JESUS!!! can they be MORE inept??? Franks vs. Graham vs. Novak

[buycitgo]

anybody see the pathetic response PJ Crowley gave to Novak's assertion that Tommy Franks said Bush was on his case to keep Afghanistan/Iraq separate?

This, in response to Kerry's statement that Franks has said that Iraq is a diversion in the WOT, to the detriment of our efforts in Afghanistan.

do the Dems pay any attention to the news at all:

A former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman has asserted that the general who ran the war in Afghanistan said more than a year before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that his resources were being shifted in preparation for taking on Saddam Hussein.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, contends that just months into combat in Afghanistan, Gen. Tommy Franks also told him that fighting terrorism in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere should take priority over invading Iraq.

Graham said Franks told him he thought the United States knew less about the situation in Iraq than did some European governments, and the Bush administration should ask them for advice.

After Crowley's weak, evasive response to Novak's attack, I clicked off, as it was too painful to watch.

I don't think he addressed Graham's statement, as, if he was going to, he'd have led with it. At the very least, we have another he said/she said situation, which the dems could have used to address the venal flannelmouth's BS question.

anybody see if Carville chimed in....possibly mentioning Graham?

[liberal N proud]

1. A new form of Wag the Dog! Create another war to cover for the failure of

the first war. The real war.

[buycitgo]

2. fatboy potato face axed him about it on MTP

Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that his meeting with Franks was at the general’s headquarters, Central Command in Tampa, Florida. “He laid out a very precise strategy for fighting the war on terror,” Graham said.

“First, we should win the war in Afghanistan. Second, move to Somalia, which as he described was almost anarchy but with a substantial number of al-Qaida cells; then to Yemen. And that we should be very careful about Iraq, because our intelligence was so weak that we didn’t know what we were getting into,” Graham said.

.......

In “American Soldier,” Franks’ memoirs published last month, he mentioned none of the points Graham reported in his book. The retired general could not be reached Sunday. There was no immediate response to a message left at Tampa’s Central Command headquarters.

.........

In an excerpt read on the program, the senator said Franks told him “his men and resources were being moved to Iraq, where he felt that our intelligence was shoddy. This admission was coming almost 14 months before the beginning of combat operations in Iraq and only five months after the commencement of combat in Afghanistan.”

funny how little mention this gets outside DU. note the source for the above snip, which the CNN article in header doesn't mention
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2004/September/focusoniraq_September37.xml§ion=focusoniraq

[BootinUp]

3. calm down there.

In this kind of format you get a few chances to make a point. PJ made his point! He very strongly asserted his case talking over Novak, and Americans know this information already. Whether he had exact quotes and shit doesn't matter in this case. (This is my humble opinion) :)

[buycitgo]

5. he was slammed to the turf, and his point SHOULD have been

made with reference to what Kerry addressed

his response was STRONGLY asserted, but did NOT address Novak's question, which Novak pointed out

I thought Crowley looked like a fool, as he has in the past

I knew enough to counter this bit of propaganda, as most DUers would

WHY don't the dems

Novak made the same statement EARLIER on Inside Politics...it's not as if they didn't know attacks like this would be coming

I'm getting so sick of this.....and, as other poster mentioned, Carville should have made his point of response COMMENSURATE with the big, bold assertion Novak made, which was the centerpiece of his opening salvo against Kerry

this kind of bogus garbage has to be dealt with in no uncertain terms

[BootinUp]

6. Personally I thought Novaks whole question was BS

The passage in the book didn't assert anything but what Bush said. It was not an anlaysis or statement of fact regarding troop diversion.

[buycitgo]

10. what are you talking about? which book?

A former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman has asserted that the general who ran the war in Afghanistan said more than a year before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that his resources were being shifted in preparation for taking on Saddam Hussein.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, contends that just months into combat in Afghanistan, Gen. Tommy Franks also told him that fighting terrorism in Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere should take priority over invading Iraq.

not an analysis or statement of fact?

what is it, then?

[BootinUp]

12. The passage Novak showed from Frank's book!!

Now you're gettin me hot.

[buycitgo]

13. no, it did NOT!

it was a QUOTE from his appearance on Hannity's show

cool off

relax

you didn't say which book to which you referred

[dogtag]

7. Relax, NO ONE can EVER outdo Novak in the fool department. (n/t)

[buycitgo]

8. what's with this 'relax' junk?

they got away with a HUGE ffffing lie, once again

when is the Graham/Franks story going to be dealt with?

someone is clearly lying

who do YOU think it is?

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. I really liked him talking over Novak.

Novak should be bitch slapped more often. (I can't believe I said that!)

[iwantmycountryback]

4. I think I heard Carville say something

Like Read Senator Graham's book but it seemed to go unnoticed.

[glarius]

9. Anyone else remember how Novak was dead against the Iraq war

before it began?....I remember how he daily went on about it not being a good idea and then once Georgie attacked Iraq he made a complete turnaround....Why doesn't Carville or Begala or any Democrat point this out to Novak instead of allowing him to bluster away like he does?

[dogtag]

14. Yep, I remember that, but it does no good to point out

anything to the Douchebag of Liberty. He just starts shouting, puffing up, turning red, losing his dentures and never responding. Is there anyone who actually likes Novak? What can his wife by like, I wonder?

[LTR]

15. The Novak method

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

PJ was a bit dry, but at least he stuck to simple, straightforward talking points. More Dems should learn how to do that.

[buycitgo]

16. agree with the sticking to it...but get tjeir fricking FACTS down

before you go in there

he WORKS for CPAP, for christ's sake

their main claim to fame at this point is fact checking all the LIES emanating from the junta

the least they can do is be as informed as shlubs like me

[LTR]

17. Was it just me, or did it sound like PJ was gonna bring up Plame?

When Novak bore down on him for calling Bush's actions 'illegal', it almost sounded like PJ was gonna drop a Plame reference.

I only caught part of it.

[buycitgo]

18. Plame? what's that? Niger forgeries? what's THAT?

get on the bus, friend!

it's about the BIBLES we'll make illegal

it's about firing Dan Rather

that's all that matters

[Kimber Scott]

19. That show is PUFF.

There is nothing ever settled, proven, substantiated, properly debated, weighted, or even simply discussed on that show. It's meaningless.

[buycitgo]

20. dupe

[buycitgo]

21. of course, BUT, all those shows have meaning in the metacontext

they influence the other PUNDITs, who, in turn, and, most unfortunately, pass their influence on to the lazy, benighted news consumer, many of whom think they're going above and beyond their duties by watching more than the evening news, and watching such worthless dreck, thus forming their opinions based on the blatherings of the lazy, overpaid, bovine herd followers in the MSM


ever read either Eric Alterman's or Robert Parry's books on the CW herd, both written over a decade ago? they go into quite a bit of detail on this (nothing new now, but very interesting back then)

never mind.....so furious....watching rerun of Daily Show as I type, the ONLY worthwhile venue for respectable journalism available on anything approaching broad distribution

[Kimber Scott]

22. I think the pundits are influenced by their morning email filled with the

day's talking points and that's it. They don't even answer questions, they just mindlessly say whatever they're to say that day without even trying to have the answer match the questions. As for people watching that crap, I think we're (political junkies) are the only ones who do and we don't believe anything they say, anyway. So, the show is meaningless.

Haven't read the books. They sound interesting, though, and I have to agree with you about the Daily Show. I'm sure Jon Stewart has a much larger audience than the Crossfire gang do.

[buycitgo]

23. totally, man

saw last night's daily show, and he just poleaxed Allawi and aWoli, as NOBODY in the 'real' media has the balls to do

AAR, a few other radio shows, and Stewart are the only non-print/online places to get any semblance of what's REALLY going on in the world

those embarrassing, horrorshow focus groups on CSPAN are sad testimony to the utter barrenness of political discourse, and the laziness of the general populace

no wonder we have what we have

[John_H]

24. What!?!?!? Stand up to Nofacts on air?!?! And not get invited on any more?

Wha? Are you some kind of idealist, boy?

[buycitgo]

25. actually, I think that's one of the shows that doesn't

work that way

others, yes, but they seem to have quite a few strong voices

probly cause of Begala/Carville

I know the execs book the talent, but they must have some sway

[IdaBriggs]

26. Totally disagree -- thought PJ was FABULOUS!!!

When he bitch slapped the douchebag, I about fell over laughing. The reference to outing Plame had the guy just freaking out on national television. IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. He also kept turning stuff around on douchebag -- douchebag was FURIOUS. I loved it!

:evilgrin:

[buycitgo]

27. I turned it off before that, as I said

he may well have done a good job after that, and he has in the past, BUT.....

he did NOT have the facts at hand, re: Graham's DIRECT contradiction of what Franks said on Hannity

WHY NOT?

that's the point of this thread; not what he did afterward

he did NOT have the obvious info at his command

I could have refuted that statement immediately

why didn't HE?

he looked very bad trying to evade the question, and was called on it, making it look worse

I WANT these guys to do as well as they can, and that's why I clicked off--it was painful to watch