Douglas Feith on the Daily Show

Primetime Politics ^ | May 13, 2008 | Douglas Feith

[moderatewolverine]

Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, has embarked on that most difficult and worthy of voyages: to set the record straight on the run-up to the War in Iraq. Yesterday, his voyage brought him to the Daily Show, deep into the heart of uninformed territory...

[moderatewolverine]

Worth the 12 minutes.

[ottbmare]

ping

[babble-on]

Feith is right about one thing, the administration did a very poor job of explaining what the reasons for the war were, and what their expectations were. Its not that they concealed that, but the message didn’t come through that it was about more than WMD, so that when the WMD didn’t turn up, it appeared that the whole case had been a failure. That was the most unfortunate aspect of it all, and a more articulate president might have done a better job.

[SolidWood]

Stewart is a flaming lib, but he often hosts very interesting guests. Bremer, McCain, Faith were all on DS.

[steve-b]

Worse, the administration’s totally inept communications gave people the impression that they were hiding something.

[Air Force Brat]

Uninformed? I guess whomever posted that hasn’t seen the Pew study indicating that viewers of shows like The Daily Show and the O’Reilly Factor are considerably better informed than media sources such as CNN or Fox News. Or, bringing up the rear, network morning news shows, which are definitely the worst.

Reference: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

[RexBeach]

Quite right.

The Bush WH was completely inept at explaining what they were doing and why they were doing it in the Iraq War, and the run up to it.

[TADSLOS]

Worse, the administration’s totally inept communications gave people the impression that they were hiding something.

Worse yet- appointing someone like Feith to that position to begin with.

[roses of sharon]

Daily Show viewers have knowledge of DU, Keith Olberman, KOS, and Huffington.

Uninformed conspriazoid territory.

[roses of sharon]

Nonsense, I understood perfectly, as did millions of others across the globe.

President Bush and Tony Blair explained it over, and over, and over, and over.

This interview shows the absolute sophomoric nature of the left, and a serious person with a serious book need not lower themselves by appearing on left-wing propaganda.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"Feith is right about one thing, the administration did a very poor job of explaining what the reasons for the war were,.."

Not to totally disagree, but the President gets very few opportunies to DIRECTLY "explain" information to the American people. Everything else is delivered, almost always with a Liberal interpretation and analysis, by the MSM. AND, as future events take place, the "re-remembering" is selectively and often incorrectly done(on purpose of course) by the MSM, while other facts are conveniently forgotten. IMHO the only way to do a 'good job' of explaining is to have the MSM on your side, like the Clintons did. Note I said "did", as the MSM has turned against her. She can do a fantastic "job of explaining" anything but the MSM is against her now, so it doesn't matter.

[RexBeach]

Sorry, but we disagree.

I can tell you that there were a lot of GOP members of Congress who disagree with you.

Feith should not have allowed his publisher to book him on that show. JD is a punk. He made Feith look like a dummy, however.

[roses of sharon]

Feith is a bureaucrat, not an entertainer, and no, he should not appear with Saddam's propaganda tools, hoping to make them “understand”, lol.

And I disagree with the “ GOP members of Congress”, who hid in their bunkers afraid, while the MSM and the UnAmerican Democrat Party slandered the President, the VP, the military, Tony Blair, etc.

[babble-on]

I agree with you regarding Blair. He DID explain it all, and well. However, he was not a member of the US government. Bush needed to be out constantly in the run-up to the war, and in its process and its aftermath, setting and managing expectations against the developments on the ground. He was just not up to that job. The man is not a good public speaker, and he’s not good at thinking on his feet. He delegated it to Rumsfeld and Cheney, and their personalities worked against them in public opinion (I am a big fan of each of them, myself, but in a serious minority in that regard.)

[RexBeach]

I agree with everything you say. But...the WH during the war did a rotten PR job. With the exception of Mr. Bush landing on the aricraft carrier. That was sharp.

[roses of sharon]

I disagree, the entire Administration did exactly what a pro-American, pro-victory, government running a war should do. As did past war leaders.

Pro American propaganda used to be a good thing.

No leader in his right mind would get up everyday and whine, cry, apologize, for every error, mistake, lost battle, etc.

Can you imagine FDR doing that?

No, it was the fact that the Administration did not want to get into a tit-for-tat with the anti-American Democrat Party and GLOBAL news media that wanted us to lose.

The MSM/Hollywood/Academia/DNC “war room” were running a shadow government, leaking intell, with traitors in bureaucracies being sourced in articles and on the air for an immediate counter point to ANY speech or interview by Administration official. (who could not reveal intell for our side)

As evidenced by the REFUSAL FOR 5 YEARS RUNNING, to broadcast the DAILY briefings by Military commanders on the ground, in BOTH war theaters. Reporters from around the world, including Iraqi and Afghan reporters, were asking good questions, hostile and not, as it should be.

The American public, nor the worldwide public were NOT allowed to SEE gobs of info, battles won and lost, reasons, rationals, plans, what worked and didn't work, what would be trying next.

WE GOT ZERO, on purpose, for a reason.

Rumsfeld and Cheney are/were serious adults throughout, and obviously did not try to “get good press”, therefore the press ruined their reputations, on purpose.

As far as Blair goes, it was he who devised the strategy of going to the UN to argue for 14 months. He refused to go in on a “regime change” mandate, remember?

He only would go if Bush took it to the UN as a WMD charge.

Cheney and Rumselfed disagreed, and Bush went with Powell and Blair's plan.

This was the President's first mistake, but obviously he thought he needed Blair and had no choice.

[roses of sharon]

The WH cannot control the worldwide news media.

See #16.

[RexBeach]

The president, as TR once said, has a “bully pulpit.” He didn’t use it.

[bvw]

Feith did okay. Stewart gave him time, that was something.

Still, Stewart did not read the book, at least not much of it, imo. And Stewart's last words, when he shut Feith's mike down, were a cheap shot mock of the book.

Stewart treasures his make-believe remembrance of things past, as does his audience.

So many, so deluded. It is a very human weakness, and takes some considerable and continual effort not to fall to the traps. Why help others into them, or to stay in them?

Reminds me of the Matrix movie -- where the one crew member, Cypher, sells out his companions for the sake of a comfortable, pleasurable life he well knows is a total delusion!

Not only is there military hierarchy in the resistance, but a traitor arises within the resistance who blames Morpheus for teaching him the truth and who says he's still not free because he only follows Morpheus's orders. The anarchist- individualist sells out to the Matrix for [imaginary --bvw] steak, wine and a future computer program where he is famous and wealthy. Thus after achieving a relatively high level of scientific consciousness, the traitor says he is "tired" and actually kills his one-time compatriots before being killed before he could be re-absorbed by the Matrix.

Source: Matrix helps demonstrate materialism and dialectics. Maoist International Movement

[kabar]

I suggest that people read the Text of Joint Resolution On Iraq Passed 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate on October 10 and 11, 2002 There are 23 reasons why we went to war in Iraq and they are all listed. Congress certainly knew why.