.

It just seems that Dean being Dean has the sbility if he chooses to really explode this myth. If DEAN could say what I wrote, it would lead to the clearing up a lot of the internal fighting in the party. Dean in fact might be the only one who could really do this.

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. Sadly, I don't see that happening

I do not think Dean would risk his popularity among the lefty freepers by admitting that his supposed "difference" from Kerry and other Dems was contrived, a Trippi media creation.

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see it happening.

[_dynamicdems]

17. Sadly, I must agree.

Dean can't do that.

Trippi. Ewww. Talk about your oily, opportunistic scumbags.

[karynnj]

18. I actually don't think I know enough about Dean to know

He was a moderate Vt governor with Presidential aspirations. You are right that he and Trippi used each other. The real question is what core values Dean actually has and whether he sees that he probably doesn't have the finesse the Presidency requires. If he accepts the latter and wants to strengthen the party - this would be the most clear cut way to do it.

He might lose part of his fan club and the Democrats could lose them as well, but he would gain respect as a uniter in the party. I am with you that it's not likely - I think he might like his "cool" image (one he likely never had before - unlike Kerry) - and last year before the convention would hjave been the right time to do this. (although he worked very hard for Kerry.)

[sandnsea]

13. Frankly, the Dems are blowing it again

This should have been about the cabal and PNAC and their propaganda and the Bush Doctrine. Stupid stupid stupid to fight over the intelligence again, or to try to have the debate outside the context of PNAC.

If we were really smart, we'd say "Clinton Saved You From Saddam's WMD". That wag the dog bombing??? He blew it all up. So there.

[TayTay]

19. Do you really think so?

I'm torn on this. We know about PNAC and the entire gamut of lies that were told in the build-up to the war but the American people don't. PNAC *sounds* like (but really isn't) tinfoil hat land. Do you think the Dems have a plan to bring America along on this trip to find out what happened? I think it is a process and that they have to lay down one brick at a time. (My 'on the other hand' idea is that we should go for broke on this and spread out the whole shebang at once. However, I'm not sure that will play to most of America. I'm torn.)

BTW, did you see the article that was referenced in DU about Sy Hersh and his views on the Fitzgerald investigation. Well worth reading. Hersh says:

Seymour Hersh, one of journalism's crankier bulldogs, was in an upbeat mood. At least for him. A confidential, well-placed source had told him that U.S. special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's 22-month inquiry into the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, wife of ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson IV, would go further than anyone had heretofore thought.

"He's going to save America," Hersh predicted, on the phone from his home in Washington, just days before Fitzgerald announced indictments against I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on Friday.

"Because it's not just about Wilson," maintained Hersh, who, as a New York Times reporter in the late 1960s, first blew the lid off the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and, more recently, exposed abuses at Abu Ghraib, the prison west of Baghdad where U.S. forces engaged in torture and humiliation of prisoners. He appears in Toronto tomorrow to speak to the group Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.

"Fitzgerald's going deep. He may just unravel the whole conspiracy," continues Hersh, who might be proven right. While Libby resigned after being indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements, Fitzgerald continues to investigate Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's influential deputy chief of staff.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051031.wxhersh31/BNStory/Entertainment

Gawd, I hope so. I hope Fitzie is going after them all. Then this stuff will come out in a believable fashion. But to get back to being torn, is America prepared for a body blow of this nature? Will it be believed? Watergate unfolded at nearly glacial speed and the public had an opportunity to become knowledgeable about the crimes committed in a timely, but not rushed way. I worry that if so much info comes out at once, it might get discounted.

What do you think?

[sandnsea]

21. The WMD fight is the hardest

Much easier to expose their motives and the Bush Doctrine, which are written in black and white. Then go on and explain how the intelligence manufacturing fits. Otherwise people are scratching their heads, why would they lie?? And they'll come to the conclusion it was a tragic but unintentional mistake.

We lost the WMD fight and it's very complicated stuff and alot of "could be" and "not likely" and "possibly". Even Baradai and Blix. That's how they got away with it before. Then there's Clinton's words in 1998 and he hasn't figured out how to get around them either, that I've heard.

Once people understand that the Bush Doctrine is US policy and what it means and how the result is Iraq and many more wars, I really believe impeachment would be demanded within minutes. We don't even have to mention PNAC itself, just the players and their ideology which they've written on for years and years. I kind of used PNAC as short hand to the whole stinky cabal.

Did you know Vulcans comes from the Roman god, who is the God of the manufacturing of arms??? :scared:

[TayTay]

22. Despite all the negativity on GD, the idea seems to be

getting through. A majority of the American people now think the war was wrong. There is NO support for any other actions in the Middle East. That is something. (CBS News had Bush's popularity down to 35%. That is awful, awful ratings. He has no standing to do anything with numbers like that. Thank goodness, as all his actions are awful as well.)

I think it is beginning to seep in that something is very, very wrong with the Republicans and their strategy of pre-emptive war. This is a dangerous and un-American thing. I think these polls reflect this feeling that someone is lying and the consequences have been awful.

I hope Hersh is right and that Fitzgerald is gonig all the way on this. Because it's not just Bush who has to be exposed. He is a lame duck now after all. IT's the whole neo-conservative philosophy of taking this country to war because they want to, not because they have to. That ideology has to be smashed and put away forever. It is wrong.

Did you see the WaPo article today about the foreign prisons that the US uses in lawfully elected democratic nations in Eastern Europe. Prisoners are being tortured there and this exposure of the existence of thise prisons might subect the United States to prosecution under the laws of those countries and under the UN (trial at the Hague.) OMG! People in the CIA and State are certainly no longer afraid of the neo-cons because someone dropped a very big dime with this one. This was a jaw dropping story.

[sandnsea]

25. Pre-emptive war

I don't think most people really get that pre-emptive war is a written down security policy. I think people see Iraq as the same sort of policy of striking a country we know is an imminent threat, and oops on that whole bad intelligence thingy. I don't think they understand the ideology shift set up the environment for them to manufacture the bad intelligence.

Anyway, I've got a headache. After having people tell me for 2 years that all of DU knew there was no WMD, when I see EarlG's 2003 post and it says "evidence unclear", suddenly I had it all wrong and they meant "imminent threat". Except not.

[jillan]

20. You know what else I heard him say this morning?

Paraphrasing here -

The dems closed down the senate yesterday - geez - what was that about?

Hello! Imus - hello! Is anything under that cowboy hat?

I don't comprehend Imus. He is a dem. But he is an ass. One day I was listening to him and he was telling his sports guy that he was fat, on the air. And now when I listen to him, I hear him call that guy "fatty". How humiliating. Not like Imus is a sexy John Kerry, or anything close. I don't get him, I don't get why he is still around.
I like to listen to him only because he always has great guests.

[wisteria]

23. I e-mailed Imus some of Kerry's speech., pointing out the apology.

I think we have to answer these misleading comments. It lets them know we are watching and listening and would appreciate factual information it also can't hurt to let them know we are still interested in hearing about Kerry.

[politicasista]

24. The IWR vote has done nothing but divide us

Sometimes I wish that all Dems had voted against it, but I guess people will still complain anyway.