Skip to content

NBC’s David Gregory: 911 “Truther?”

October 26, 2009

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.

Advertisements
24 Comments
  1. LanceThruster permalink
    October 26, 2009 4:03 pm

    I was hoping for something substantial from Mr. Gregory. The notion that the statement referenced establishes him as a “truther” is a bit of a stretch, but not unsurprising considering.

    The statement, “We kicked their asses so hard, that they fled to Afghanistan” sounds like something someone actually involved in the fighting might say as they would be the “we” actually fighting and “kicking ass” rather than those cheerleading safely from the sidelines.

    Pat Tillman might be justified in saying that (if he was still alive) but instead his parents and family are trying to get to the bottom of the cover-up that tried to use his death for propaganda purposes.

    • David Forsmark permalink
      October 26, 2009 5:25 pm

      Yes, Lance, we are well aware that many people who believe as you do, do not refer to the United States military as “we.”

      No branch of the military ever needed recruits desperately enough to accept a 40 year-old with half an Achilles tendon in one ankle; but that’s the cheapest of cheap arguments, regardless.

      And if you pay attention, you would see that I said it was much more likely that he was merely carrying water for Obama. However, those ARE the only two interpretations of his statement that the former Administration STARTED THE WAR.

      • LanceThruster permalink
        October 26, 2009 7:05 pm

        Total non-argument Mr. Forsmark.

        The US military, made up of volunteer citizen soldiers is most definitely part of the collective “we” of our fellow Americans. Your phrasing smacks of someone wishing to take credit where none is due. At least you didn’t avoid military service because of anal cysts (Rush) or “other priorities” (Cheney – 6 deferments). I became draft age in ’75 when America’s Vietnam involvement was all but over. I considered enlisting but took the potential commitment seriously and was not confident that US leadership would not ask me to kill people that did not warrant killing. My friend’s son was with Marines 1/5 for the fall of Baghdad. Adam was writtten about (though not by name) in “A Table in the Presence” by Lt. Carey H. Cash. He received an award for meritorious action.

        Upon his return, I asked him about his experiences in combat. The first words out of his mouth to me were, “We killed people for no reason.” His father explained that on more than one occasion, he fired upon vehicles approaching his checkpoint that were filled with women and children. He also dealt with the aftermath of tending to the wounded children screaming in pain, anguish, and terror next to their dead mothers. That he did all this within the proper rules of engagement did not erase his own horror.

        Our reaction to thousands of innocent Americans and others being killed on 9/11 over a political beef, was to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other lands over a political beef. We (our nation) has lost more US service personnel than those we (our nation) lost in the initial attack. A coworker lost her only son, a 30 yr old Sgt. in the US Army to an IED. We are arguably not any safer by Bush’s discretionary wars.

        This is less about “kicking ass” then it is about a rational approach to our security. I am grateful for the service of all military personnel, and know my duty as a citizen is to ensure they are not put in harm’s way thoughtlessly, nor bear a burden so much greater than everyone else (Bush declared our duty after 9/11 was to “go shopping”). Though they do multiple tours, struggle with any number of issues at home from financial to divorce to absentee parenting; the “101st Fighting Keyboardists” are right behind them on the front lines of public opinion, making sure they grab a bit of that “we’re kicking ass!” glory.

        I remember one of the lines in George C. Scott’s Patton portrayal.

        -There he goes, “Old Blood and Guts. ”
        -Yeah, our blood. His guts.

        Here’s to those that truly kick ass. And here’s to working to protect their safety as tenaciously as they do ours.

        BTW, here’s a testament to the oft maligned military itelligence.

        from: http://www.alternet.org/politics/95776/troops_abroad_donate_6:1_to_obama_over_mccain/

        According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain,

        • David Forsmark permalink
          October 26, 2009 7:49 pm

          “Our reaction to thousands of innocent Americans and others being killed on 9/11 over a political beef, was to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other lands over a political beef. We (our nation) has lost more US service personnel than those we (our nation) lost in the initial attack. A coworker lost her only son, a 30 yr old Sgt. in the US Army to an IED. We are arguably not any safer by Bush’s discretionary wars.”

          I am thankful for your son’s service, and thankful that you didn’t enlist. The above statement is lunacy. We lost more soldiers after Pearl Harbor than were killed in the attack, too. That’s as ad hominim as it gets, man. And if we had not gone to Afghanistan, then there would have been no more attacks? We did not have a “political beef” with the Taliban or al Qaeda. If that was not an act of war, then there has never been one.

          I thought it was the RIGHT that supposedly mixed up 9/11 and Iraq. We have not lost more people in Afghanistan that in the initial attack. Iraq was a whole other kettle of fish, remember?

          • LanceThruster permalink
            October 27, 2009 10:23 am

            Neither the Afghans nor the Afghan nation attacked us. It was not/is not a nation state that attacked us (negating the Japanese/Pearl Harbor analogy). The nature of those who coordinated the attack makes a criminal and law enforcement approach more reasonable and effective than a military one. Again, we are outraged by the death of our innocent victims but the deaths of innocent victims that are not Americans becomes unfortunate but “necessary” and “acceptable” collateral damage.

            I remember the Vietnamese peasant farmer in the doc “Hearts and Minds” telling the US attack pilot who flew missions to destroy the bridge near his farm about how his wife and children were killed, his animals destroyed, and his farm ruined, though he was not at war with the US.

            You are glad I did not enlist but what the military is taking is gang members and skinheads and others with criminal backgrounds because they needed to lower the minimum standards. As it is, they still have difficulty in keeping the combat rotation from becoming onerous for those actually doing the fighting. I was a member of Adopt-a-Platoon for a while. They were an exceptional group of Marines but were also stationed near Fallujah around the time it became a free-fire zone. I’ve often wondered about the choices they were confronted with.

            Conservatives say this is the fight for the very future of civilization, yet they spend more time at tea bagger rallies complaining about taxes than flooding the recruiting offices with their numbers. Says a lot about the commitment they’re willing to make (or *not* willing to make actually).

            Must be “other priorities.”

            • In the know permalink
              October 27, 2009 11:41 am

              Neither Germany nor the German people attacked us on 07/12/41 either.

              and…..

              “Conservatives say this is the fight for the very future of civilization, yet they spend more time at tea bagger rallies complaining about taxes than flooding the recruiting offices with their numbers. Says a lot about the commitment they’re willing to make (or *not* willing to make actually).

              Must be “other priorities.””. As the church lady used to say, “Well, isn’t that special.”

  2. michael permalink
    October 26, 2009 4:24 pm

    David Gregory hosting “Meet the Press” has to have Tim Russert rolling over in his grave. Tim Russert was everything Gregory is not.

  3. Truthteller permalink
    October 26, 2009 6:51 pm

    “Tony Snow is David Gregory’s bitch.” Thank god we have some liberal bias to counter the overwhelming rightwing slant of the large media outlets… Beck/Coulter/Horowitz/Limbaugh and the rest. I saw Michael Moore once on a late night talk show, that’s about it for the left. Even the NYTimes beat the drums of war for Bush. Yellow cake in Niger, and all that crap.

    • swemson permalink
      October 26, 2009 9:32 pm

      Well aren’t you a slimy piece of work…

      Who do you get your talking points from, he daily kos or directly from the west wing…

      Why don’t you fly back into whatever attic you came from, and try haunting someone else’s house FOR THE REST OF YOUR MISERABLE LIFE !

      Sorry David… I just can’t talk nicely to these swine…

      • fiftyfifty permalink
        October 27, 2009 5:47 pm

        Swemson is right, truthteller you and David Gregory and the left needs to grow up. Obama fooled you into believing the razzle-dazzle and always have someone else to blame. And blame them

    • In the know permalink
      October 27, 2009 11:53 am

      Hey, Koolaid!

      How many holes that look like pitchers with appendages grace the walls of your house “truthteller”? *snicker* LOL

      • In the know permalink
        October 27, 2009 11:57 am

        “Overwhelming rightwing slant of the media”…..Once again we see a reference to the media supporting George W. Bush. No matter how many times it’s repeated, it will be resoundingly untrue.

  4. October 26, 2009 11:04 pm

    Risking my neck to speak from the middle again:

    Ignoring the echoes from the Gender Studies class in the preceding comments I must say that this post WAS thin. I think it is pretty obvious that Gregory MEANT that the US had (horrifically escalated a terrorist attack into a full scale war). Stupid, but not a Truther statement.

    Leaving aside any accusations of Truther beliefs just about any Leftist would say we “started” the war after 9/11.

    And the rantings of a rabid leftist in the comments section is hardly a reason for anyone to support this argument.

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      October 27, 2009 4:19 am

      Start means to initiate, not to escalate. And I don’t give a rats @ss what “any Leftist would say.”

    • David Forsmark permalink
      October 27, 2009 6:08 am

      Guy, you have stumbled onto the truth. It is indeed “what any leftist would say.” If Matthews, Olbermann or Maddow had said it, it would have been fairly unremarkable. That the host of “Meet the Press” said it, is. And the Inquisitor is obviously right.

      • October 27, 2009 9:56 am

        You can talk past the Leftists while they talk past you forever. That solves nothing.

        Their response to Inquisitor would be that the 9/11 attack was not the direct action of an established government and so not an “act of war”. (technically true but debatable from a practical standpoint.)

        SO?

        Is that getting anyone closer to truth?

        My point is that to try to read into anyones words based on YOUR convictions is dishonest.

        If you want to legitimately condemn someone with their own words you have to take them the way they MEAN them. Or you are playing as dirty a game as any Leftist has every been accused of.

        • David Forsmark permalink
          October 27, 2009 10:15 am

          To repeat:
          “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.”

          That’s why the headline is a question. It’s a legitimate inquiry to make. The point is that Gregory would argue he is NOT partisan, NOT a Leftist. Look at how indignant he was in the video when that was suggested. He’s not really any better than the MSNBCers, just has a veneer of respectability.

          You are arguing we shouldn’t put words into people’s mouths, by putting words into their mouths that are not even suggested yet. How many times have you said, “They would say,” or “their response would be” in this discussion?

          The stretch is saying that this post accuses him of being a “truther.”

          • October 27, 2009 12:09 pm

            I do believe your headline was:
            “NBC’s David Gregory: 911 “Truther?””

            What would you think as a journalist if saw a headline that said “Mayor Booya: Wife-beating Rapist?” over a story that arbitrarily claimed that while there was no real evidence some statements by the Mayor meant that he either IS a wife beating rapist or something just as bad.

            Would you maybe think the writer felt the man was guilty as charged? Especially when the accusation had not been made before?

            You pretend that there is no third option: Such as the likely one: him thinking in his naiveté that the U.S. attack was the first act of “war” BY HIS DEFINITION.

            So write a blog correcting him…

            The Right-wingers calling themselves Conservatives can flame me as they like. My body of writing shows where I stand on anti-American ideology. But I will never support using innuendo and fact less character assassination.

            Surely Gregory has done or said things that you can use without inventing implications to diminish his credibility instead of your own.

        • The Inquisitor permalink
          October 27, 2009 11:48 am

          I believe that harboring people on your soil that attack other countries is an act of war. Especially so when America gave the Taliban a chance to clean up their act and they refused.

        • The Inquisitor permalink
          October 27, 2009 11:59 am

          “If you want to legitimately condemn someone with their own words you have to take them the way they MEAN them.”

          No you don’t. In fact it is irresponsible to do so. It opens the door for a package deal: Everyone interprets it one way while the author when confronted wiggles out of it by saying that he meant it another way.

          You also don’t do it, because it contributes to the destruction of the language. You don’t let people redefine words.

          • October 27, 2009 12:15 pm

            I didn’t say that.

            I said that you confront their meaning NOT THE WORDS THEY HIDE BEHIND.

            I just posted a comment saying that David should have done a post dissecting how it was NOT the first “act of War” when the U.S. arracked Afghanistan. I feel he should have attacked the misconception not the man.

            Instead he chose to read INTO Gregory’s words and attack the man PERSONALLY based on what he had inserted. THAT is not good form to say the least.

  5. jac mills permalink
    October 27, 2009 2:58 am

    Mr Forsmark

    Your advice to Sen Cornyn is spot on. He was far too timid with bully Gregory. I saw Gregory as a reporter and thought he sometimes asked decent questions in the White House, that deserved answers, but soon changed my opinion of him when I saw his reports. He, too, has forgotten that reporting facts rather than his bias is his job. But he is like so many in the media these days, sad to say.

  6. OoglyBoogly permalink
    October 27, 2009 4:15 am

    He believes 9/11 was “an inside job,” as the conspiracy nuts claim

    According to FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA right up to 9/11 itself, so if you believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the September 11th attacks, then by your logic, it was and inside job and you are a conspiracy nut.

    • David Forsmark permalink
      October 27, 2009 6:41 am

      Sibel Edmonds would have no special knowledge of who worked for the CIA. Get off the kooky websites and read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. Wright is a respectable liberal who wrote a superb bio of bin Laden and the al Qaeda top figures. (Frontpage review here http://www.davidforsmark.com/4521/the-looming-tower )

      1. bin Laden worked against the Soviets but never for the CIA. He was a fringe figure despised by the Afghans because he lead people were in love with martyrdom– though he never risked it– and they didn’t want to die, they wanted to win.

      2.bin Laden started al Qaeda because he was angry that the Saudis turned to the US to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and stop him from invading the Kingdom, when he under the delusion that he could do it on his own.

      3. If bin Laden worked for the CIA all that time, then the Agency thought the bombing of the Cole and the African embassies, not to mention the FIRST WTC bombing was okay by them? That’s just weirder than what the “truthers” come up with.

Comments are closed.