HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » FourScore » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 02:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,704

Journal Archives

Bush CIA Deputy Director Admits We Were Lied Into Iraq War

Tue May 19, 2015 at 07:14 PM PDT
Bush CIA Deputy Director Admits We Were Lied Into Iraq War
by ericlewis0

On Hardball tonight, Chris Matthews interviewed ex-CIA Deputy Director (and Acting Director) under George W. Bush, Michael Morrell. Here is a partial transcript, courtesy of Mother Jones:

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

MATTHEWS: Was that true?

MORELL: We were saying—

MATTHEWS: Can you answer that question? Was that true?

MORELL: That's not true.

MATTHEWS: Well, why'd you let them get away with it?

MORELL: Look, my job Chris—

MATTHEWS: You're the briefer for the president on intelligence, you're the top person to go in and tell him what's going on. You see Cheney make this charge he's got a nuclear bomb and then they make subsequent charges he knew how to deliver it…and nobody raised their hand and said, "No that's not what we told him."

MORELL: Chris, Chris Chris, what's my job, right? My job—

MATTHEWS: To tell the truth.

MORELL: My job—no, as the briefer? As the briefer?

MATTHEWS: Okay, go ahead.

MORELL: As the briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV.

The discussion went on:

MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.


As Chris Matthews said, "This is a big deal." Big props to him for getting the confession.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before Morrell claims he didn't properly hear the questions.


TOM TOMORROW: Critical Reactions


The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire Strikes Back
Scott Beauchamp May 14, 2015

The story itself has a dreamlike aura.

Seymour Hersh is a pioneer of investigative journalism, the modern iteration of which he fashioned almost singlehandedly by uncovering the 1968 My Lai massacre, during the Vietnam War. Americans had opposed the war before My Lai—everyone knew what the American government was capable of, and many suspected that it was concealing the true extent of the horrors in Vietnam—but Hersh’s 1969 dispatches gave them coordinates to navigate their outrage by. Hersh presented the facts in black and white. After Hersh’s revelations, skeptics on the left didn’t have to feel like paranoids anymore. It turned out they had been right all along.

Hersh’s work in the aughts had much the same effect. In 2004, he exposed torture at Abu Ghraib. In 2008, he found that U.S. Special Forces were operating in Iran. The list goes on, with each discovery providing a single fleck of color. Take a step back to widen your field of vision, and you’ll be able to make out Hersh’s pointillist masterpiece: a painting of the lies the American elite have told to mask the lawless violence of pursuing their imperial ambitions.

Because of the penetration and scope of Hersh’s work, it is as much an indictment of the American media’s coverage of elites as it is one of the American government. To engage with Hersh properly, even to criticise him, the media would necessarily have to break from its day-to-day reporting of political horse races and its slavish echoing of official narratives. It would have to expose the government to shrewd interrogation in the process. That being the case, Hersh’s work is important, even if parts of it do turn out to be inaccurate...


...Predictably, many in the media have rushed to the government’s defense. Hersh’s anonymous sources rankle them. The story itself, which is so far removed from the official narrative and implicates corruption at the highest levels of government, has a dreamlike aura. Never mind that the account the government gave has been deteriorating from the start, and the glaring contradictions between the official versions as related by the Pakistani and American governments. Put aside the fact that someone else using different sources reported a version of Hersh’s story in 2011, or that NBC, within a day, had already confirmed a key point of Hersh’s narrative. If Hersh’s critics actually did submerge themselves in a detailed re-reporting of his allegations, the process would subjugate the American ruling class to deeper scrutiny than usual...


Hillary is peanuts compared to Bernie's biggest opponent...the MSM

I knew this would be the case even before he announced his candidacy for President. He is too articulate. His arguments make sense. He has the ability to energize the democratic base while also appealing to swing voters, and maybe even some moderate republicans. This is dangerous for those who want to control our politicians.

In other words, he's a THREAT to the corporate ownership of our democracy. That includes the corporations that now own the media.

Sure, MSNBC will have him on; but he's singin' to the choir on MSNBC. In the meantime, other stations are calling him "fringe" and brushing him off as "not a viable candidate". The discussion becomes whether or not his real motive is to force Hillary to sound more populist - without him present to weigh in on the discussion.



ABC Good Morning America <netaudr@abc.com>
ABC Nightline <niteline@abc.com>
ABC This Week <netaudr@abc.com>
CBS FACE THE NATION <ftn@cbsnews.com>
CBS Sunday Morning <sundays@cbsnews.com>
CNN LATE EDITION <late.edition@cnn.com>, <Wolf Blitzer wolf.blitzer@cnn.com>
CNN RELIABLE SOURCES <reliable@cnn.com>



ABC News Washington Bureau
Address 1717 DeSales St NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel 202-222-7300
Fax 202-222-7684

I found 2 addresses for GMA (not sure which is right):

Good Morning America
Address 147 Columbus Ave, New York NY 10023
Tel 212-456-5900
Fax 212-456-7257/7290
Letters netaudr@abc.com

"Good Morning America"
ABC News
1965 Broadway
New York, NY 10023

"This Week"
ABC News
1717 DeSales, NW
Washington, DC 20036


CBS Washington Bureau
Address 2020 M St NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel 202-457-4321
Fax 202-659-2586

"Face the Nation"
CBS News
2020 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

"CBS This Morning"
524 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019


Washington Bureau
111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
Address 820 1st St NE, Washington DC 20002
Tel 202-898-7621
Fax 202-515-2919
Letters late.edition@cnn.com
Anchor Wolf Blitzer wolf.blitzer@cnn.com 202-898-7622
Executive Producer Sam Feist sam.feist@cnn.com 202-898-7622

Reliable Sources
Address 820 1st St NE, Washington DC 20002
Tel 202-898-7620
Fax 202-898-7611
Letters reliable@cnn.com
Anchors Howard Kurtz kurtzh@washpost.com 202-334-7535 ,
Bernard Kalb bernard.kalb@turner.com
Senior Producer Jennifer Avellinio


NBC Washington Bureau
Address 4001 Nebraska Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016
Tel 202-885-4200
Fax 202-362-2009
Letters world@msnbc.com

(Again, 2 differenct addresses/phone numbers for MTP)

"Meet the Press"
NBC News
4001 Nebraska Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Meet the Press
4001 Nebraska Ave NW, Washington DC 20016
Tel 202-885-4598
Fax 202-966-4544
Letters mtp@msnbc.com

"Today" Show
NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Fax 212-664-2914
Email today@nbc.com

Address One MSNBC Plaza, Secaucus NJ 07094
Tel (212) 664-6605
Email letters@msnbc.com


P.O. Box 2626
Washington, DC 20013

No one called these rioters "Thugs" - I wonder what was different...Hmm...

On the evening of July 11, 1951, one of the biggest riots in U.S. history began after a young black couple moved into an apartment in all-white Cicero, IL, west of Chicago. The husband, Harvey Clark, was a World War II veteran who migrated to Chicago from Mississippi and was working as a bus driver. He and his wife Johnetta had been crammed with their two children in a two-room tenement with a family of five on the city's overcrowded South Side.

The couple found more space and cheaper rents in Cicero, closer to his work, but the sheriff turned them away when they first tried to move in. With a court order in hand, the couple finally moved their belongings into the apartment on July 11, as a mob formed around them, heckling and throwing rocks. The mob, many of them eastern European immigrants, grew to as many as 4,000 by nightfall. The couple fled, unable to stay overnight in their new apartment.

That night, the mob stormed the apartment and hurled the family's belongings out of a third floor window: the sofa, the chairs, the clothes, the baby pictures. The mob tore out the fixtures: the stove, the radiators, the sinks. They smashed the piano, overturned the refrigerator, bashed in the toilet. They set the family's belongings on fire and then firebombed the building, leaving even the white tenants homeless. The rioters overturned police cars and threw stones at firefighters who tried to put out the fire.

The Illinois Governor, Adlai Stevenson, had to call in the National Guard for the first time since the 1919 race riots in Chicago. It took more than 600 guardsmen, police officers and sheriff's deputies to beat back the mob that night and three more days for the rioting over the Clarks to subside.

The Clarks were prevented from spending a single night in Cicero. A total of 118 men were arrested in the rioting but none were indicted. Instead, the rental agent and the owner of the apartment building were indicted for inciting a riot by renting to the Clarks in the first place. The Cicero riot attracted worldwide attention and became a symbol of northern hostility to the arrival of millions of African-Americans during the Great Migration.

-- From the book, The Warmth of Other Suns

Go to Page: 1