I've commented on this imbecile before. It really gives one pause how an alledgedly reputuable MSM company can have idiots like this running about. This is his opening statement regarding Chris Wallace's Attack on Saint Bill.
McQ at QandO has more specifics on Olberman's tantrum.
To say the least, I don't watch MSNBC.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.Astounding.
McQ at QandO has more specifics on Olberman's tantrum.
Anyone who has actually looked into this story understands that the interview ground rules stipulated a half-and-half split between talking about the Clinton global initiative and whatever Wallace wanted to ask about. Both sides acknowledge that without question.I'd also point out that Clinton was given a free pass on the topic in 6 other interviews done in the MSM. Funny that there isn't any cries about those media organizations playing favoritism.
As many have pointed out, but obviously missed by Olbermann, everyone in the room knew what the optional subject would be. We'd just seen two weeks of the ex-President reacting forcefully to ABC's "Path to 9/11". To pretend, as Olbermann does, that Clinton was "sandbagged", is to be politically naive to the point of cluelessness or purposely disingenuous. I'd have to say it is the latter. I'd also point out that is absolutely nothing new for Olbermann.
To say the least, I don't watch MSNBC.
1 comment:
I finally read Olberman's piece. The mind boggles. What an asshat.
Because I've been hearing from various sourcees that "The Path to 9/11", which is the reason Clinton was so touchy on this subject during the interview, was written/created by conservatives out to get Clinton, I thought I'd share this with you. It's written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter of the movie.
'I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.
My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.
It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on "10,000 Black Men Named George" (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.'
Sounds like a foaming right-wing nut, doesn't he?
Post a Comment