NBC's David Gregory: 911 "Truther?"

by David Forsmark  •  Oct 29, 2009 at 10:49 am
Cross-posted from NewsRealBlog.com

http://www.davidforsmark.com/2009/10/nbcs-david-gregory-911-truther

This was not what "started" the Afghanistan war, according to David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

If you think that in the NBC News family the crazed Bush and Cheney hatred is confined to MSNBC hosts like Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow, or that the anchors on the main network would never make incredibly biased side comments like Rattigan, Schuster and Brewer, think again.

Once the home of the man generally considered to be the most objective reporter of the major network hosts, Tim Russert, the long-running Sunday talk show, Meet the Press, is now hosted by a man partisan enough to make the happy warrior Tony Snow snap at him—David Gregory.

Sunday, Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Charles Schumer of New York discussed current events with Gregory. One becomes accustomed to conservatives getting rougher treatment on this shows, but this was ridiculous.

Maybe the bile and vitriol are so overwhelming on MSNBC, that it gives cover for the more "mainstream news" personalities to let loose a little, since they look moderate by comparison. There's no doubt that when this show is replayed in the late night hours Sunday night, it seems right at home on the leftwing network.

Below are listed all the responses from David Gregory while ultra-liberal Senator Chuck Schumer was allowed to prattle on about the need for a "public option" in health care reform:

GREGORY: Right.

GREGORY: OK.

GREGORY: And the point is…

GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

GREGORY: All right.

GREGORY: But you don't–well, well, where are the votes? Conservative Democrats, Olympia Snowe, are they going to sign up for this?

GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

Scintillating, eh? Now, check out the exchange between conservative Senator John Cornyn on the topic of Dick Cheney having the nerve to criticize President Obama's "dithering" on Afghanistan:

GREGORY: Did President Bush and Vice President Cheney provide enough troops to win in Afghanistan?

SEN. CORNYN: I think we've learned that we need a, a change of strategy as, as, as opposed to just raw numbers.

GREGORY: It's a simple question. Did they provide enough troops to win in Afghanistan?

SEN. CORNYN: Well, obviously we haven't yet won Afghanistan.

GREGORY: Right.

SEN. CORNYN: And winning in Afghanistan may be different from Iraq because of the, of the nature of the country.

GREGORY: But did Bush and Cheney provide the troops to win?

SEN. CORNYN: Well, we haven't won…

GREGORY: Right.

SEN. CORNYN: …so I guess…

GREGORY: So they didn't. You don't think they did?

SEN. CORNYN: But it's a strategy…

SEN. SCHUMER: Well…

SEN. CORNYN: David, the problem is it's not just–as we saw on the surge in Iraq, it's not just the troops, it's the change of strategy.

GREGORY: But to be, but to be, but to be consistent on this…

SEN. CORNYN: A counter…

GREGORY: …if you say that this president should commit more troops, can't you render an opinion about whether the previous administration that started the war provided the resources to win it?

WHAT? There are only two explanations for why someone would make the above statement:

1. David Gregory is so invested in the Obama line that everything in the world is Bush's fault, that he forgot himself on this issue and his spinal cord reflex took over from his brain, or
2. He believes 9/11 was "an inside job," as the conspiracy nuts claim, and that the attacks on the Twin Towers were not the opening shot in the war with Al Qaeda and the Talliban, our bombing of Taliban targets was.

The first explanation is the most likely; but Gregory should be pressured to explain.

This is, I suppose, the actions of what the Obama Adminstation would call "a REAL news organization."

And by the way, Senator Cornyn, here are a few hints for your next interview about Afghanistan: The situation in Afghanistan has changed, it has not been the same for 7 years. A Commander in Chief needs to respond to those changes. Part of the reason for that change IS the success in Iraq. Al Qaeda fighters were concentrating on Iraq because that's where the war was. We kicked their asses so hard, that they fled to Afghanistan. If we do the same to them in Afghanistan, they are likely to flee somewhere else again, and we will need to chase them again. Therefore, we need to mount an offensive against them wherever they go, not pretend they had been there for 7 years of "failure" just to score political points.

If you're just going to concede liberal talking points to look "reasonable," go to church with the family on Sunday, or golf, or fish, or… something—and let Dick Cheney do the heavy lifting

receive the latest by email: subscribe to david forsmark's free mailing list