Amy Goodman spoils MSNBC's Birthday - Where's Donahue?

On MSNBC's 10th anniversary, on Chris Matthew's Hardball guest Amy Goodman of Democracy Now criticizes the network executives for firing Phil Donahue for his anti-war views, citing secret NBC memo. Where are the peace voices?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Hardball
• MSNBC
• Amy
• Goodman
• Phil
• Donahue
• Mel
• Gibson
• peace
• war
• Israel
• Lebanon

[goindownwitit]

did you hear in the background the dude who said, "MSNBC does" lmao

[realgoodscoobysnacks]

Its amazing to watch how uncomfortable Chris Matthews becomes when somebody talks about real issues instead of the stupid mindless fluff that fills his show every fucking day. Day after day. His god damn show is a worthless distraction from real shit that matters. Fuck Matthews and all the talking heads that make people the U.S stupid. Hey everyone lets talk about Sarah Palin for 15 min on every show all week long. Matthews little talk is as worthless as a rusty nickle.

[sk8tafrnk]

@MattSingh1 [third message]

Well I'm going to go to bed here. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. If you respond I'll get back to you after I get home from work and all that crap.

[sk8tafrnk]

@MattSingh1 [second message]

Are you implying that the CIA has little credibility as you claim the IAEA does. And if so, what is a more credible research/intelligence agency that we should actually be listening to?

[sk8tafrnk]

@MattSingh1 In regards to mentioning the Soviet Union, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Can be more specific on that in particular and I'll respond if I can.

In regards to everything else, our Pentagon/ government explains a completely different story than what you have said in both leaked classified documents and unclassified documents.

[MattSingh1]

@sk8tafrnk ..(cont) the Soviet Union was a growing economic and military power. In regards to opinion polls in the Arab world, that’s actually not the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan; troops we greeted the length and breadth of Iraq upon the intervention in 2003. In Afghanistan, 50% of the population (women) now have the right to vote, be educated and essentially, live. I assume you prefer Taliban rule to what there is now, which immoral masochism as you’re never likely to live like that.

[MattSingh1]

@sk8tafrnk It's my view that Israel could not, and should not, attack Iran's reactors like they did with Osirak reactor in '81. I also do not favour attacks on Iran per-se, but rather supporting it's uprising, ala Libya. The IAEA has little credibility on these issues; Blix certified North Korea as kosher, for one example. Also, the CIA is of the same ilk; it's beyond reform, and needs to be torn-down and rebuilt. Remember, the CIA, in '89, warned that (cont..)

[sk8tafrnk]

@MattSingh1 I'm not defending Iran's actions. I'm saying, obviously there will be a point where we'll have to attack them. At this point, there's less violent alternatives and we should pursue them. There's several people who address this, including an IAEA member from the former administration. I'll link to them if you want.

If we have liberated so many people, then why do Arabs hate the U.S. so much? Look at Arab opinion polls? You think if we helped them they'd like us.

[sk8tafrnk]

@MattSingh1 [Second message]

I brought up the Israel/ Palestine conflict for several reason. One, it's been central to everything that's going on there in many different ways. For one, Britain breaking up Transjordan to take control of the resources over there is kind of the start of all of this.

Also, it demonstrates how the U.S. leaves/ creates bad situations over there as long as they benefit us/ don't affect us negatively.

[MattSingh1]

@sk8tafrnk ...(cont) (4) Yes, the US and others have been on the wrong side of history in the region, such as supplying weapons for the Al-Anfal campaign of genocide, such as the overthrow of the Iranian democratic government in the 50s so US oil companies could control the oil flow, but now, finally, the US is on the right side of history. I support this positive policy change of supporting democracy and over-throwing dictators. Obviously some preferred it the other way around.

[MattSingh1]

@sk8tafrnk (1) Iran has no right to go nuclear; I suggest you re-read, or read, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. (2) "Iran is building (allegedly) a nuclear program because we're threatening them. So we threaten them more." So, it's the US's fault the leaders of Iran murder and repress their own population? Talk sense.. (3) The 'fucked up things we do to them'? Like liberating million in Afghanistan and Iraq? Like fighting Fascist Islam that has murdered thousands of fellow Muslims? (cont)-

[sk8tafrnk]

@MattSingh1 Iran is building (allegedly) a nuclear program because we're threatening them. So we threaten them more. We could extinguish this problem now if we wanted, but we don't. We want an excuse to attack.

You see, Arabs hate the U.S. because of all the fucked up things we do to them. We're culturing that violence. The Pentagon determined this in DSB Report in 2004. It's an unclassified document available on the Pentagon website.

I don't really watch Michael Moore or Hitchens.