David Gregory: WHERE was public opinion??? (in the run-up to the Iraq invasion)

[seafan]

David Gregory is very defensive tonight on Hardball, under the withering accusations by Scott McClellan in his new book that the White House Press Corps was too soft on the administration, allowing the administration to lie to the American people to trump up false reasons for a war.



David asked Chris Matthews plaintively: "Where was Congress, where was the Senate, where was public opinion?"



Right here, David.


The public was screaming in 2002 to stop Bush from attacking Iraq.








A child next to a poster during a protest against a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, in Washington, October 26, 2002. Tens of thousands of people gathered by the Vietnam war memorial on the Mall and then marched to the White House. REUTERS/Eliana Aponte








And here:


Pictures of Anti-War Protests from around the World, early 2003



Over 200,000 protesters marched in San Francisco on Sunday, February 16, 2003









David, maybe if you'd spent LESS TIME dancing with Karl Rove, and more time doing your job, you could have been more serious about holding this administration accountable for the lies they told us repeatedly.





White House Senior Advisor Karl Rove (R) performs a rap dance alongside NBC White House correspondent David Gregory during the entertainment section of the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner at a hotel in Washington.
March 30, 2007



David Gregory, you should lose your job.

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. Could not have said this better myself.

[eleny]

2. Let him know how you feel

I did here --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23580538 /

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I think he must have a selective memory to have forgotten all of that.

[Gabi Hayes]

16. but he knows how to read a script

the scripted press conference, just two weeks before the invasion:

In 2007, PBS’s Bill Moyers will report that “the White House press corps will ask no hard questions… about those claims,” because the entire press conference is scripted. “Sure enough, the president’s staff has given him a list of reporters to call on,” Moyers will report. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer later admits to giving Bush the list, which omits reporters from such media outlets as Time, Newsweek, USA Today, and the Washington Post.......Several questions later, Bush pretends to choose from the available reporters, saying: “Let’s see here… Elizabeth… Gregory… April… Did you have a question or did I call upon you cold?”'

[maui9002]

137. Not unlike lots of folks back in 2003

I had arguments with my family, my co-workers, and my neighbors about going into Iraq; I was accused of being anti patriotic and on the side of the terrorists. No matter how much I suggested that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, my arguments were met with disdain because "fighting back against the terrorists" was the popular thing to do at the time. Five years later, none of the individuals with whom I had those arguments has expressed any remorse to me; they are just silent. I suspect if challenged, they would say something to the effect of what David Gregory said because it's human behavior to "disremember" (borrowing from the Bush lexicon) things that would put you in a bad light. But as the OP demonstrates in words and pictures, there was lots of vocal, passionate opposition before the war, and shame on David Gregory and others refusing to listen.

[BlooInBloo]

4. We know where the press was: Busy ignoring Kennedy's big anti-war speech...

What fuckers they are.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200805280002

[TomInTib]

5. Remember when they claimed there were less than 25K in San Francisco?

Everyone knew they were lying, and they just hung in there.

Deal is, they understand that the average American is as dumb as a hammer.

[KansDem]

13. I remember that!

CorpMedia would give the numbers of demonstrators after dividing by "10"

250,000 demonstrators? "25,000"
25,000 demonstrators? "2,500"
2,500 demonstrators? "250"

A weird form of "CorpMedia math."

[bulloney]

124. Maybe that's why they're perpetuating Hillary's claims that she's still in the race.

Same goofy type of math.

[Supersedeas]

136. minimizing and trivializing the anti-War movement to the bitter end--Davy Greggy

[renate]

6. I didn't see the interview, but "where was public opinion" seems disingenuous

Public opinion, among most of the public who believed what the MSM told them, was where it was manipulated into being.

Don't blame the public for what they were being told on the evening news, David. Used to be that most of what we saw on the news was, um, what's that old-fashioned term?, fact-checked. (As I recall, he was one of the few journalists who didn't simply write down Bush's words of wisdom but actually called him on some of his crap. So I won't tell him to look into the mirror for the answer to his question--even though, in a strange career move, he's wimpier now than he used to be before Bush tanked in the polls--but I would suggest that he look at most of his MSM colleagues.)

[bulloney]

126. That's the point, renate.

Unfortunately, there are still too many people who rely on the MSM for their news and information. Therefore, their opinions are based on what they receive from the media gerbils.

Despite that, there were still numerous protests against the war, drawing thousands of participants and the MSM elected to downplay or ignore those events.

So, blow it out your ass, Gregory! I think Karl Rove is calling you for a slow dance.

[robinlynne]

7. We were in the streets, but the press was not there!

[Nite Owl]

9. 400-500k in DC

and they said 'a few thousand'!!!

The corporate msm owes the left a hugh apology.

[NewJeffCT]

12. I won't be holding my breath for that one...

It'll come some time around when hell freezes over.

[Nite Owl]

24. If then even.

These guys don't really ever die, they are like night of the living dead!

[NewJeffCT]

26. True, it is amazing

how they keep circulating around - just saw somebody associated with Iran-Contra in the McCain campaign (Otto Reich?) whose name I hadn't heard since the 1980s! Who knew the guy was still living? But, maybe he is undead?

[robinlynne]

15. yep. HUGH!!!

[MountainLaurel]

56. That many on multiple occasions

In DC, New York, San Francisco, and around the globe

[bdamomma]

19. exactly and we have been in the streets ever since then.

[calimary]

41. That's one of MANY things they ignored and/or neglected.

There were HUGE protests, across the globe, leading up to the war, including one the night before. There were protests on EVERY continent, including Antarctica! There have been vigils and protests and marches and sit-ins galore. SELDOM covered, if at all. And remember that march through midtown Manhattan, by the republi-CON National Convention site on the weekend before the convention's opening? It numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We watched it on CSPAN that day. The marchers just kept coming and kept coming and kept coming, block after block after block. Wide shots showed the legions of them. You could NOT see to the end. There were people crowding the street as far as you could see, from curb to curb. Every segment of humanity was well-represented. And there was SQUAT about it on the mainstream news.

And they typically low-ball the attendance figures on the rare occasions when they do cover any of the protests.

There was a CLEARLY concerted effort to downgrade and diminish the opposition, to freeze them out, to shut them down and silence them and make laughingstocks of them so when you did hear from them they were so minimized and marginalized that they weren't even worth paying attention to. And that pissed me off because all those people stuck their necks out and took a stand. In HUGE numbers. We cared ANYWAY, and we showed up ANYWAY.

I was one of those marchers and protesters, at least here in L.A. Except for the candlelight vigils all over town on the night before, I never ever saw ANY coverage at all. NONE. And some of the events I attended were colorful and large, and would have provided terrific pictures. Never saw ANY press people there, except a minimum of people. There was one crew from the local ABC station for the candlelight vigil on the eve of the invasion that interviewed my kids - who were young at the time, and remarkably articulate. And that was about it.

I wrote a rant about all this that just got picked up by Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-lyon/the-i-didnt-do-it-letter_b_103952.html

[Irishonly]

61. I Just Read It

Your piece was hard hitting, truthful and I hope everyone here reads it.

[calimary]

92. Thanks! Please post a comment over there at HuffPo if you're up to it.

I'm glad you liked it. SUCH an incomplete, though. SO many stories from newspeople who lived through that pro-bush/pro-war pressure. Phil Donahue even got fired because he didn't conform to the company dictates - even though his was the highest-rated show on MSNBC.

What I find somewhat satisfying about this (and I'll take whatever satisfaction I can get from this horrible time) is how all of this verifies and confirms what we've been saying, all along.

[robinlynne]

72. Calimary, next week there is a screening of a film called "outspoken los angeles"

a documentary about the anti-war movement here.
(Remember we met at one of the downtown anti-war marches?)

tickets are available online.
Here is the film's website, with trailer and if you click on people, photos of the protests:

http://www.outspokenthefilm.com/

[youngharry]

74. Gregory with his selective memory

David was the TV version of Judith Miller. He has been so close to Rove, Bush and the rest of their crime family that the "selective memory card" has been well learned from them.

David, we will not forget you and your cheerleading propaganda that lead us into the illegal and unprovoked war in Iraq.

SIMPLY PUT, DAVID, YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS. YOU MAY FORGET, BUT WE WONT.

[grace0418]

118. The press was there in Chicago, but they managed to only get images of areas where

few people were standing and the small groups of counter-protesters. Oh, and the few protesters who were causing problems. The THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of peace protesters were completely ignored.

[Gabi Hayes]

135. the one on Devon in Feb, or the one on NLSDin March, when they shut down the traffic?

I was at the one on Devon.....got some pretty good pictures somewhere, and I was on the plane to DC during the other.

marched in the same demo as Daniel Ellsberg that Saturday with lots of Vets Against the Iraq War. they let him out of jail to march in that

[grace0418]

139. The one on Lake Shore Drive. When I saw the footage on the news later, I couldn't

believe my eyes. I knew the MSM lied, but I couldn't believe they would minimize such a huge protest.

[deminks]

8. The revolution will not be televised, David.

As usual you had your head in another place. While you were walking like KKKarl, we went on without you.

[FrenchieCat]

10. That is why I don't watch his lousy show.....

and I'm one of more than 200,000 in that S.F. Pic there. :headbang:

[bdamomma]

11. oh crap, the whole world was protesting not to invade Iraq.

even little Bermuda was protesting!!!!!!!!!!!!! where have you been David Gregory?????

[Beetwasher]

14. It was there you asswipe and if you had done your job properly would

have been even louder.

[marmar]

17. Who shapes public opinion, Mr. Gregory?

Blaming the public for not doing your f**king job.

[bdamomma]

57. I knew sooner or later, they would be pointing the finger at the

American people, we need to push back hard on this one.

[Wizard777]

18. We poured into the streets by the millions to protest.

[David Zephyr]

20. Thanks seafan!

I simply go crazy and see red when I hear these talking heads, Republicans and even some Democrats say uncorrectly, "Well, we ALL believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the time."

Grrrrr.

Thanks seafan for keeping it real.

[CatWoman]

21. you should email this thread to the sorry mother fucker

[stubtoe]

70. That was my thought also.

[pacalo]

22. Where was public opinion?! Maybe Gregory should check msnbc's files...

This photo came from his own network:

[yellerpup]

59. Isn't that the crowd of "approximately 5,000" disgruntled

left wingnuts from NYC? How do Liberals manipulate photos so well?

[wildbilln864]

excellent post!

Thank you.

[burythehatchet]

23. wonderful photographic juxtaposition. WHat nerve to ask that question!

[Peace Patriot]

25. FIFTY-SIX PERCENT of the American people opposed the invasion of Iraq!

(Feb. '03, NYT poll; other polls 54-55%).

We were smart. We were well-informed. We didn't trust Bush. But NO ONE in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, NO ONE in the White House, of course, and 75% of the U.S. Congress WOULDN'T LISTEN TO THE MAJORITY!!!

Fuck this! "Where was public opinion?" It was buried on page 58! That's where it was. And it was COMPLETELY ABSENT from corporate TV/radio.

[Political Heretic]

35. I don't remember those polls.

I could have sworn that public opinion was in favor prior to the invasion. I remember being outraged about it and saying we deserve what we get

[Peace Patriot]

46. Nope. Not true. That's what the war profiteering corporate news monopolies

wanted you and everyone else to think. Here's the Feb. '03 poll, just before the invasion...

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A11F63E5E0C778DDDAB0894DB404482

Poll Finds Most In U.S. Support Delaying a War

February 14, 2003, Friday
By PATRICK E. TYLER AND JANET ELDER (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 2, 1912 words

Even after the administration's aggressive case for going to war soon in Iraq, a majority of Americans favor giving United Nations weapons inspectors more time to complete their work so that any military operation wins the support of the Security Council, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows....

----

The full text can be found at
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2003/0214us.htm

Here's the key paragraph:

"With major decisions of war and peace still pending, 59 percent of Americans said they believed the president should give the United Nations more time. Sixty-three percent said Washington should not act without the support of its allies, and 56 percent said Mr. Bush should wait for United Nations approval."

(Note: That 56%-63% figure includes 29% outright opposed to any military action against Iraq. The rest would agree only if it was a UN peacekeeping mission--i.e., international consensus that action was needed--consensus that never came.)

--------------------------

Here are some polls just prior to Feb. '03 (the invasion was in mid-March '03):

December 17, 2002;

Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

--

January 13, 2003

Poll: Majority of Americans oppose unilateral action against Iraq

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001415.html

--

Knoxville News Sentinel, January 24, 2003
Bush Hasn't Made Case for War in Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0124-04.htm

--

Attack on Iraq rejected by 2 in 3 voters - 12/8/02
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/12/npoll12.xml

-------------------

What followed the invasion--undertaken without UN approval and against the wishes of several major allies--was a short period of approval of the war, while U.S. troops were at max risk. Towards the end of '03 and beginning of '04, disapproval of the war began its dramatic rise, through '04 and '05, to the whopping, epochal anti-war majority of 70% today. Given the significant opposition to unilateral action by Bush, just before the war started, the brief period of approval--about six months--and fast erosion of support to the huge anti-war majority of today, it is reasonable to assume that Americans were reluctant to express disapproval of the war during the invasion, out of fear that it would harm U.S. troops. Just months before, 56%-63% had disapproved of this unilateral war. Opinion wouldn't likely change that fast (from disapproval to approval), and didn't really change, but rather, disapproval went underground (people shut their mouths), while major fighting was occurring, then disapproval soon emerged again, even stronger than before, as the occupation began.

If Bush and Congress had listened to the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS--56%-63%--who said, don't go to war at all, or don't to war without major ally support, or don't go to war without international consensus (a UN peacekeeping mission)--we wouldn't have slaughtered 1.2 million innocent people, and wouldn't be in the goddamned mess we're in today. The people were wise. They said "consult." They said, 'If everyone thinks it's necessary, we'll agree. But DON'T DO a unilateral war.' (Clearly, they didn't trust Bush & co.)

It's interesting that, while about 60% of Americans opposed unilateral war by Bush, about 50% of Americans thought that Saddam had WMDs and/or had something to do with 9/11. This means that a goodly percentage of Americans were evaluating the threat for themselves: they didn't think it merited a war, despite what the Bushites said, and just in case it did, our allies or the UN would provide that verification (not Bush).

[underpants]

73. about 60% said "don't go it alone"

even in the heat of the propaganda campaign

[Peace Patriot]

95. Yes, but it's much more than that. Americans wanted a UN peacekeeping mission,

with international consensus, and census of our allies, that something must be done. In other words, it was a rejection of U.S. imperial, aggressive, pre-emptive, unilateral war, by 60% of the American people, with half of those saying no war on Iraq even with international consensus (probably because that 30% knows that the UN could manipulated--as Daddy Bush did in the first Gulf War).

It's not accurate enough to say 60% said "don't go it alone." This leaves Bush warmongers with the argument that they didn't. They got England and Australia on board and the "coalition of the greedy" (with countries like Poland--30 or so of the little countries that were enticed, paid off, or bullied and strong-armed). But this is clearly not what the great majority of Americans supported. They did not support Bush "going it alone" with this ragtag bunch of comers. They wanted to be sure of the NECESSITY of a war, of a REAL threat to our safety. 60% did not trust Bush on that issue, and, sure enough, Bush lied about it, and most of the world including major allies (France, Germany), and major world powers (Russia, China) openly disagreed with his lies. This is exactly what Americans DIDN'T want.

Here is what the great majority of Americans wanted, in a nutshell: A LAWFUL country in a LAWFUL world.

The great majority of Americans want our country to work with others to PREVENT war, and to maintain military strength sufficient for our defense, if necessary, and in case the countries of the world agree that some particular rogue state is a threat to us all. They overwhelmingly reject the U.S. itself becoming a rogue state and acting unilaterally at the will of the president. Most Americans believe that violent intervention is sometimes needed, to maintain world peace, but that single powerful countries WILL abuse military preparedness, just as the Bush Junta did, for oil. Thus they believe in a process of world consensus, or, at the very least, allied consensus, with the justification for war fully vetted in the court of world opinion.

This overwhelming American majority, which supports only LAWFUL use of the military, in international terms, is who and what the Bushites so grievously violated here. They violated the consensus of the American majority, along with violating the consensus of the great majority of other countries.

So, basically, here is how the American peoples' views of war break down:

30%: War any time a Republican president says so.
30%: Against all war; dismantle the "military-industrial complex"; maybe some limited defense.
30%: Military defense, and military action with international consensus (UN peacekeeping missions).

Bush was acting with only 30% support of the people (the dumbfucks who bought his arguments because they found Jesus, and the war profiteers). The views of this righwing minority got blown all out of proportion to their numbers, by the corporate 'news' monopolies. Watching TV, listening to radio, and even reading the major newspapers, during the leadup to the war, you could not have known that SIXTY PERCENT of the American people opposed this policy (unless you were a poll nerd like me). And it was a fucking corporate media conspiracy to make it appear that we did. Five rightwing, war profiteer, billionaire CEOs control all news and opinion in the country. The internet has made significant inroads since that time, but there was basically NO MEDIA OUTLET for the opinion of SIXTY PERCENT of Americans in 2002-2003. It was a prison lockdown--an "Iron Curtain."

[underpants]

99. Great post

The oddest part of the whole thing was that the inspectors were ACTUALLY THERE and all we heard was

"Why can't they find anything Tim?"

"Gee I don't know Matt but a lot of people think that Saddam was just that advanced....."

[Peace Patriot]

115. Yup, a president who wanted peace would have fully supported the UN inspectors,

and waited. No way Saddam could have launched any WMDs--if he had any--in those circumstances. The U.S. mobilized for war, the whole world watching, the UN weapons inspectors crawling all over his decimated (by war, by sanctions, by 12 years of "no-fly zone" bombings) country. He even offered to step down and leave the country, at one point, to spare his country this horrible attack. The Bush Junta refused.

BUSH. WANTED. WAR. Period. He and his handlers wanted to destroy Iraq, and ensconce the U.S. military there on a permanent basis, to protect the oil contracts signed by their puppet government, and to plan and launch the war on Iran, to get control of its oil as well.

This war was strictly in the interest of Exxon Mobil & brethren, and war profiteers. It was NOT in the interest of the American people, and the thing that a lot of political writers don't realize (or are lying about) is that the American people KNEW IT. They were NOT the disinformed, uncaring "sheeple" that they have been made out to be, by both left and right. They knew what was going on, but what they couldn't figure out was how it could happen--how they had been so completely disempowered.

With Obama, I think we will have a president who is still largely at the service of global corporate predators, but with a steadier trigger finger, and no agenda for war. I believe him when he says he will "talk to our enemies." The problem with him will be who has defined the "enemy" and why. And what will we do, short of outright violence, to destroy WRONGLY IDENTIFIED "enemies"? Venezuela and Ecuador come to mind--the biggest oil reserves in the western hemisphere; democratically elected leftist governments, who believe in using the oil profits to benefit the poor; and the Bush Junta is spoiling for war with them, and has been actively trying to destroy their democratic governments. Obama's speech to the anti-Castro fascists in Miami last week didn't quite call Venezuela and Ecuador the "enemy" but came close. He used lots of Bushite "talking points" and generally displayed astonishing (to me) arrogance, in proclaiming that South America needs U.S. "leadership." It sounded like the "Manifest Destiny" speeches of the 1900s-1960s. Granted, he was in an extremely hostile venue. But still, my question is: How will he achieve global corporate predator goals, against these wrongly identified "enemies," without military violence? And is that his purpose--a sort of Clintonian "softening up" of the oil-rich target (as Clinton pummeled Iraq with sanctions and bombings, softening them up for a Bush invasion)? Or, does he intend a truly respectful, equal, pro-democracy partnership with Latin America--given that Latin America is heading very fast toward a Latin American "Common Market" that does not include the U.S.? Is his goal "divide and conquer," one way or the other? (And if he fails with peaceful "divide and conquer," will war be next, as we run out of oil? An oil war in the western hemisphere? World war?)

Bush is a war criminal. I doubt that Obama will be. But the President of the United States can be another kind of criminal--a corporate criminal, using our taxes and our clandestine agencies to undermine and destroy other peoples' sovereignty, in the interest of the super-rich. It may be all we can hope for--no more overt slaughter--given the vast corruption of our own democracy by corporate powers. But we should be aware of this danger in Obama's 'win/win' rhetoric. "Win/win," to global corporate predators, means they win, by creating the illusion of 'winning' in those they seek to plunder. Is it better than killing people? Yeah. Is it justice and fairness? No.

[morgan2]

109. there was a slight majority opposed before the invasion

after it began that flipped to 60 something percent in favor if i recall right

[Quantess]

114. Maybe some of the flip-floppers in the middle were shamed into supporting the invasion.

Being called FREEDOM!-hating anti-Amurkan wusses finally wore them down.

[Peace Patriot]

141. Only for a short time--about 6 months--when U.S. troops were at max risk.

Then the opposition to the war began its dramatic rise to the whopping 70% opposition of today.

About 10% to 15% of the population zipped its lips during the invasion and war, but began to unzip their opinion again as the occupation began, and also as the lie about WMDs was increasingly exposed (and other things, like the torture at Abu Graib--63% of Americans opposed to torture "under any circumstances" (May '04), and massive mismanagement and theft of billions of dollars--90% of Americans concerned about the huge deficit). I think these folks didn't want to endanger U.S. troops in active battle, and may have also thought that no U.S. president, even Bush, would start a war without good cause. So they waited for the WMDs to be found. No WMDs. This group was not well-informed, like the rest of us, but they weren't crazy about war either. They were in favor of caution. Once the occupation started, they were at first confused. Now they're pissed! They were lied to! And, what is worse, their native wisdom about unnecessary war, and about the need for international consensus, was ignored. Major allies dissented (France, Germany). Major powers dissented (Russia, China). It was not a UN peacekeeping mission.

That early 60% opposition to the war--before the invasion--was your basic cautious, common sense American wisdom about unnecessary, unjust war (the "lessons of Vietnam"). The Bushits and the puke press chipped off 10% to 15% of it, for a short time--by the very act of putting U.S. troops at risk and getting them killed, and by sowing confusion. Soon American common sense made a comeback in this group, and had never been absent in half the population. What almost nobody (including yours truly) was aware of, at that time, was the meaning of the passage of the so-called "Help America Vote Act" by the Anthrax Congress, in the same month as Iraq War Resolution--Oct. '02. Most Americans knew that we had been catapulted into an unjust war. Hardly anybody knew, at that time, that the corporate-controlled "trade secret" code voting systems, that were being fast-tracked all over the country, were one of the means being put in place to shove the Iraq War down our throats in November 2004.

[Quantess]

112. All I remember was a lot of rah-rah and "support our troops" stickers,

and people who believed there were WMDs, drowning out the voices of the sizeable amount of people who opposed an Iraq invasion. True, the people who oppsed the Iraq invasion were almost completely ignored, but I do remember there were PLENTY of people in early 2003 who thought invading Iraq was a peachy idea.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Pathetic! Almost as bad as "If I knew then what I know now."

[City Lights]

28. Hey David! Why don't you ask Phil Donahue about public opinion and

the media - especially MSNBC, mkay?

Surely you remember Phil, don'cha? Back then he was one of the only voices on television speaking out against the war. At the time, he had the highest rated show on MSNBC. What did MSNBC do? They fired him, David.

You're no journalist, David. You're one of many WH parrots. While Donahue was bucking the system, David, you were bending over.

[Bozita]

29. Donahue stated that for every anti-war guest, he HAD TO HAVE 2 or 3 pro-war guests.

Phil didn't want 'em. Management did.

[Prefer]

30. I was on the corner of Kapiolani and Keeamoku

with my wife and two small children banging a drum and entreating people to oppose the war. As well as were several other radicals.

[Booster]

31. If this hot-shot reporter forgot about the "focus group" of, what was

it, over 5 million people protesting around the world, then Gregory should lose his job. How dare this asshole try and blame the people for Bush's mistakes.

[DeepModem Mom]

32. K&R!

[blondeatlast]

33. Gregory's next quest: his nose. Um, David (whose SIL I used to work with)

that is a MONUMENTALLY stupid question, asshole.

[Political Heretic]

34. Around the world yes. In the US, despite rallies, public opinion was above supermajority

for the war when it started.

Sad, isn't it?

[Peace Patriot]

47. That is absolutely NOT TRUE. See my post above, on the polls-56-63% of Americans opposed

to unilateral war by Bush, and stated that no war should be waged without major allies and UN support--that is, international consensus (a UN peacekeeping mission). Neither of those conditions were present. Most of our allies opposed it. The UN opposed it. There was NO consensus. About half of the 60% or so of Americans who opposed the invasion opposed it outright--didn't believe in any kind of threat from Iraq. The rest didn't believe Bush that the threat justified a war. They wanted his judgment vetted by the international community--where Bush encountered adamant opposition from most of the world. Bush proceeded without the consent of the great majority of the American people!

[mitchtv]

36. I caught that , also where was the public ?

How fucking insulting. What a goddamned idiot. We wanted the truth The Admin planted dtories in the media, then used those same stories as the Causa de Guerra (no frances). WHAT A TOOL Tweety , too, swooning over GWB's basket ugh!

[struggle4progress]

37. There had been protests again an enlarged US war in the Middle East by the spring of 2002

Plenty of people knew what the mofos were up to, and plenty of people vocally objected to the whole shit-n-kaboodle

[EFerrari]

38. Millions of people in the street and Gregory is still asking

where we were?

Presstitute.

You should send this idiot this thread.

And, fuck you, David. You have blood on your hands.

[KSinTX]

39. Whaaa, Scott was mean to me

He was such a whiny, spineless simp today. So friggin defensive. What a total putz.

[EFerrari]

40. Another idea: send this to Politico. Gregory should be ASHAMED of himself.

http://www.politico.com/reporters/CharlesMahtesian.html

[EFerrari]

42. Another contact email for msnbc:

[email protected]

[bdamomma]

60. thanks sfexpat2000

I have just fired off an e-mail to David Gregory.

[Imagevision]

43. A better question is where was the MSM opinion in the lead up to the Iraq war, the

sheeple supported Bushco thanx to the American media (including CNN)

[EFerrari]

44. WE should call them the Judies after Miller. They don't deserve

to be called journalists.

[BlueStater]

45. Public opinion is shaped by what people see on the news, David

Maybe if your shitty network reported the facts in the build-up for this bullshit war and didn't lay down for this criminal administration, we might not be in the mess we are today.

[Peace Patriot]

48. It is very important for us to understand what really happened to the American people

in that nightmarish rush to war, in late 2002/early 2003. The MAJORITY of the American people--60%!-- did not agree with it. The polls that I cited above establish that, beyond question. They were against an unnecessary, unilateral, Bush-instigated war that did not have the support of the international community, and was not a generally agreed upon peacekeeping mission. About half of those opposed (30%) were against any war. The rest (another 30%) were against this war, because it lacked international support. They didn't trust Bush. They wanted his case for war to be vetted by the international community. They wanted international consensus that war was necessary.

And Bush went to war without any such consensus--in plain violation of the opinion, and wisdom, of the great majority of Americans!

What happened to the American people? We were forced into war against our will. And, funny thing, in the same month (Oct. '02) that Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution (IWR)--handing their power to declare war over the George Bush, whom 60% of the American people didn't trust--they also passed the so-called "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA)--a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle, by which new voting systems were fast-tracked all over the country, run on "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by righting Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls. The IWR guaranteed unjust war; HAVA provided the means for shoving that unjust war down the throats of the American people, as that early 60% opposition to the war grew into today's whopping 70% opposition.

The WAR PROFITEERING CORPORATE NEWS MONOPOLIES were meanwhile writing a false narrative, and creating a false drumbeat, for war, that IGNORED that 60% opposition, and convinced many of us that other Americans had lost their marbles. Are we crazy starting a war that France and Germany, and many other allies, adamantly opposed? Are we crazy starting a war that the UN opposed? Are we crazy believing Bush when no one else in the world believed him? NO! Most of us were NOT crazy. Most of us were SANE. But you couldn't have known that from the 'news' coverage.

I really, really wanted to know: Had my fellow and sister Americans gone nuts? Or what? Uninformed? Sheep? Gone fascist? What was going on? So I really got into the polls--and I was amazed at what I found. It wasn't just on the war. It was on everything. MOST Americans disagreed with every Bush policy, foreign and domestic--in big numbers. On the war, before and after the invasion--60% opposition rising to 70%. On other policies--this was more into 2004--big numbers against Bush on virtually all issues.

What the heck? --I thought to myself. Then I learned about "trade secret" vote counting (starting on 11/3/04). It seems so obvious to me. If you have extremist rightwing policy going on, in a progressive, democratic country, SOMEBODY IS NOT COUNTING THE VOTES RIGHT. And guess what? We'll never know for sure, cuz they took all transparency out of our voting system, and handed it over to partisan RIGHTWING corporations, just like Congress handed its sovereignty to Bush.

We need to understand this. The American people are not stupid. The American people are not fascists. The American people are DISENFRANCHISED.

[tsuki]

49. Being stifled, lied to and lied about. Being accused by the

politicians and the media of being anti-American, anti-troops, and "what was wrong with America."

Gregory is being more than just a little disingenuous. Or he has lost all ability to do any kind of meaningful research on subject matter.

[Breeze54]

50. Hey David?! - CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE & EAT IT TOO: Protesting Big Lies About 'Yellow Cake'

CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE & EAT IT TOO: Protesting Big Lies About 'Yellow Cake'

07 Aug 2003

permalink http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/470/index.php

by Anonymous

by Mike Flugennock

Aug 6: On this prototypical Dog Day afternoon, upwards of fifty to a hundred stalwart, sweltering, sweaty souls of conscience joined Code Pink at Dupont Circle and took a leisurely "cake walk" to Donald Rumsfeld's house to shed light on the staggering pattern of lies and deception used by Rumsfeld, Bush and others to prop up their rationale for the ongoing war and occupation of Iraq. Once at Rumsfeld's place, Code Pink presented the Defense Secretary with their traditional "report card" detailing his and the Bush Administration's failures in English ("Bring it on") and geography ("thinks Iraq is the USA"). This was followed with the presentation of the symbolic "yellow cake" symbolizing the non-existent uranium mentioned
by President Junior with his infamous "sixteen dirty words" in the State Of The Union address.

The cake turned out to not be radioactive, entirely edible, and with a sweet creamy lemon frosting. Mmmmm, nummy. ;)


Photos: http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=79239&group=webcast

Comments
Re: Video, fotos of Code Pink 'Yellow Cake Walk'
02 Sep 2003
by russell
Reply to this comment
"i'm the guy who sang and played guitar in the video. if anyone wants chords/lyrics
to the song so they can use it at future protests, just drop me a note. peace, rbt"


Video: http://flow.mediavac.com/ramgen/sinkers/2003/washdcAug0603.rm


More... ;)

-----------------

Many people were out there protesting the invasion BEFORE and AFTER bush invaded.

[malaise]

51. M$M ignored all the protests n/t

[bdamomma]

62. and now they are eating their own.

damn them if they did their jobs correctly instead of giving us infotainment and saying our attention spans are short we wouldn't be in this horrible situation. They still to this day do not mention, show any coverage of the Iraq invasion on the Nightly News, shit, I remember the Vietnam War being televised each and every night for all of us to see.

[Jakes Progress]

77. MSM didn't just ignore the protests,

they hid them the best they could. If we get our news and opinions from MSM now, we have learned nothing.

They haven't changed, but they are changing us.

[Mass]

52. For most people, misled by reporters like David Gregory, who were too busy reporting lies to do

their jobs.

And sure, some understood from the get go that it was lies, but David should start spending some time wondering WHERE HE WAS.

[xiamiam]

53. i love watching them squirm...i just love it..200k marching in sf reported as 20k

i had never been in a group that large..it was phenomenal..and on the evening news, as hundreds of thousands marched in february 03 against this war, our protests were barely mentioned and downplayed and the numbers were totally inaccurate...the media has been co conspirators in this mess...and i love the turnabout...so they say their bosses put pressure on them..so what..so fuckin what...the truth is good enough..but as journalists, our american media failed us...i hope they rot in hell...

[seafan]

54. Here, before Bush's aggressive and illegal invasion of Iraq, was more notable public opinion, David.

Human Peace Sign from Antarctica, January 19, 2003.

Today people from McMurdo Station in Antarctica joined with the millions of others around the world in calling for peace not war. With the Antarctic Mt Range in the background we laid on the ice in a symbolic call for peace. Seven continents united.

Pictures of worldwide protests before Bush's War



People understand now, David Gregory, that the Bush-controlled corporate media, with their legions of **journalists**, together with the 75+ retired military generals, sent by the Pentagon to act as http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E7DF103CF933A15757C0A96E9C8B63&scp=2&sq=military+analysts+briefings&st=nyt">TV military analysts to hype Bush's war, have aided and abetted George W. Bush in committing murder.


And all of you have blood on your hands.

[KoKo]

55. I saw him covering his butt on Tweety's show then watched him

whore for the Repugs on his own show. How did he get that MSNBC show? By covering his butt and being a buddy to Bush. I guess his early days as WH Reporter when he used to "seem" to ask probing questions, were just his grandstanding and cover for his real inclinations.

[Jakes Progress]

78. His real inclinations are not political,

like all the big names in the "news" media, the goal is status and money. Media Whores isn't just a web site. It is exactly what any "journalist" making over a million a year is. Take the money, screw the public.

[KoKo]

132. Yep....Take the Money and Go With It! Sad...but then we've been pointing that out

for awhile...:-(

[yellerpup]

58. Bad outcome of IW forseen by millions.

Thanks for providing the visual proof. K&R! :kick:

[Irishonly]

63. K&R

I hope everyone with pictures and op ed pieces fires them off to MSNBC, Gregory, Olbermann and every one else you can think of including PBS. I doubt MSNBC will let anyone do a story critical of its reporters but maybe someone else will.

I quit watching Today and countless other programs because I was tired of seeing the reporters kiss butt. Anyone that didn't tow the line disappeared and for years the networks pushed the agenda. It's come out and the blame game goes on.

[CTyankee]

94. I sent a harsh message to David Gregory today.

Told him he was a disgrace and he should leave his show and let rachel Maddow take over because she does her homework. I told him he was obviously too busy maintaining his "access" to power to bother with the truth.

I am big time mad at this guy. I hope he is good and embarrassed and is losing sleep over his loss of status. I'll bet he thinks of himself as a hard hitting journalist. Nothing could be further from the truth. The guy is a jerk.

[Echo In Light]

64. K&R

[Hissyspit]

65. David... Clue: Largest Anti-War Protests in the History of the World. Polls before the war

showed Americans were wary of the war just slightly lesss than half were in support of it. That went up into the 70%s AFTER the war started.

I remember it very well. Why don't you? I was horrified at what was happening. My jaw dropped when I heard Bush say "Iraq" in the summer of 2002.

People resigned in opposition. Diplomats. Military people. Groups sent letters demanding the war not take place.

Why the fuck don't you remember that?

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_23_2.htm

[kentuck]

66. The public opinion was ignored.

The press were cheerleaders for this war.

[sybylla]

67. Since when does a real journalist let PUBLIC OPINION dictate news?

Jeezy Creezy! Seven years of that bullcrap attitude from our news media and I'm more than sick of it. News isn't a popularity contest for fuck's sake. It's about fact and truth telling.

I thought you were above this David Gregory, but I guess it was my mistake. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[katerinasmommy]

68. I don't find it necessary to send an email

His ultra defensive tone and posture said it all. I found it amusing more than anything else. Even on our local radio station they were mentioning how hyper he was. I do have to say this, if the American people had REALLY cared to find out the truth, all they had to do was look for it. Jesus, even Pat Buchanan was writing about the insanity and deceptive nature of what was going on. Make no mistake, if the majority of the American people had risen up and stood against it, it would not have happened. Those people in this country that did nothing but observe without doing anything to stop it have complicity, and that's the majority of Americans. And lets not forget that even if you think Ohio was stolen, half of America voted to put the bastard back in office in 2004.

[angstlessk]

71. define 'stood against it'..if not protests do you suggest we overtook

the government with a rebellion equal to the American Revolution cause that was the ONLY thing that would have stopped it. See the pics in the OP

[katerinasmommy]

80. Is the UAE in charge of American ports?

That was an issue that got up the ire of the public and it didn't happen. Was there an immigration deal? Nope. And there still remains the point that at least half of Americans voted to put the administration back into office. The fact of the matter is, a lot of people might have said they were against the war, but they did zero about it. They didn't care all that much. And frankly they don't now. If they did, polling in the GE wouldn't look like it does.

[angstlessk]

84. wow...what a stretch...americans were NOT up in arms about the UAE

owning american ports...rather it was congress critters who probably had a dog in the fight?? I am 100% certain they got more phone calls regarding the war than they ever did about the ports! I am 100% certain they got more phone calls on the bankruptcy bill also..but it went through...sorry, it ain't the people in control of this here USofA!

[stubtoe]

69. Big ass K&R for this!

Thanks seafan. :)

[Reader Rabbit]

75. Here's my response:

"Where was public opinion" during the run-up to the Iraq War? More than 50% of us were against it, as I remember the polls at the time. Millions around the world protested, thousands here in the U.S. It looks as if you paid as much attention to *that* as you did to the overwhelming evidence that the WMD accusations were false.

Trying to blame the public you serve for *you* not doing your job? Now that's some serious chutzpah; however, your skill at avoiding personal and professional responsibility makes you a perfect candidate for a position in the Bush Administration.

[OnionPatch]

76. Oh, those people?

Those are just the nut-job lefties, they don't count! Only hard-working, *real* Americans in the heartland count.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

79. Kick

[fascisthunter]

81. David Gregory, Take a Bow as You Helped Start the War Too

enjoy your legacy.

[Ferd Berfle]

82. WHER THE HELL WERE YOU Gegory?

Asshole!

[Marr]

83. The largest protest in human history doesn't count as clearly-stated public opinion?

I have to wonder what WOULD qualify for Mr. Gregory.

[wtmusic]

85. Tweety should look in the mirror

He was every bit the pathetic enabler David Gregory was, if not worse.

I'm sure you two creative guys can come up with some creative reasons why you played along with the biggest foreign policy debacle in US history.

[Supersedeas]

86. Gregory's legacy is as a Beltway cocktail circuit junkie

[solara]

87. Absolutely spot on - hope you can send this to him

:yourock:

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:




:kick:

[Uncle Joe]

88. I'm curious, when David Gregory asked Chris Matthews that question, what was Matthew's answer?

"David asked Chris Matthews plaintively: "Where was Congress, where was the Senate, where was public opinion?"

Excellent photo juxtaposition, seafan, thanks for the thread.:thumbsup:

[seafan]

96. David was filibustering when he said this, so Chris didn't respond immediately.

Hardball transcript, May 28, 2008

.....


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

We are back with NBC‘s David Gregory, who covers the Bush White House, in addition to hosting MSNBC‘s “RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE,” which will be on right after this program, at 6:00 tonight, political Mike Allen, who broke the McClellan book itself.

Let‘s take a look at what McClellan had to say here about the media.

Here he is, faulting the press. He wrote—quote—“If anything, the national press corps, was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration‘s rationales for war should never have come as such a surprise. In this case, the—quote—

‘liberal media‘ -- close quote—didn‘t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

David?

DAVID GREGORY, HOST, “RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE”: I think he is wrong.

He makes the same kind of argument a lot of people on the left have made. I tried not to be defensive about it. I thought a lot about this over a number of years. And I disagree with that assessment.

I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that.

If there wasn‘t a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about, why not? Where was Congress? Where was the House? Where was the Senate? Where was public opinion about the war? What did the former president believe about the pre-war intelligence? He agreed that—in fact, Bill Clinton agreed that Saddam had WMD.

The right questions were asked. I think there‘s a lot of critics—and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one—who thinks that, if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, this is bogus, and you‘re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn‘t do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It‘s not our role.

.....

David's credibility as a serious journalist exists in his own mind.



Another casualty:


Couric: ‘Not My Job’ To Critically Report On Iraq, ‘Unless Something Is Really Egregious’, September 28, 2007

"I think Navy SEALs rock." ---Katie Couric, after an on-air interview with a Navy commander in April 2003

It all makes me freaking sick.

[Uncle Joe]

98. "David's credibility as a serious journalist exists in his own mind." I agree and the same goes

for his and Rove's dancing ability. You know that photo scares small children and should require a warning before it's posted.

[Faygo Kid]

89. Excellent post, and thanks. I marched and screamed at my TV all through 2002.

I read the Washington Post's gung-ho cheerleading for war every day and was sickened. Protests were buried on the bottom of an inside page there and in almost every other outlet (thank you, NY Times and Judith Miller). For Gregory to make this claim just reflects what a tool he is. He may be one of the only journalists to ask tough questions at press conferences, but ultimately, it's all about him. What a jerk.

[lunatica]

90. Bush said the protesters were just a focus group n/t

[Firespirit]

91. Sorry -- I see there are a lot of short-term memories here

ABC News/Washington Post Poll 4/27-30/03
"Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq: Bush or the Democrats in Congress?"

Bush 72
Democrats 20
Both (vol.) 2
Neither (vol.) 3
Unsure 3

12/18-21/03
"Do you think the war with Iraq has or has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States?"

Has 62
Has Not 34
Unsure 4


CBS News Poll 12/14-15/03
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Did Right Thing 63
Should Have Stayed Out 31
Unsure 6


6/03
"Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

Worth It 62
Not Worth It 31
Unsure 7


ABC News Poll. March 5-9, 2003.
"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?"

                Favor  	Oppose  No Opinion 		
3/03 	        65 	30 	5 		
2/19-23/03 	63 	31 	6 		
2/6-9/03 	66 	31 	2 		
2/5/03 	        67 	27 	6 		
1/30 - 2/1/03 	66 	31 	3 		
1/28/03 	63 	32 	5 		
1/27/03 	61 	36 	3 		
1/16-20/03 	57 	41 	3 		
12/02   	62 	35 	3 		
11/02   	64 	29 	7 

"Do you think that getting support from the United Nations Security Council is necessary before the United States goes to war with Iraq, or is support from the United Nations Security Council desirable, but not necessary?"

	Necessary 	Desirable, But 	Not Desirable (vol.) 	No Opinion 
                        Not Necessary	
3/03 	35 	        56 	        5 	                4 	

"As you may know, United Nations inspectors are in Iraq looking for any evidence that Iraq has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Do you think Iraq is or is not cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors?"

        Is 	Is Not 	No Opinion 		
3/03 	25 	71 	5 		
1/03 	22 	75 	3 		

"Do you think Iraq does or does not pose a threat to the United States?"

	Does 	Does Not   No Opinion 		
3/03 	79 	19 	   2 		
1/03 	81 	16 	   3 		
12/02 	81 	17 	   2 		
8/02 	79 	16 	   5 		
		

All data from www.pollingreport.com.

WE were, mostly, against it. Mostly. I joined DU when the propaganda was going on, and there was a definite faction on DU that supported it. Hard to believe, but it's true. I blame the media for the super-majority of the public being so bloodthirsty and jingoistic. The egg came before the chicken, to respond to David Gregory, and the media laid it. But let's not create our own version of reality on DU. We WERE in a small minority at the time and for some months after.

[sandnsea]

97. The rest of the picture

Most of those polls are after the media push that Gregory is pretending didn't happen. It was done the same way you're doing it, by quoting what you want to make your point and ignoring the rest.

Even as late as Dec 2002, 70% of the country only supported military action in Iraq with the support of the international community. 51% thought Bush was only listening to advisors who advocated war. The public never supported this war to begin with, the media manipulated the polls to push the people in the direction the Bushies wanted them to go.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-na-iraqpoll17dec17-480pa1an,0,5263707.story

[Firespirit]

105. I'm not ignoring anything. The polls came from that site.

There are indeed polls indicating that majorities would prefer international support over a unilateral invasion. That's because pretty much everyone except the Birch types and neocons thinks we should be talking with allies. There was also support for letting the inspectors finish, but there were super-majorities that thought Iraq was stonewalling them, rather than Bush. I've quoted one such poll. However, when asked the question outright -- "Should we topple the government" -- the numbers of 2002 spoke for themselves.

As did the election numbers. And they said the same thing. Had I been a senator representing the state I lived in in 2002, I can say definitively that I would have voted for AUMF, and I would have done it for politics. There were polls suggesting that majorities would sacrifice civil liberties for "security." The climate was that toxic.

I think a lot of DU has a blue-state myopia going on. Things are different outside of liberal enclaves. I've personally experienced that myopia myself, having lived in a blue area before.

It's manipulative to take questions like "Should Bush talk with ___ first," which most people will (and did) answer "yes" because it sounds like a reasonable thing to do, and somehow turn that into "a majority of the public opposed THE WAR from the start."

[sandnsea]

106. *sigh* read more

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/24/opinion/polls/main523130.shtml

[Firespirit]

107. That doesn't contradict my post.

Who, exactly, would say "No we shouldn't talk with anyone whatsoever"?

Very few. Humans are generally social animals and diplomacy sounds in a poll like the reasonable thing to do.

"Should we build alliances, talk it out, involve the UN, involve Congress, and then go to war?" Answering yes is still a pro-war vote. In the questions about diplomacy, alliances, and waits, there was no real option asked for not going -- it was framed as "should we do it alone NOW or discuss it with allies and go later (but still end up going)." But when the core question was asked -- "Should we have this war" -- 66% or more said yes.

[sandnsea]

119. 52% said follow the UN

Only 31% said we should act without any UN or international support. 66% did not say we should have this war in 2002, I don't know how you are rationalizing that around in your head.

[truth2power]

93. David Gregory is a moron , and if, in some alternate universe

there are ever War Crimes trials for Bush Inc., HE should stand in the dock, along with them.

Before I even clicked on the link to this thread, I was reading the blurb, "where was public opinion" on DU's homepage, and I could already feel my blood pressure rising.

I WAS THERE! In DC, along with millions around the world protesting against the war.

Fuck you very much, David Gregory!!! :grr: :grr:

[liberalla]

100. Ignored. Totally, completely, absolutely ignored.

That's where public opinion was. Ignored. Buried. Mocked. Minimized. They were put in designated public protest/free speech zones, and called unpatriotic, wimps, wusses, etc.

[Hubert Flottz]

101. Dave looks more like a chimp than the Chimperor.

[happydreams]

102. K&R! Nice work. Now we need to pull up some of

Gregory's stuff from that period.

[valerief]

103. Public opinion was blacked out, you asswipe shill, Gregory. nt

[teacher gal]

104. What a great and compelling post.

I'd like this sent...everywhere. And I'm curious, how did Chris Matthews respond?

[spanone]

108. where was david gregory?

[krkaufman]

110. Gregory opts to ignore the fac t that the media is supposed to inform the public ...

... so the opinion of a vast majority of the public was affected by the poor new media coverage of the case for war. (Which is understating it a bit. News media "promotion of going to war" would be more accurate.)

[Mimosa]

111. I hated war, but I believed Hillary and Colin Powell...

I believed Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell when they vouched there was an imminent threat.

[yellowwood]

113. Public Opinion could be found at Moveon

When this whole thing started, I joined Moveon, as did many, many others. The media referred to us as a "liberal" or "left" organization, but Moveon was right then, and it's right now.
Incidentally, Barack Obama's opinion was against the war resolution, as was Dick Durbin. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton voted for it. I always wondered why, if I knew it was a bad idea, why didn't Clinton?

[cbc5g]

116. I PROTESTED and David just slapped me and millions in the face for HIS incompetance

that asshole.

[grace0418]

117. I was one of the Chicagoans who fucking shut down Lake Shore Drive with an

impromptu protest march after the (planned) protest rally was overwhelmed with people. The news purposefully trained their cameras towards the (very few) counter-protesters and towards areas of the crowd where fewer people stood to make it look like a very small thing. In reality, it was huge. And everyone there knew it. And everyone in their cars knew it. Most were honking and clapping in favor even though we'd completely blocked traffic right during rush hour.

And who can forget being referred to as a "focus group" by George Fucking Bush after all that? :mad:



Do I even need to describe where David Gregory can stick his "where was public opinion?"


:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[seafan]

120. Obama weighs in:

"On the day after the former White House press secretary conceded that the Bush administration used deception and propaganda to take us to war, it seems odd that Sen. McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq." ----Senator Barack Obama, in the Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2008

Unfortunately, Senator Hillary Clinton also bought Bush's lies.

[JDPriestly]

121. The MSM simply refused to mention the protests against the war

in many cases. They minimized the numbers of people participating when they did report it. They suppressed news of protests to the extent they possibly could.

THE PRESS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS OF OUR SOLDIERS AND INNOCENT IRAQIS. I blame them just as much as I do the people in the Bush administration.

It all started when they covered up the theft of the election by Bush in 2000 and went on, silence compounded by more silence about crime after crime.

[november3rd]

122. Great post

Mind if I link it to my blog? There has to be a way of getting the truth in front of the American people and shutting up the liars.

[seafan]

127. Please, feel free to do that. The more people know, and quickly, the better.

[LuckyLib]

123. Public opinion was wondering how the WH press corpse and MSM could be any more brain dead.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

125. Bush called the demonstrators a focus group - and the media let him get away with it

Except for FSTV, Link TV and Pacifica Radio along with Amy Goodman, I don't think the media directed much attention at all to the worldwide demonstrations.

Sounds like David Gregory is also suggesting that the millions who marched against the war were just a mere focus group as well.

[G_j]

128. A first in History, 11 million ppl. Why should a news journalist know about it! n/t

[Honeycombe8]

129. Great post. The media is trying to blame the public? When almost half the country was against

this insane war from the outset and saw the machinations and manipulations (or suspected them).

It was CONGRESS that buckled at the knees and didn't ask hard questions. It was the MEDIA that was excited at the prospect of having a war on its tube that didn't ask hard questions. But the PUBLIC had it right...or at least half of us.

[myrna minx]

130. Thank you K&R n/t

[intheflow]

131. In Colorado Springs they tear gassed us protesters.

They arrested my friend and charged her with child abuse because she brought her 15 year old son to the protest and the cops said he could have been harmed--like the cops were invited to tear gas us and/or she should have expected the cops to tear gas legal, peaceful protesters. The only threat to that kid's safety was the cops themselves. :grr: God, it makes my blood boil just remembering it! :grr:

[Historic NY]

133. Herr Goebbles would be proud of the Propaganda Networks.

the will of the people has been subverted and trampled by the MSM acting willingly in concert with the * criminal administration.

[McCamy Taylor]

134. McClatchy newspapers (which my local was) continued to question the war up to the invasion.

They were alone. I wrote regular letters to the editor decrying the march to war. The first was in July, 2002. I was not alone. The internet was abuzz with people like the ones posting here who knew that an invasion would lead to a war that would last for years and years. Even Bush Sr. had said as much, and he had no reason to lie.

[Carolina]

138. please, please send this to MSNBC

to David
to Tweety
to Dan

and all the media whores to let them know that we, the people, knew what was up; that Scott (too little, too late) is rightabout the fourth estate. It failed the nation and has blood on its hands!

[scarface2004]

140. the msm sucks!!!

it s a pee ohh ess!!!