Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Tucker you ass!

Below is a transcript of Tucker Carlson's interview with Meda Matter's David Brock. This is a great example of the true face of fanatic conservatism's lack of respect for and tolerance of another person's perception and belief. They sure as hell don't give an inch in their blowhard approach to a conversation. Take this as a warning! When trying to have a conversation with one of these close minded jerks, it might be a good idea to come well prepared for not a gentlemanly debate, but a bar room brawl! Watch out for the sucker punch!
Note: my comments are in blue....of course
Schreibe


CARLSON: Now the left-wing blog Media Matters for America is calling on its readers to e-mail ABC, urging the network to postpone “The Path to 9/11.” Joining me now from Washington, the head of Media Matters, David Brock. David, welcome.

DAVID BROCK, PRESIDENT, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Hey, thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So a bunch of Clinton people, former Clinton officials, want to censor this project. Why are you helping them?
"a bunch of Clinton people".....something like a "bunch of bananas".....thanks Tuck!

BROCK: I don‘t really think it‘s about what former Clinton people want or even what we want. I mean, the story‘s changed today, as you know. I mean, ABC now admits—ABC admits—that they made stuff up in the production of this movie, that there are composite characters and made-up dialogue. The writer-producer today is quoted as saying that a key scene involving Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser, where he supposedly is declining to give an order to kill Osama bin Laden and slams down a phone—and the writer-producer of the movie says Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone. This is not in the 9/11 report, and accidents occur in making the film. And Tom Kean, the adviser, the Republican former co-chair of the 9/11 commission, has said some of the people shown there probably weren‘t there. So all the people involved in this movie have now said that it‘s fiction. That‘s the issue.

CARLSON: Well, it is fiction, David. I mean, you‘ve got to be kidding! This is by definition partly fictionalized. It‘s a docudrama. It is not a documentary, and it‘s not billed as such. This is a broad-brush account of what ABC and the producers of this film think happened in the run-up to 9/11. No one is claiming every part of this actually happened. That‘s the whole point! I mean, that‘s news from nowhere, isn‘t it?

BROCK: It‘s not. I mean, they do claim that the movie is based on facts in the 9/11 commission report. So when you go to the 9/11 commission report and try to check some of the scenes, you find in many cases that the 9/11 commission report says the opposite of what...

CARLSON: No, they actually don‘t find that, David!

BROCK: ... this is represented as.

CARLSON: Actually...

BROCK: And this is...

CARLSON: Wait. Hold on. That‘s just—just to correct what you said, because what you said is incorrect. ABC is no longer claiming—if they did, they are not, at this point, anyway, claiming that it is based on or taken directly from the 9/11 report. They‘re saying they used the 9/11 report in putting together this docudrama. But the point that they‘re making, that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration both had a hand in allowing America to be unprepared for 9/11, and that the Bushy—the Clinton administration didn‘t take terrorism seriously enough and didn‘t do all it could to apprehend Osama bin Laden. That‘s beyond dispute! We know that to be true. That‘s a fact. So the Clinton people are mad about it. They‘re defensive about it. I get it. But why are you helping them to rewrite history? Why are you being a shill for their interests in this case?
SorryTuck, I did not see anything related to blaming anything on Bush....all I saw was Bush the hero!....and,who is trying to rewrite history!......Tuck please!......you posterior of a donkey (oops,,sorry Democrats...did not mean anything by the donkey comment)

BROCK: Look, this is, as you say being billed as a docudrama, but there‘s no docu to the drama. It‘s all drama. The Media Matters mission is to fight misinformation in the media, and everything we know about this movie, including the admissions by ABC, by the writer-producer, by Tom Kean, show that it‘s a total distortion and totally fictionalized...

(CROSSTALK)

BROCK: I just have to add one thing.

CARLSON: Yes.

BROCK: You know there are educational materials being disseminated by ABC and Scholastic to 100,000 teachers across the United States. So even if one was to take your point, OK, the movie‘s all made up, it‘s inexcusable—it‘s inexcusable that educational materials that have false information, that say Iraq was integral to 9/11 -- now, you know, even President Bush says that‘s not true.

CARLSON: But actually...

BROCK: How could this be happening?

CARLSON: ... the educational material don‘t say that. But one point at a time.

BROCK: But...

CARLSON: Now, wait! Hold on. Sit down! You are, I think, in partisan hitman mode, and that‘s a shame—I‘m serious! -- because this—history is important because it informs how we take on the future.
Come on Tuck!.....talk about partisan hitmen.......talk about serious!......talk about history, information,and future! You remind me of a character right out of the pages of George Orwell's 1984.

This is a quote from “The Washington Post,” not from any right-wing cabal. Quote, “The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture Osama bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999,” just between that period. “The Post” also goes on to say, “In 1996, the government of Sudan offered to hand over Osama bin Laden.” The Clinton administration gave up on that because, quote, “It lacked a case to indict him in U.S. courts.”

The point is, the Clinton administration did not, in a series of well-documented, beyond-dispute instances, do all it could to apprehend or kill Osama bin Laden. We know that as a fact!

BROCK: Look...

CARLSON: So I‘m sorry you don‘t like it, but that‘s just true!
I have compete confidence in your knowledge of the truth, Tuck.......You Repubs sure do have it all together!......Thank GOD that you have HIM on your side!

BROCK: It‘s not what I like or don‘t like. What I don‘t like is a film that—you know, any film can show failures of any administration. That‘s fine. But don‘t make up the failures. Don‘t fictionalize. Stay true to the facts.

CARLSON: But that‘s the claim that this film makes, that the Clinton administration did not do it could to apprehend Osama bin Laden...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ... very touchy about that.
Yes Tucker, we are somewhat touchy about the truth

BROCK: They make the case...

CARLSON: It wounds. It hurts to hear it, but it‘s true!
Wow!....thanks Tucker.....I was starting to get confused about the truth again!

BROCK: They make the case with false depictions. They show Madeleine Albright—they defame Madeleine Albright, saying that she tried to warn Pakistan about U.S. air strikes. She didn‘t. The 9/11 commission said it was the U.S. military that did that. That‘s defamation.

CARLSON: OK. It‘s defamation? That‘s ridiculous! That‘s—that‘s
you know what? You‘re reading off a list of talking points! And again, you‘re not addressing...
yea....good old "talking points".....seems like FOXY NEWS is great at that stuff!

BROCK: I‘m not reading.

CARLSON: No, no! You‘re—yes, you are!
ok tucker, what is it no,no or yes yes!.....are you starting to lose it or something!

BROCK: I am not.

CARLSON: You‘re repeating talking points distilled, come up with,written by...
hear we go again with the talking points!

BROCK: Come on!

CARLSON: ... people who worked in—no, who represent...
zeez....you are starting not to make sense Tuck!

BROCK: You don‘t know that.

CARLSON: ... the interests...
yes....keep going!

BROCK: That‘s not the case.

CARLSON: I do know that! I‘ve read everything you‘ve been e-mailing to me and other journalists all day long!
and you didn't like it much, did you Tucker

BROCK: What we‘ve been e-mailing...

CARLSON: And it is basically...
yes.....keep it coming!

BROCK: ... is our original research, Tucker.

CARLSON: OK. Well, I think, in this case...
what! tuck??????

BROCK: And if you don‘t like it...

CARLSON: ... as many others, you are acting as a partisan Democratic shill, and it‘s a shame...
Ouch!.....that really hurt Tucker!

BROCK: That‘s absolutely...

CARLSON: ... on behalf—hold on! -- on behalf of people...
tell it the way it is Tucker.....talk "on behalf of all the people"....tell us all the truth again!

BROCK: If we‘re going to get into name-calling, Tucker...

CARLSON: ... who have a vested interest—I‘m not name-calling!
ut oh.....this is taking me back to the school yard.....grade school even!

BROCK: Yes, you are.

CARLSON: I just think this history is important, and there are people...
looks to me like you are calling this "Docudrama" history.....say it isn't so Tuck!

BROCK: It is important.

CARLSON: ... John Podesta, Sandy Berger, who were there at the time, who have a vested interest in presenting their side of the case, and I think it‘s important that our viewers know that, that this is coming from a specific perspective. It‘s not just disinterested historians trying to correct the record!

BROCK: It‘s coming from the writer-producer of the film, who says Sandy Berger never hung up the phone. It‘s coming from ABC, that admits the film is inaccurate. And when CBS found inaccuracies in their Reagan biopic, which was, you know, a docudrama, they pulled the movie.

CARLSON: They pulled the movie because of pressure—political pressure from conservatives and former Reagan administration employees, who said they didn‘t want their hero presented in this way. And at that time, liberals had a fit! They said, This is censorship, this is outrageous. No one claimed this was a—they‘re making the same argument that I am making now. And I actually didn‘t argue with them because I sort of agree. I mean, people have a right to take poetic and artistic license to get a true point across. And in this case, you‘re acting on...
yea......keep going.....you just had to say "to get a true point accross", instead of just plain old "to get a point accross"......telling us about the TRUTH again, right Tucker!......thanks so much!

BROCK: So you‘re saying...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ... censor the truth!
"censor the truth".....please Tucker, we already talked about how this is fiction!

BROCK: ... the facts can be wrong if some overall point is true?

CARLSON: No.

BROCK: Is that what you‘re saying?

CARLSON: That‘s not—that‘s not at all what I‘m saying!

BROCK: OK.

CARLSON: I am saying that this docudrama does not purport to be a documentary, A. And B...

BROCK: Educational materials are going out to school children based...

CARLSON: Those educational materials...

BROCK: ... on this movie.

CARLSON: No, but those educational materials...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You can‘t point to one thing that is inaccurate! You can‘t point to a single thing that is inaccurate in those materials!

BROCK: Yes, I gave you...

CARLSON: Go ahead and point to one!

BROCK: ... one earlier. I gave you one earlier. They said Iraq was integral to—an integral country in 9/11, and that‘s not the case.

CARLSON: No, actually—actually, they did not say that. The statement that it—no! In those materials, it said the president responded and the Congress responded to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq and doing a number of other things. It doesn‘t...

BROCK: Was Iraq integral to 9/11?

CARLSON: It said he responded to 9/11 by doing it. The point is, you are twisting—you‘re spinning this...

BROCK: Why do they...

CARLSON: ... from a certain perspective.

BROCK: Why do they say that it was thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and never come back and say, Hey, those weren‘t found?

CARLSON: Well, actually, weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, just not enough to justify a war...
oh no!!....not the old WMD's again....please!.....I can't take much more of this!

BROCK: OK.

CARLSON: ... in the opinion of many, including me. I mean, I‘m not defending the war in Iraq, I‘m merely saying that you can‘t point to those materials and say they‘re factually wrong. You‘re just taking the side of people who...

BROCK: I am not.

CARLSON: ... are mad because their inadequacies are being held up to public view!

BROCK: We‘ve looked at those materials closely, and anybody who wants to can go on our Web site and see that they are filled with misinformation.

CARLSON: OK. I think your Web site is filled with misinformation, and never moreso than in this case. I think it‘s embarrassing, what you‘re doing, and I would be ashamed, if I were you, but you‘re not.

BROCK: I‘m not.

CARLSON: And I‘m sorry that you‘re not. David Brock, thanks for coming on.

BROCK: Thank you.

Great ending Tucker....just a great ending....absolutly full of class! Remind me to wear full body armour next time.

(Sorry, I just had to use red for this last comment......I was seeing red!)

schreibe





Post a Comment

Answer Tips enabled....double click on any word

About Me

My photo

Native of the Philadelphia "Kensington and Alleganey" northeast area. I spent 4 years in the Air Force (Titan-II missles in Tuscon Arizona). I Am currently retired, and among other adventures I spent 28 years working for AT&T in Telecommunications. I've lived in Florida for 33 years....20 years in Hollywood Fla., and 13 years North Florida. I've been married 42 years, and am a proud father of three adult offspring. All of them contributing to society in a very useful and creative manner.