Saturday, June 04, 2005
News Hounds: Fox's Colmes covers DSM, Fairly
News Hounds reviews the coverage of the Downing Street Minutes on the 6/2 Alan Colmes radio show.
Please go read the entire article at News Hounds. They provide several more highlights of the interchange between Zeese, Limbacher, and Colmes.
One commenter asks if the audience really is conservative. I don't ever watch or listen to Fox shows myself, but I always assumed that the audience consists mainly of: right-wingers; the intellectually lazy (pre-right-wingers); and scouts for the opposition (such as News Hounds).
This excellent comment is made by "Canadian Paul" in response to a flow of arguments claiming that the memo itself is not "evidence":
The two guests were Kevin Zeese, of DemocracyRising.us and co-author with Ralph Nader of an article called The 'I' Word, and Carl Limbacher of NewsMax.com.
For those who don't already know, the so-called Downing Street Memo summarizes a meeting between Tony Blair and his top security team in which the head of the British Secret Intelligence Services reported that Bush had already decided to remove Saddam by force months before presenting the plan to the Congress and that the Bush Administration had decided to "fix the intelligence" around the policy.
Kevin Zeese said that we need an inquiry in order to find out more. He thinks there is enough evidence at this point for a resolution of inquiry, a prelude to impeachment. He said only one congressperson is needed to make the resolution. He also said that we are starting to see Republicans like Walter Jones, from North Carolina, who coined the term "freedom fries" in the capital cafeteria, now saying Bush misled us into war.
Limbacher brought up Clinton at every opportunity.
:
:
:
After the interview, Colmes took a string of "lightning round" phone calls in which he asked for a quick yes or no answer as to whether there should be further investigation of the Bush Administration's conduct. Ten callers said yes, two callers said no. There was one caller whose opinion I couldn't understand. Considering Colmes' audience is conservative, I'd call the results good news.
For those who don't already know, the so-called Downing Street Memo summarizes a meeting between Tony Blair and his top security team in which the head of the British Secret Intelligence Services reported that Bush had already decided to remove Saddam by force months before presenting the plan to the Congress and that the Bush Administration had decided to "fix the intelligence" around the policy.
Kevin Zeese said that we need an inquiry in order to find out more. He thinks there is enough evidence at this point for a resolution of inquiry, a prelude to impeachment. He said only one congressperson is needed to make the resolution. He also said that we are starting to see Republicans like Walter Jones, from North Carolina, who coined the term "freedom fries" in the capital cafeteria, now saying Bush misled us into war.
Limbacher brought up Clinton at every opportunity.
:
:
:
After the interview, Colmes took a string of "lightning round" phone calls in which he asked for a quick yes or no answer as to whether there should be further investigation of the Bush Administration's conduct. Ten callers said yes, two callers said no. There was one caller whose opinion I couldn't understand. Considering Colmes' audience is conservative, I'd call the results good news.
Please go read the entire article at News Hounds. They provide several more highlights of the interchange between Zeese, Limbacher, and Colmes.
One commenter asks if the audience really is conservative. I don't ever watch or listen to Fox shows myself, but I always assumed that the audience consists mainly of: right-wingers; the intellectually lazy (pre-right-wingers); and scouts for the opposition (such as News Hounds).
This excellent comment is made by "Canadian Paul" in response to a flow of arguments claiming that the memo itself is not "evidence":
I wouldn't suggest that the memo was entirely factual, I'm not sure many would. What it does do is bring in additional doubt as to the reasoning for war. In that, it requires more investigation. The lack of denial, the idea it was "nothing new" would seem to indiciate that there was nothing overtly incorrect within the memo. It may, as some have said, contain only opinion or conjecture, but no one has refuted those opinions. - Canadian Paul at June 3, 2005 12:15 PM
The Bush Administration's
public statements on Iraq
