I watched (4.00 / 3)

I thought you were GREAT.......
I have been frustrated for years by this woman and her ilk.  I liked seeing someone using assertive, hard questioning with them because for years our lapdog press has allowed them to spin and lie, spin and lie.

I also was very happy with your debate the day before....

Keep up the good work...

---

by: Jjc2008 @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:23:40 AM CDT

i did too, but it's always 2 against 1 -- w/ the host/media org & the rightwinger together-- and (4.00 / 1)

incessantly big media has pushed the rightwing/status quo narrative and still does -- on every issue. (unless it's the absolutely clueless hosts like Sanchez who don't know anything about anything -- except for which is the side they sell, and push daily -- and just want to generate drama.)

it's the same old "he said/she said" Crossfire bs, as always, sadly.

you were good, but all these segments and those that air them are not at all interested in actual facts, and always present officials and former officials as the ones speaking from the "correct" side and all those not there to repeat and support their spin is simply there to respond to that, or attack back, or defend whatever it is they're attacking about -- and the hosts never ever follow up when confronted with truths that aren't part of the DC consensus.  

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:10:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't think the CNN host here was too bad. (4.00 / 2)

He made some effort to pressure Jacobus to answer David's question.  He also seemed to have some familiarity with David's work and knew that he was sometimes a critic of Obama.  I would not call this interview 2 against 1.

And oh yes, David was great.  He stood his ground.  I thought it was funny that she kept portraying herself as "trying to get a word in edgewise" oblivious to the fact that she interrupted David as often as he interrupted her.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 12:17:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

starting off with air quotes and "Bush's so-called torture techniques" and then "is transparency ahead of the curve?", etc, is really really bad (4.00 / 1)

i'd say, and paints it as not torture and totally ignores the facts in the memos released and facts overall on torture, and he paints transparency as something odd in itself and not realistic -- and he only once really challenged all her lies -- esp the stuff about "everyone accepting that there's a place for these techniques" bla bla bla ...

she successfully spun all Sirota's points and facts as just another "blame Bush" thing without responding -- even when Sanchez asked her about the warning directly (the only challenge he made to her at all) --  and she repeated every single GOP lie/talking point of the last 8 years -- yet again.

and look at the arc of the whole segment -- you'll see how the topic was totally changed -- all by her intentionally -- from Obama, the CIA, the memos, torture, prosecution and investigation, etc. to promoting torture into selling Bush's  reputation, actions, and legacy. (it's just like what they did to Reagan too)

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 12:43:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"how can Democrats avoid getting swept into the dust-bin of history?" - (0.00 / 0)

by not creating more terrorists daily and inflaming hatred with every bombing/shooting/torturing/lie, etc.

by not doing what Bin Ladin and others wanted, like getting bogged down in the Middle East and squandering everything.

by restoring our rights.

by acting on real intelligence alone, instead of lies and the desires of cronies and contractors and whatever lies are the DC consensus.

by treating terrorists as the criminals they are and as a criminal and intelligence matter -- not a military one. Like with McVeigh.

by not blatantly arming and funding and defending only Israel.

...

(of course, all this presumes that there are even a few actual Democrats w/power who disagree with the rightwing/pro-war/DC status quo, etc)

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:28:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No Doubt (4.00 / 2)

Obama was riding President 29%'s wave like no-one else in the history of the world.

But what about the GOP?  The Tea Party?  Wave of optimism?

Not so much.

But wasn't 29% their party leader?

My only question: Why is this on CNN instead of Comedy Central?

Was it a scheduling mistake?  A Mapquest mistake?

Inquiring minds want to know!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 08:34:46 AM CDT

Did Bush keep us safe AFTER 9/11? (4.00 / 1)

What happens to the Democrats if there's another major terrorist attack within the United States, during the administration of Barack Obama?

Cheney has already made Obama the fall guy for another 9/11, and Republicans will probably continue to reinforce the meme that Democrats have weakened national security by ending "enhanced interrogations," withdrawing "prematurely" from Iraq, and so on.

Tons of cocaine pour across our borders non-stop, and there's absolutely no way to prevent biological, chemical, or even nuclear weapons from following the same channels.

Democrats could make the argument that "enhanced interrogations" wouldn't interrupt the supply of cocaine, or prevent weapons of mass destruction from crossing the Mexican or Canadian borders, and every relatively intelligent person in the United States already knows this...

All 30% of us.

Meanwhile, the same 70% percent who thought Saddam had sponsored 9/11, just because Bush kept saying "Saddam....9/11....Saddam....9/11..." in disconnected sentences...

That 70% would never vote for another Democrat.

So how can Democrats avoid getting swept into the dust-bin of history by another major terrorist attack within the United States?

There's obviously a downside to making it crystal clear that our borders are too porous to defend, because the bad guys are also listening, and even if the relatively intelligent 30% of them already comprehend the porosity of our borders in detail, Republicans could still claim that anyone who discussed border-security had given terrorists a blue-print for terror.

(This message will self-destruct in 15 seconds.)  

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:02:46 AM CDT

this is just bs -- "if Obama keeps trying to fundamentally reshape American foreign policy on more progressive terms" (4.00 / 1)

he's not trying at all in any way to reshape foreign policy --  he's staying the course on actions, while solely talking differently -- it's a change of rhetoric alone masquerading as "changes" of policy.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:19:40 AM CDT

Great job! (4.00 / 1)

"Bush kept us safe" is one of those little lies they use to prop up the big ones.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 10:46:04 AM CDT

Even on 9/11 (4.00 / 1)

I know it was unpopular at that time but can we discuss that even on that day I felt Bush showed no leadership.  Here the country is under attack and for all anyone knew more attacks were planned and as far as I could tell Bush was MIA.  I did not feel he showed much leadership that day and was so surprised when the country rallied around him the day after when he finally did show up.
Thank you David for pointing out the obvious that the worse foreign attack in teh country's history happened under the Bush administration and no he did not keep us safe.

---

by: Gibson @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:02:55 AM CDT

MAN, was he a bad president! (4.00 / 3)

Compared to all other presidents, Bush allowed by far the most deaths from terrorism on American soil, or anywhere else for that matter. Incredibly, and despite this fact, his ability to keep us safe from terrorism is seen as perhaps his one strength, even by people who long ago stopped seeing him as a good president in other respects.

I think this perspective can only make sense, if it can at all, if you adopt the Bush administrations oft-stated canard that "9/11 changed everything." It always drove me nuts when they would say that. For anyone paying any sort of attention, Al Qaeda was a huge threat going back to the early 90s, and the attacks on Spetember 11th, though shocking, really weren't all that surprising. (I mean, they had already attacked the World Trade Center 8 years earlier!) The reckless shift from total ignorance of that threat to absurd over-reaction is the best illustration there is of the callowness not just of the Bush administration but of the conservative movement in general.

By the way, the fact that he came to be so thoroughly rejected by the American people, even as they gave him a pass on his greatest failure, is a real testament to just what a remarkably bad president he was.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:58:10 AM CDT

Hard Question (0.00 / 0)

It's an hard question. Not having access to any intel I cant really express myself about it.
Only insiders can know.

dan
calcolo rata mutuo

---

by: calcoloratamutuo1 @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 14:30:38 PM CDT

shaping the debate (0.00 / 0)

Good job in the interview!  I wish the debate would shift away from Obama, Bush, and Bush's legacy and toward the actual policy.  David did an awesome job defending the position that torture is never right - which is surprisingly hard - and that our country needs to take the moral high ground and lead by example.  I find it appalling that people hem and haw about its effectiveness, implying that if it were effective at bringing in reliable intelligence, its use would be justified.  Others try to change the language to "advanced interrogation techniques" and give waterboarding only a quasi-torture status.  This isn't about the rules of war or keeping our country safe, it's about treating members of our species like human beings.  

---

by: bryantdillon @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 16:46:45 PM CDT

Very good Job David! (0.00 / 0)

Don't let them talk you down

I'd also mention bush's non-response to Hurricane Katrina along with 9/11 and Iraq. Tie all three together and throw something like 'historians have their reasons for ranking him as one of our worst presidents ever' and watch them explode!

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 22:12:52 PM CDT

bush kept us safer than any president eveer (0.00 / 0)

only if we dont count all the terrorist attacks against us,  

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people

---

by: eomonroe00 @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 08:03:20 AM CDT

Good job David. And 9/11 was an inside job! (do some research people) (0.00 / 0)

Good job stepping up for reality David. We all appreciate it. That Cheri Jacobus (Succubus?) was just psychotic. She acted like a failed presidential model that was brought up on a duality of satanism and dissimulation.

But, talking about reality, although I know people really freak out considering thinking outside of the Establishment box and that people effectively believe that is just absolutely impossible for the Establishment to hide anything big from the American public (wow, how close to an Orwellian state are we?), when you actually look at the evidence, and do so objectively, I think the facts clearly show that it was all but impossible for 9/11 not to be an inside job. I made my own compilation of the evidence here:

http://MostCrucial.Info/Eviden...

---

by: sicjedi @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 23:29:15 PM CDT

the real frame (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad to see someone else brought up the 9-11 frame issue.  Too many folks have decided to believe the 9-11 official conspiracy theory(that is what it is after all), even in light of what we are learning about this Bush administration.  Eventually history must tell the real tale of the coup of 2000, which includes the inevitable event of 2001.  So Bush and Cheney did not keep us safe on 9-11 nor after, as there was noone really to protect against.  In fact, we needed protection from their ideology, protection we still need, but are not even talking about.  Too many liberal talking heads are busy defending the official story every time they answer the question "Did Bush keep us safe after..."  Consider the whole package, which includes now the torture memoes.  If Cheney knew 9-11 was an inside job, then why did he push the false meme we must torture to prevent the next attack? Because keeping the Iraqis and others in that region in a total state of fear was necessary to maintain a total propaganda effect.  Plus, what better way to maintain the terrorist "threat" than to torture for no reason.  The right wingers are for the most part psychopathic authoritarian types and are not to be trusted, yet here we must also play the "listen to both sides" game because of our ideals.  So the other side, illegitimate and out of ideas gets a seat at the table in spite of their lunacy.  You are a good liberal talking head Sirota but you are just helping to sell the false meme.  If you and other liberal talking heads had any real cajones (is that correct for balls?) You would take some time to look into the truth of 9-11 or why are so many people claiming their was an "inside job"?  Those towers did not collapse at free fall speed from those planes only.  And PNAC looked to be ready to do just what Cheney did...why does nobody bring that up?  Even Klein's Shock Doctrine is a good place to start asking, why torture?  We need to start putting these pieces together...

---

by: biggreenpea @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 21:10:39 PM CDT

one for david (4.00 / 1)

david...i just watched the video after writing my comment and wish to add in agreement, you handled her well.  she is an example of this new type of pundit, part of the "useful idiot" brigade.  god help us!

---

by: biggreenpea @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 21:25:11 PM CDT