Conservatives Blast NBC's David Gregory

[naked gent]

In deference to chance and kulindahr I watched the video again and I don't think gregory is out of line. I think he asked a valid question and one which did not require him to read the entire report to ask.

Whenever you hear this extremly partisan white house say someone else is being partisan my advice would be to duck because the s**t is flying.

The white house spin on this report is that it isn't a rejection of their conduct of the war and thats a fair point to be debated. Their desire not to look back is understandable but serves only their interests. This is an administration that could launch an attack against Iran without ever demonstrating that they know how to fight a war. If we don't want the mistakes of the past repeated we should not ignore them no matter how much the white house wants us to.

I concede that the Bush administration has f**ked up Iraq so bad that no one can fix it but I don't understand why they should get a pass on it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have no desire to give a pass on it.
The question was a valid one, true -- it was his approach, and his constant interrupting, not giving Snow a chance to give a coherent answer, that makes me judge it as partisan. From what bits we have of Snow's answer, it looks like he meant to make the typical ploy and talk about what he wanted to rather than really answer, but we'll never really know.
But any decent reporter should have read the whole thing before asking, if only to cover his own ass. One should also know that clipping quotes out of context is always dangerous. Furthermore, if he's dealing with "the public's right to know", he ought to have the decency to be able to stand there and say, "Yes, I did read the entire report. Now, will you answer my question?" instead of admitting what Snow apparently could discern, that he hadn't read the whole thing, and then play don't-let-the-other-guy-talk in order to avoid facing the music.

As for partisan accusations, one could argue that Snow ought to be able to know it when he sees it.....

 

[chance1]

In deference to chance and kulindahr I watched the video again and I don't think gregory is out of line. I think he asked a valid question and one which did not require him to read the entire report to ask.

Whenever you hear this extremly partisan white house say someone else is being partisan my advice would be to duck because the s**t is flying.

The white house spin on this report is that it isn't a rejection of their conduct of the war and thats a fair point to be debated. Their desire not to look back is understandable but serves only their interests. This is an administration that could launch an attack against Iran without ever demonstrating that they know how to fight a war. If we don't want the mistakes of the past repeated we should not ignore them no matter how much the white house wants us to.

I concede that the Bush administration has f**ked up Iraq so bad that no one can fix it but I don't understand why they should get a pass on it.

naked - this is not about the report - that stands on its own for sure

his quotes from the report are accurate

he then spins this into his bias

sorry to repeat myself (smelter will have a fit) but he then says

"Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this President's handling of the war?

the basis for this question (not really) is that the study group has rejected the President's handling of the war. They have not. They have not said "we should have done this, should have done that", etc.

they are saying this is what we should do

Baker has already said this on numerous talk shows

But back to the point

Gregory is biased
Gregory was not prepared

0 for 2

not gonna argue with you about the merits of the report - another thread

and looking back and blaming serves no purpose really - looking present and forward is what it's about - whether the admin is repub or dem or whatever

thanks for the relook

 

[naked gent]

I can go along with that kulindahr. He should have read the report and he should not have interrupted him but what I flinch at is Snow's use of the word partisan. Before the election those who criticized the administration were either unconcerned with keeping the country safe or were unpatriotic now, having lost the election those who wish for the administration to face reality are being called partisan.

The only reason Bush is considering a change is the election results. The only reason he's saying he's not satisfied is because 70% of the country isn't satisfied. You might think events on the ground would make him rethink his strategy but I don't think thats the case.

Is it partisan of me to point out that after 9-11 Bush said that any country that harbored terrorists would be our enemy and that we would not wait to be attacked to attacked them yet Pakistan currently does harbor terrorists who do attack our troops every day in Afghanistan and then dash back accross the border for sancturay.

I'm not suggesting we attack Pakistan but I am saying he should be held accountable for what he says and does and in my opinion when Snow used the word partisan that is an attempt to dodge responsibility for the errors they have made. Meaning we should not pay attention to those who question the past because they are not really serious just partisan.

The past has taught us that this administration is far far better at attacking the people who question them than they are those we're fighting. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing it was the other way around.

 

[naked gent]

sorry for the double post

 

[naked gent]

Chance I agree he was unprepared but I don't think he was biased.

And if you don't to look back then if the mistakes of the past are repeated I guess you'll be ok with that.

I can understand the WH not wanting to review their awful mistakes but why you?

Chance far more than me you buy the whole war on terror as presented. I believe the threat to be way overblown but if you believe it then why don't you complain about why we allow Pakistan to harbor those who have and continue to attack us. Bush said he'd get those guys and won elections because of it why don't you hold him to it. If you really believe in this war why don't you demand an expanded military so rather than beg NATO to send more troops to Afghanistan we can supply our own.

Or do you think those partisan questions?

 

[unclaimedblessing]

And the White House Press Secretary isn't biased and never takes a partisan stand?
I'd like to see Anderson Cooper have a shot at him. AC asks the hard questions and calls bullshit "bullshit" when he hears it.
Aren't the journalists supposed to ask the questions the American people want answered? Reading the transcripts it appears both individuals interrupted each other frequently.

 

[Andreus]

good one andreus

when u get beat on the merits of the debate, go for the weak kneed insults - "neocon carpet chewers"

Unbecoming andreus - and frankly you're becoming more and more like ........

never mind

Watch the video
Watch/listen to Gregory when he does his radio/TV schtick

It all speaks for itself

that is if you are willing to listen

like?

Alfie?

i don't have a problem with that....

but you seem to have a hard time with talking to peoples beliefs without personally attacking them, so save the self riteous criticism and stick to the points.

chance, you are approaching htis with such incredible partisan bias that it is mind numbing really.

the reporter quoted a non partisan committee report, and snow knew the president was not ready to answer yet, so instead of acting like a government official, he acted liek the partisan talking head pundit he really is. this makes bush look worse to everyone but YOU and that should be enough to at least make you reconsider.

either everyone here is living in a vacuum or one person is....you.

i tend to think that the reasonable answer would be that your interpretation of the events is off the mark and you are so misguided by partisan slash and burn propaganda that you are willing to engage in endless histrionics just to make people shut up that dont agree with you

 

[smelter]

sorry to repeat myself (smelter will have a fit)

I'm happy to report that Smelter has left the building!

 

[Centexfarmer]

This thread seems to illustrate, more than anything, why we have juries of six or twelve, instead of two.

Jeezus, I would love to play a game of telephone with y'all.

How two people can see/hear the same thing and come up with two completely different opinions.

Interesting.

It does come down to personality doesn't it?

 

[Andreus]

centex...

if you really read what we are saying we actuallya rent disagreeing

we are both saying that the comments made looked bad for bush

chance seems to believe that just presenting facts that make his side look bad is partisan. I believe that facts are facts and they cant be partisan

one thing we all agree on.... Gregory's questions made Bush look bad and snow didnt like it.

Chance thinks that a reporter.... someone paid to be non partisan was being unfair

I believe that Bush's mouth peice, the man paid to be partisan and represent his president in the best posible light, was being partisan. Since thats his job it seems reasonable to me.

lets all be clear here

Snow's job is not to diseminate information. it is to represent a partisan politician to the press.

slamming the reporter is just part of that partisan job.

most people are bright enough to grasp that

 

[chance1]

centex...

if you really read what we are saying we actuallya rent disagreeing

we are both saying that the comments made looked bad for bush

chance seems to believe that just presenting facts that make his side look bad is partisan. I believe that facts are facts and they cant be partisan

one thing we all agree on.... Gregory's questions made Bush look bad and snow didnt like it.

Chance thinks that a reporter.... someone paid to be non partisan was being unfair

I believe that Bush's mouth peice, the man paid to be partisan and represent his president in the best posible light, was being partisan. Since thats his job it seems reasonable to me.

lets all be clear here

Snow's job is not to diseminate information. it is to represent a partisan politician to the press.

slamming the reporter is just part of that partisan job.

most people are bright enough to grasp that

at the risk of incurring snap's wrath (again) I will simply say

gregory is a lightweight

he got very flustered when snow called him on his grandstanding/partisanship

he interrupted snow

and people in the know say that the WH Press Corps loathes Gregory - they know he is not one of them - that he does not perform the task he was hired for - that he makes them all look bad - that he wants to be better than that

snow was doing his job

gregory was not

I'm done

promise

 

[Andreus]

funny

ive never heard anyone in the press speak of him that way

care to share your sources?

Gregory was doing his job. he was holding the admin accountable when the congress even refuses to try to.

pffft

 

[Centexfarmer]

at the risk of incurring snap's wrath (again) I will simply say

gregory is a lightweight

he got very flustered when snow called him on his grandstanding/partisanship

he interrupted snow

and people in the know say that the WH Press Corps loathes Gregory - they know he is not one of them - that he does not perform the task he was hired for - that he makes them all look bad - that he wants to be better than that

snow was doing his job

gregory was not

I'm done

promise

What I don't get is, if Gregory is such a "poser" (my words) why not revoke his press pass to the White House for being rude?

Wouldn't that get the point across better than they don't allow "partisan hacks" into the Press Briefing room of the White House, instead of all of this chest beating and grand-standing from the right?



</IMG>

 

[Andreus]

What I don't get is, if Gregory is such a "poser" (my words) why not revoke his press pass to the White House for being rude?

Wouldn't that get the point across better than they don't allow "partisan hacks" into the Press Briefing room of the White House, instead of all of this chest beating and grand-standing from the right?



</IMG>

who knows what passes through the mind of a corrupt bush adminstrator.

sense has little to do with it

its all about supression of the freedom of speech

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe they want one reporter out there who comes poorly prepared and is rude enough to not let their spokesman get his answer out?

I'm tired of trying to comprehend what goes on in the White House these days, so that guess is where I'll leave the matter.

 

[Centexfarmer]

who knows what passes through the mind of a corrupt bush adminstrator.

sense has little to do with it

its all about supression of the freedom of speech

Well honestly, if it was Miss Nancy Needlenice, from the Keokuk Iowa Gazzette asking the same question, in the same manner, and with the same "tone," would she have gotten the same treatment from right?

That's what I want to know.

If so, then that speaks volumes of the lack of message regarding the Iraq Study Group's report and what it says/is saying.

Let's not talk about THAT!

Let's talk about the questions being asked about it, and who's asking!

I say kick Gregory's ass out of the White House "briefing room," and put Miss Nancy Meedlenice up front, because she dresses like a Republican and has big hooters!






sarcasm, people, sarcasm

 

[Andreus]

you know

this reminds me of that interview with pelosi's daughter.

she stated that everytime Bush slams Nancy pelosi she considers it a gift because he gets a one liner off on the attack yet she gets a week of press time talking about her response to the sound bite.

Gregory is the real winner here, because after the whole issue is long forgotten, he will be remembered as the guy that stood up to the mouthpeice of the president. the reasons swirling around this incident will be forgotten, but his courage wont.

 

[chance1]

you know


Gregory is the real winner here, because after the whole issue is long forgotten, he will be remembered as the guy that stood up to the mouthpeice of the president. the reasons swirling around this incident will be forgotten, but his courage wont.

Winners:

1 - know what they are talking about

The Iraq Study Group report was available to read - he did not do it - I guess he had more important things to do than his job

2 - know their jobs

To ask questions - to use facts to ask good tough questions - not to position something as if they were representing the opposing party. The "question" that he asked could just of easily come from the mouth of Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Durbin - you get the point

Courage?

reminds me of a saying

better to keep your mouth shut and let others wonder if you're a fool then to open it and confirm it - or something like that

I thought we were done with this one?

 

[Kulindahr]

If Gregory is remembered for this, it should be as a bad example, because of his constant rude interruptions.

BTW, Chance -- logically speaking, just because Pelosi could have asked a question doesn't mean it isn't a good one. That condition may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.