Ever since the time I observed MSNBC's David Gregory playing Karl Rove's back-up dancer at some Knee Pad get together in the cesspool we call Washington D.C.......I've paid closer attention to the information this alleged journalist shares with American viewers. In the following three minute video clip from Wednesday's Hardball.....Gregory leaves no doubt where his loyalties lie....
In the video clip Gregory says "we need context" with Scott McClellan's explicit charges against the Bush White House over Iraq. That "context", according to the alleged reporter/journalist, is that McClelland was "not an insider" who was "making policy". Gregory states, in his fleshing out of what he calls "context", that McClelland "did not formulate policy", instead, McClelland was "pretty far away from the action." Do McClelland's words somehow automatically become suspect simply because he didn't "formulate war policy"? Does the fact that Scott McClelland didn't "formulate war policy", because he was the freaking press secretary, prohibit in any way McClelland's words about the administration and Iraq, from being accurate? Gregory then goes on to state that McClelland's views are "derivative" of other Bush critics, a veiled suggestion that Scott McClelland simply got his views from those terrible, truth telling liberal bloggers.
WTF. Why does Gregory try so hard to discredit McClellan? Why does MSNBC's Gregory use the Republican talking point, repeatedly, that McClellan simply was out of the loop.....when in fact, McClellan was extremely close to everything that happened in the White House? Why does Gregory, allegedly a journalist whose job is to rightly inform Americans, suggest that McClelland is simply deriving his views now from other critics of Bush's war of choice, despite the fact that McClelland goes way back with George W. Bush and has been one of Bush's most loyal servants?
Furthermore, what difference would it have made in the answers to Chris Matthews' questions if a Bush White House spokesperson was doing the responding instead of Gregory? Isn't Gregory's behavior in defending George W. Bush through the use of misdirection....McClellan "did not formulate war policy"....and accusation against McClelland....that it all sounds "derivative"....prove that Gregory is only serving the president, just as any other White House flack would do? Gregory defends the Bush administration against McClelland's charges in spite of the fact that McClelland was closer to all the information than Gregory could ever hope to be?
Why would he do that?
About This Blog