Rachel Maddow: "... you have to stop making stuff up."

[babylonsister]

True that, I really love this! Yay, Rachel Maddow, again!

[obxhead]

1. yes

[Veri1138]

3. MSNBC was a cheerleader for the Iraq War before they were against it...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9878

[MNBrewer]

4. so was Hillary Clinton

[judesedit]

42. Their Administration lied to them. Just as they lied and withheld information from Colin Powell.

Bushco = war criminals

[MNBrewer]

45. Too bad we're not treating those criminals the way criminals need to be treated.

[tavalon]

9. I know it's easy to get them confused, but

MSNBC isn't Rachel Maddow. While she works for them, she is not synonymous with them.

[obxhead]

17. Yes they were,

But RM wasn't a part of the network at the time.

I was listening to her railing against any conflict in Iraq on Air America radio.

Welcome to DU.

[efhmc]

22. Air America was the only place you could get antiwar talk. I

paid for and got satellite radio for this reason.

[KharmaTrain]

33. Air America Didn't Debut Until March, 2004...

...a year after the Iraq invasion began. There was I.E. Radio America...an internet only Progressive talk station (for the very few of us who had good internet connections in those days). I think Rachel was still at Minnesota Public Radio when the invasion occurred.

[obxhead]

49. Ok,

I guess it was in 04 that I started listening to AAR. However, I know Rachel always stood against the war in Iraq.

[freshwest]

18. Yep, I remember when they cancelled Phil Donahue's show that was doing great.

Because he had the 'nerve' to ask questions about Iraq. MSNBC, CNN, all of them went alon with the movie on every station of them invading Iraq - non stop coverage. Rahrahrah.

It was like 911 where they even went on TWC and MTV to push the videos. No one was going to escape the media pushing the PNAC BushCo agenda.

Hillary lost my vote during the primaries for not respecting criticism of the Iraq War. I can't claim, anymoe than I can now, that these folks don't know something we don't. That they have other forces making them do what they do in regards to the MIC.

This is the only reason I'd want the Sequester. The MIC has some people in it that would kill us if they saw their gravy train coming to a halt. But without cutting their profits, we'll never get off the bad path.

[gtar100]

19. And? How does not that fit with what Rachel said?

It doesn't. And to your point... thank God they changed their tune.

[loyalsister]

35. Cable news outlets report what gets ratings and sponsors

Most Americans were either angry and out for blood or afraid. The majority in this country was easily convinced that Iraq was a good idea because they were emotionally prepared to be.

Almost all of the news outlets were supportive because they were reporting what people wanted to hear. I think they were trying to soothe the country after 9\11 and especially Anthrax. That scared the shit out of people. People wanted to feel assured that terrorism was going on elsewhere. They didn't just convince people that it was located in Iraq, many people thought it was isolated to Iraq. The Bush admin sold a story to people who were ready to buy.

[Veri1138]

2. Ah, yes... "Hubris"... and Rachel Maddow...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9878

[xtraxritical]

5. I read a book called Hubris on the same subject about 5 years ago, what gives?

[winter is coming]

6. The broadcast was based on that book. n/t

[xtraxritical]

26. Oh thanks, now I get it, I thought she was selling a book she wrote. I tuned in a little late!

[winter is coming]

37. Ah. Yes, she explained it in the first minute or so of the broadcast.

I didn't really hear anything that was "new" to me, but it pissed me off all over again, especially since nothing was really done about/to the people who perpetrated the fraud.

[xtraxritical]

44. You got that, "pissed me off all over again". You know, President Obama wanted to be a healer.

[sheshe2]

7. Ah, yes... Hubris...and Rachael Maddow

for your info...Rachel joined MSNBC in 2008....so why are you linking a bradblog link about MSNBC. To a quote Rachel is making about moving this country forward in the year 2013!

Is it me, I am a bit confused here. Explain how the quote that Rachel made today , about our current situation, has anything to do with the news before she got there.

[Veri1138]

12. True....

Maybe MSNBC is just using Rachel Maddow to rewrite their own support... I only put Rachel Maddow in there and not to imply that she was implicated in MSNBCs cheerleading for Bush's Wars.

[sheshe2]

15. I believe that Rachel is instead using MSNBC

To push the agenda that she wants to be heard. She is a voice to be reckoned with!

[Little Star]

28. +1

[tavalon]

10. You don't seem to recognize that the brad blog you keep referencing

is actually quite positive toward this documentary. It clearly states where and how it didn't go far enough, and yet it is a good thing, told with less candor than we might like, but the average person (and most here at DU are far, far more informed than the average person) needs to hear what we knew in the days it was happening, but they won't listen if it's geared for us, the activists. It sounds too partisan if it's too strident.

You can't lead a horse to water by kicking it in the ass. Based on the audience Hubris is trying to speak to, it did the best job it could. If the documentary were geared to us, it might feel very self satisfying, but it would also be very unheard.

[Veri1138]

13. Of course, bradblog is quite favorable toward "Hubris"...

Even going so far as to point out what "Hubris" left out of the discussion of Left Wing political, media, etc... support for the very same war that "Hubris" documents.

Very nice of them to point out the inconsistencies in what Democrats say, then and now, and the reality.

[tavalon]

14. Are you trying to say we don't?

You seem to have missed a lot. We don't lockstep here. Never have. Liberals don't do lockstep, sometimes to our detriment. But in the overall, I am grateful for that. I prefer the honest messiness of liberals to the one true wayism of the conservatives.

[snort]

21. Hubris:

Rimjob.

[efhmc]

23. As I and others said, there was Air America to counter the happy war talk.

And I am sure you know it was a liberal station.

[Downtown Hound]

24. Air America didn't get started until around mid-2004

Over a full year after we invaded Iraq.

[Veri1138]

29. Oh, of course...

Al Franken, IIRC. Folded after not much interest was shown. Much like Al Gore's television news. Well, Al Jazeera is still alive and even Rupert Murdoch is or was investing in them along with some less savory Saudi channels.

[CitizenPatriot]

32. Thanks for being a voice of sanity

You have to mainstream ideas if you really want to change things. It takes everyone - we have to push hard and we have to mainstream. Two very different parts of the same goal.

[pacalo]

16. What point(s) did you want to discuss about Brad's article?

In putting quotation marks around "Hubris", is this what you wanted us to read:

Hubris is the wrong word for what took the United States into war with Iraq. The forces at work were greed, lust for power, and sadistic vengeance. The word "hubris" suggests the tragic downfall of the guilty party. But the war on Iraq did not destroy the United States; it destroyed Iraq. It damaged the United States, to be sure, but in a manner hardly worthy of mention in comparison to the sociocide committed against Iraq.

First, I disagree with Brad's definition. "Hubris" means insolence, arrogance.

Second, it was the perfect title for the documentary because the theme was how an arrogant pResident & his arrogant vice-pResident pushed for attacking a sovereign nation under false pretenses. With only one hour to spare, for whatever reason, the focus was on The Big Lie & the insolent attitudes that would not listen to the experts who knew they were wrong.

[efhmc]

25. Well said.

[Veri1138]

30. "Hubris" in quotations is just for the title...

It is amazing you took it so far.

As for the definition, we'll stick with the unofficial gatekeepers of the English language over at Oxford, which is:

Hubris (noun) - excessive pride or self-confidence

You are confusing synonyms with the definition of hubris. A rookie mistake. Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make and even I do it.

And everyone knows it was for oil. If the original name for Operation Iraqi Freedom - Operation Iraqi Liberation - did not give it away...

The war actually began in Sept. 2002 - the air war. We dumped more bombs on Iraq that month than in the entirety of the previous ten years. And continued to bomb them before invading Iraq. Except, that - as usual - most Americans were asleep at the switch to notice. Seven months of war and not one American I knew even noticed. Shameful, really. But then again, most Americans are in a permanent state of somnambulance.

If we are going to exalt "Hubris" for what it does... explain yet again that the US and our leaders were wrong about the war... Brad does a good job of pointing out what "Hubris" did leave out - namely the cooperation of leaders on the Left. Anything else would be dishonest; telling only part of the truth.

"Hubris" is a perfect title. Do you know why?

Because Bush, Cheney, and the Neo-Cons have gotten away with it.

[Plucketeer]

31. Speaking of "rookies"

"You are confusing synonyms with the definition of hubris. A rookie mistake. Don't worry, it's an easy mistake to make and even I do it." By golly, I think that illuminating insight is definition (of hubris) in itself! Or was that just some sort of wink-wink, Ha-Ha tidbit?




"Seven months of war and not one American I knew even noticed." Now, might I feel sorry for you here. I actually think this might peg you as a troll. Only someone from the "other side" would've been surrounded with folks that numb!

[Veri1138]

36. Well, having actually been there...

It was the same principle of the First Gulf War, and yes, I was there also. Bomb them, then invade them. The US dropped more tonnage of bombs on them than in the previous ten years in September of 2002. And then continued to bomb targets of opportunity, C4I installations, etc. until the US had occupied Iraq after two weeks of ground war with inadequate numbers of troops - even leaving out an entire heavy division that the neo-cons own plan called for.

The air war came first, softening up the Iraqis over seven months. Then the ground invasion. During the First Gulf War, the US and Coalition forces fielded almost 1,000,000 troops in theatre, combat and support during which the air war began over one month before the liberation of Kuwait.

During the Iraq War in 2003, forces were around 300,000 ("Coalition of the Willing" LOL) minus an entire US heavy tank division in transit from the shores of Turkey, through the Suez, and around to Kuwait for offloading - the neo-cons simply could not wait. 1-3rd of the forces called for a longer air war. Why September 2002 to begin the air war? Ask the neo-con planners why... most likely sheer incompetence and the realization that they were never going to field enough troops to properly secure Iraq in the first place.

That is why we ended up stripping non-combat MOSs out of the support units and putting them on the front lines when we went into Baghdad. Marines made headlines with that one.

The genius of the whole thing? Most Americans never knew that the air war - and thus the war - began in September of 2002. The MSM was very controlled by then. Speaking of which, I always enjoyed the footage from "Iraq" that was a repeat of "live combat footage" from "Afghanistan" that was, in reality, a day shot from Fort Irwin, California, at NTC - being presented as a night shot from CNN (and FOX News, later) after being run through a filter to make it appear as a "night shot" while the soldiers were wearing MILES gear and blank adapters on their rifles. Yes, this happened. And much more. And most Americans were too ignorant to notice. Too asleep to even notice that their "live combat shots" from Iraq and Afghanistan were also fake.

If you have a problem with the definition of "hubris" as defined by Oxford, take it up with them. Yes, and you confusing synonyms with a definition is a rookie mistake.

Ah, you called me a troll for pointing out your mistake?

"Hubris" on the part of neo-cons, Cheney, Bush, and Democratic collaborators? They got away with it. Unless there are some war crimes trials (besides Indonesia) that they have been keeping under wraps while Cheney and GW are secretly in prison awaiting trial by the ICC?

Didn't think so.

As for Rachel Maddow drawing attention to "Hubris"? Good. Very good. "Hubris" merely spells out most of what occurred in the run-up while leaving out Democratic collaboration and failing to tell the ENTIRE STORY. Which chalks "Hubris" up as a fine piece of truthful propaganda to feed to the Liberal, Progressive, Leftist, and Democratic masses so they can feel good and say, "We told you so."

Classic manipulation.

Truth hurts. It is best to take it raw and not sugar-coated. People tend to notice the sugar and forget what the truth really is. Coming back to America after five years of being overseas and I see most Americans - on all sides - have not faced up to what they have wrought.

[Plucketeer]

38. LOL!

Re-read your own post. You're getting gummed up in your own mire. I'm sorry I engaged you. It isn't fair to duel with an unarmed person.

[defacto7]

39. Your post #31 pretty much nailed it.

[Veri1138]

51. Deny all you want...

From your misunderstanding of the word, hubris. To taking issue with quotes around the word to denote a title. To not even knowing when the air war started before the Iraqi invasion in 2003. To not even knowing that some of the news footage you were watching wasn't even from the invasion of Afghanistan nor was it from Iraq - despite you being told it was.

Americans are woefully uninformed.

"Hubris" serves a purpose. We already know the information in "Hubris". It is a feel good for fauxgressives to say "I told you so". And then go about their daily lives. Albeit, the information is true, it is presented in such a way that leaves out the culpability of the Left. Face it, if you voted Bush or Obama. You voted for war. You voted for any of the Democrats that said "yes" to Iraq and reauthorized all the Iraqi war funding bills, you voted for war. If you voted third party, maybe you get a pass. If you, as a Democrat, stayed home in 2004 while Bush took the Presidency, you enabled war.

And anything you say will not change that. Watching a film like "Hubris" will not change this. The article on bradblog simply points out some of what "Hubris" left out. "Hubris" does not tell the complete story. It only tells part of the story. In such a way, it is dishonest. But it gives fauxgressives a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

Democrats need to face the reality that the Democratic Party is not as progressive as they would like to believe. Maybe there should be an in-depth documentary that illustrates President Obama's continuation and expansion of what Bush started... We could call it, "Hubris: The Obama Years". Or "Hubris: Democratic Edition".

"Hubris" is actually more important for what it left out, than for what the film maker included that was already known. Congratulations. The article on Brad Blog was kind enough to point that out.

"Hubris" is not shocking. There is nothing new that we did not know already. However, "Hubris" does give something to Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Leftists something to talk about and say, "See! We were right!" What else are Democrats going to do and say? Not much. Stay home or vote in the next election cycle. That's the truth. Consider Iraq... we were kicked out. What would the Democrats have done if we would have stayed? Vote Republican?

Bush had a base full of suckers and he used them. Obama convinced a room full of suckers he was one of them. Though, to be fair, at least more Democrats call out the reality of what Obama has done compared to his rhetoric. "Hubris", like OWS (now there was a worthy cause doomed from the beginning), will change nothing. Will add nothing new.

Mired? When Democrats can face up to their own culpability of what has happened over the last twelve years, then maybe that change Obama promised will be a-coming. Until then, Democrats can pretend. And watch "Hubris" and feel good about knowing Democrats were right that the Iraq War was wrong and based on lies.

Warm, fuzzy feelings. Getting the basic definition of the word, 'hubris', confused with some synonyms. Not even realizing the full extent of how much Democrats have been lied to, even by their own leaders.

Off to the sequester Obama was kind enough to work out with Republicans. Naomi Watts and "The Shock Doctrine" live. Of course, the sequester is the plan all along. I'm going to go enjoy my Bush tax cuts that Obama just helped make permanent.

[Plucketeer]

53. I have to wonder

Which of us are you trying to convince??? That's an awful lot of wasted keystrokes if they're for my benefit.

[Veri1138]

54. The question is...

What are you actually ever going to do? What are all of you?

Since coming back to stateside, I see a lot of talk and cute pictures posted, and documentaries already re-iterating what we already know.

You will vote Democratic. It is your role. Or you will stay home. Some may join some protest - very few.

How does it feel to be powerless?

How does it feel for those who voted for Obama, to have voted for the very things they claim they are against?

Convince? No. Reminder? Yes.

There are most of the Democrats doing the "feel good" thing and then nothing more. Cute pictures posted on Democratic Underground, etc...

These are ugly truths and most are avoiding actually ever doing anything about these truths.

America has not hit rock bottom yet. One quick way to do so would be for the Republicans take power and further sink this country. Then, maybe, people will have some motivation to actually "change". However, judging by the lack of action by people during The Great Depression, that is unlikely.

It would be too hard to give up on the Democratic Party and form a more Progressive party. Too many people have invested too much to even realize that the Democratic Party has failed them.

"Hubris" is just another feel good anesthetic to give Democrats something to feel good about, to be able to say, "I told you so." To give some sense of moral superiority over those that did support the Iraqi invasion. Even as the voted for and elected the politicians who said what Democrats wanted to hear, and then did quite the opposite.

Talk, talk, talk. Same day, same day, same stuff.

People don't need convincing. They need to actually act instead of mouthing off. This has yet to happen in any meaningful way. When it did happen with OWS, most of the sixty-three million voters who voted for Obama... sat at home and moaned.

No, most Democrats will talk while sitting safely at home. And then wonder why things keep not going their way. Most Democrats are simply too afraid to ever do one iota of change.

That is the truth. This is the discussion that Democrats should be having.

"Why can't Democrats do anything?"

[pacalo]

43. "A rookie mistake".

Call the dictionary police right freaking now!1!



Granted, you provided the definition that was flashed on the screen at the beginning of Rachel's documentary. My synonyms are also appropriate for the subject matter. My point was based on your short, cryptic post with a link to bradblog.com that asserted that "hubris" suggested the tragic downfall of the guilty party.

I agree with you that it was about oil & I agree with Brad about the forces at work in misleading the country: greed, lust for power, and sadistic vengeance.

As for "seven months of war (through air strikes, as you pointed out in your second reply to me) & not one American...even noticed", that's all on the media, the used-to-be "Fourth Estate" who failed at looking out for the public's interest. What were ordinary Americans supposed to do -- jump in our private jets & helicopters to see for ourselves?

Those of us who were hungry for the truth were damn lucky that Tony Blair jumped on the neocons' gravy-train fiasco because the British citizenry were outraged. Our main sources for the truth & eye-opening ugliness were the British media, particularly The Guardian.

Seven months of war and not one American I knew even noticed. Shameful, really. But then again, most Americans are in a permanent state of somnambulance.

You seem angry about that. Are you aware that we liberals were the only ones searching for the truth? The other side was giddy about war & blindly 100% behind the "hubris". Remember "bomb their @ss, take their gas" from the other side? We liberals watched for news every day for some revelation from the media that the "up is down" mentality would be rescued by logic.

You give the impression that you're angry at the Democrats. Do you remember the "you're either with us or against us" mentality, which was pathetically wrapped in the constant "9/11" reminders by the neocons? People tend to forget that, but I remember the political atmosphere well. There were 21 Democrats who bravely stood up to vote "no" on the war; I have to admit that it was painfully frustrating that there weren't a sufficient number of them voting "no" that could have prevented it from happening.

And for you to come here, to a site where everyone was glued to the information highway with anger, from the moment Bush/Cheney were handed the presidency by SCOTUS through the Iraq war crimes & the teabaggers' chicanery, & tell us that "not one American noticed", that "most Americans are in a permanent state of somnambulance", is flat-out wrong &, frankly, full of "hubris".

[erronis]

48. Thank you for a reasoned response

to a series of intentionally inflammatory (or unintentionally obtuse) responses. I find that I turn away from conversations that have devolved into personal attacks - I'm glad you're a stronger person than me.

[pacalo]

50. Thanks.

It sounded like he was the one who had been in a bubble during all these years & wasn't familiar with how we Democrats had a mindset 360 degrees from how he was portraying us. Anyone who had paid attention & has at least one brain cell of memory knows how everything went down & why. His anger needs to be directed at the other side for their giddy support of the worst administration since Herbert Hoover. His coming here to blame Democrats & to diss Rachel didn't set well with me.

Welcome to DU, erronis!

[Veri1138]

52. Thank you for the intelligent reply...

Anger would be the wrong word. Disappointment would be more like it. In that Democrats are engaged in their own hubris. That, despite what so many Democrats say they believe, based on all that information out there that they knew about. Sitting their glued to the information highway, parsing the data, etc.

That not enough of them live up to what they say they believe. That many still sit around doing, effectively, nothing. Helping to continue the status quo. Crowing about the decline of the Republican Party in the face of an illusory Democratic juggernaut. All the while being led down the same path that Bush was leading them down.

It was interesting with OWS. Obama wins by five million votes, what... sixty-three million voters who voted Democratic? Where were those sixty-three million Democrats when OWS was getting started? Where are those sixty-three million voters protesting Obama and his policies? Where were those sixty-three million Democrats when Obama decided not to investigate war crimes from the previous Administration? Where are those sixty-three million voters protesting the decline of Main Street as Wall Street consumes more of America's (and hence, the Democratic voter's) wealth? Where are those sixty-three million voters protesting the continuation of Afghanistan? Drone wars? Government spying? Whistle blowers being jailed? Demanding transparency from one of the most opaque Administration's in history?

You know where those Democratic voters were and are? Voting for all the above. And more. Drone wars. Afghanistan. Government spying. Executive assassination. Fraudclosure, the continuation of. Income inequality. Voting 'no' to single-payer health care. Voting for a President - a Democratic President - who put Social Security and Medicare on the table for cuts. Wall Street bailouts and TBTF. And all the above. Things the "progressive" Democrat claim to be against. They seem to be voting for all of this quite a lot.

And then to call themselves Democrats and Progressives. Hypocrisy. Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy. There is a difference between what a person says and does. Democrats - in effect, the New Republicans - judging by what the Democratic Party has come to represent; they need to stop saying and start doing. All sixty-three million of them.

They need to stop being fauxgressives and start doing. The first step is to realize that they have a serious problem, among many. One, that their actions do not match their words. That would be a good start.

On a side note, what would America be like under a single-party system?

[sheshe2]

8. Excellent!

Damn well said, Rachel!

Thank you, babylonsister!

[tavalon]

11. Innit?

I sent it on. Let it go viral!

[amuse bouche]

20. Speaking of fab people,

there was a show about The Oscars last night, hosted by Katie Couric. It reminded us that Michael Moore got up on stage and shouted, 'shame at you President Bush.'

This was 4 days after Bush decided to invade Iraq. I forgot that some of Hollywood booed.

[Little Star]

27. I adore Rachel!

[Cha]

34. Good Advice for Everybody. Thanks

babylonsistah!

[defacto7]

40. Perfect Rachel!

n/t

[judesedit]

41. Their Administration lied to them. Just as they lied and withheld information from Colin Powell.

[cyberpj]

46. Love this woman. nt

[just1voice]

47. Why aren't the war criminals with "Hubris" being held accountable?

There's a real question that if answered would make the country a lot better.