Dan Abrams Wankery from 12/02/02 on Iraq
By John Amato Friday Sep 28, 2007 8:10pm
Jonathan Schwartz found this remarkable transcript of Dan Abrams after Fishbowl DC said they heard he forced David Shuster's apology to Rep. Blackburn that was unwarranted. Kudos to Mike Farrell for trying to bring Dan back to earth during the run up to the Iraq war, but he was out of control. And the media wonders why we blame them for enabling the White House to fool the American people about Saddam.
So how did Abrams become general manager in the first place? Clearly GE executives liked the job he was doing previously as host of The Abrams Report—for instance, his impressive performance in this December 12, 2002 interview with Mike Farrell. (I learned about this from Jeff Cohen's book Cable News Confidential.)
As you'll see, it's no surprise GE decided to elevate Abrams to a key decision-making position. He knows how to get the job done.
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: On the agenda tonight: a new report that Iraq may have given Islamic terrorists nerve gas. If so, could that change a lot of minds about war? We'll ask policymakers, and a even Hollywood star who is leading the anti-war effort, whether this could change everything...
[The story Abrams referred to had been on the Washington Post's front page the day before, and was completely untrue.]
Some of Hollywood's biggest names are urging restraint in the standoff with Iraq. This week, they signed a letter addressed to President Bush asking him to tone down the rhetoric and urged him to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict instead of using military action.
The letter reads, in part: "War talk in Washington is alarming and unnecessary. The valid U.S. and U.N. objective of disarming Saddam Hussein can be achieved through legal diplomatic means. There is no need for war."
But does Iraq's reported sale or gift of chemical weapons to an Islamic extremist group change all of that?
Joining me now is one of the people who signed that letter, a former "M.A.S.H." star, as well as NBC's "Providence," Mike Farrell...
What do you make of this? This new report indicates to me that this, if true, is a very, very serious issue that might warrant a war with Iraq.
FARRELL: Sure. Let me, if I might, ask you to back up just a bit. "If true," you said.
ABRAMS: Right.
FARRELL: What if it's not true?
ABRAMS: Well, let's start...
(CROSSTALK)
FARRELL: No, let's start with the history.
You know and the American people should know that this administration has hired a public relations firm to sell its case on war -- for war on Iraq. If this leak that is, as Secretary Korb simply just pointed out inferentially, if this leak done in the way it is, which doesn't really tie them to it, but may propose the proposition, so that you and others can raise it on television and ratchet up again people's fears, if this report is not true, what does it mean?
And what does it mean to those of us in America who feel that perhaps this administration, as has been called the most secretive in U.S. history, is simply trying to gull us into approving an action that goes against the very principles upon which our democracy is based?
ABRAMS: OK. Now let's go to my question, which is, if it is true, does that change your position? And my concern has always been that this letter was premature, meaning that, right now, what we have seen is the president go to the U.N., get a 15-0 resolution, hasn't attacked Iraq, hasn't gone in unilaterally, maybe doing this as a strategic move to make it clear that the U.S. is serious. If this is true, then would that make you reevaluate and say to yourself: Maybe we were hasty?
FARRELL: Sure. Let me respond to your preamble before I respond to the question.
The president's going to the U.N., as you well know, or I assume you know, was done reluctantly. It was done at the urging of Secretary Powell, against the wishes of most of the hawks in the administration.
ABRAMS: It was done, though. It was done. Who cares why? It was done...Now answer my question, which is, if it's true.
FARRELL: Yes, but you have also -- forgive me -- you have loaded the question with any number of principles leading up to it.
ABRAMS: Forget about the principles. Just answer the...
FARRELL: No, I am not going to forget about the principles. I will answer the question if you will shut up and let me...But let's be fair. The administration has been acting -- the media, forgive me, has been acting as a megaphone for the administration throughout this process.
ABRAMS: You know, that's...How much media are you actually watching on this? Are you really watching a lot of...
FARRELL: When you emblazon your own show with "Showdown With Iraq" or "Countdown on Iraq" and all this other stuff...what is the message that is sent, do you suppose, to the American people?
ABRAMS: The message that is sent is that there has been a U.N. resolution that has given Saddam Hussein a certain amount of time to respond. Saddam Hussein had a timeframe. He had to respond..
Let me bring in Lawrence Korb...Lawrence Korb is someone who you all have cited, because, as I pointed out before, he has been reluctant.
Are you as cynical as Mr. Farrell about the administration, basically suggesting that any possible al Qaeda connection, etcetera, simply would be false?
KORB: Well, I think one has to be cynical about the way that they have released information. For the longest time, they kept trumpeting this idea that there was this meeting in Prague. That turned out not to be true.
And there's the point I made earlier. If in fact this is true, they need to come forward, tell us, not have leaks, unnamed sources, without White House permission. On "60 minutes" last Sunday, they showed that they leaked a story to the paper. Then, all the members then went on television and cited that as a source.
ABRAMS: I agree with you both when it comes to how information is released. The question is, if it is true, it is scary.
FARRELL: Well, yes.
ABRAMS: And that is much more important to me than how it's being released...
FARRELL: Is it important to you that the administration has lied in the past and that we have indications that they're continuing to try and gull us into believing that they are telling the truth?
ABRAMS: I don't know about that.
FARRELL: Well, they have.
Login or Register to post comments.
Fine, Abrams is a right wing shill! 90% of the MSM acted the same way in the run up to the war! Abrams is still acting that way. He should go work for Faux!
Wow. Farrell is about 100 times as smart and well-spoken as Abrams. That transcript is astonishing.
Awesome post, John.
Sounds like Abrams was reading right off of the paranoid "one percent doctrine" - fear tactics again from the MSM.
I save $50/month by having most of my cable channels turned off. So long MSNBC, CNN and most of all the FOX propaganda channel. I would suggest that if you have access to the internet that this lack of channels is really not that bad.
I do not have to get upset by that little boy Tucker or those other obnoxious "experts" on MSNBC. CNN has gone down the tubes since Ted lost control.
I thought Mr. Abrams got the job because his daddy was somebody important.
It certainly is disappointing to read his cheerleading us onto war just a few years ago.
It sure is amazing how well an "unqualified" (sic) Hollywood actor and celebrity perceived the shakiness of this administration's case for war and the suspicious manner of their releasing questionable information to justify it, when all the insiders in Congress--Hillary prominent among them--say they "believed the President" and "if they had known then what they know now" they wouldn't have voted to cede power to the President to go to war against Iraq. (Of course, the recent majority vote FOR the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment--including Hillary, again--shows such claims are lies and self-serving bullshit.)
And this little gullible puke has the audacity to force Schuster to apologize, for something Schuster was right about?
I can see he has always had a shoot-from-the-hip style - from quickly jumping to a conclusion on Iraq (with no substance) to quickly forcing an apology from Schuster (with no substance). A character attribute that in a smart sane country would not make him eligible for promotion in a journalism position.
Next time someone from the media plays more-credible-than thou, remember that a replacement actor on M*A*S*H was more clear-eyed and rigorous than pretty much the entire MSM establishment
Seeing it written out is eye-opening.
I second Ozymandias' (2) and justabill's (3) posts above.
Ozymandias @ 2:
Very prescient, indeed. Why does America prefer to listen to jaw-jacking hype for war rather than a thoughtful rationale against rushing into war? Yet here we are, watching history repeat itself while we are still engaged in two disastrous wars of bush's making, neither one successful, neither one yet totally lost but well on their way.
I wonder what damning documents will surface against the liars in the next 3 to 5 years, far too late to extricate ourselves from another war.
Happily, with all the navel gazing The Media did after they "discovered" that BushCo had lied to them about the WMDs (remember that?) it's members now realize they should actually check their stories first before running them. I'm sure Abrams has reformed his thoughts.
Or maybe not.
Belated kudos to MF for burying this @ssclown. Unfortunately it is truly remarkable how they always get bumped upward in these dark times...
In the corporate world, sh*t always rises to the top.
Abrahms is a whore....and Farrell wasn't buying it..he must of brown nosed someone pretty good to get that job.Do you think his integrity was worth it?.....he's a slimey whore.
Abrams appears to be in way over his head. He might as well be asking, "If indeed my aunt had balls, would she not then be my uncle? Well? Well?!"
mudshark @ 13:
And so is Abrams.......
To those of you who are "new", the OJ case on Court TV was Abrams initiation to the all-star liar's club. I watched every minute. His enflamed rhetoric shifted public opinion, which had been strongly in disbelief that OJ committed a crime at the beginning point...the arraignment.
No matter the judgement you place on OJ, Abram's manner of reporting was to gloss over any indications of innocence with a smirking "you and I both know he's guilty" attitude. To you folks who say it doesn't matter, put yourself in the place of a defendant who IS innocent. How would you feel having a TV vigilante of Greta Van Sustern and Abrams arguing good cop, bad cop with YOUR life as if opinions could substitute for reporting hard facts or a court of law?
I want my justice back.
So will Abrahm's now admit that his premise was wrong and misleading? I doubt it. Corporatist whores never do. Think anyone in the Corporate Media (traditional media is just stupid and meaningless) challenge him on it? Most probably not.
Of course one might wonder what geniuses ever allowed a major defense contractor to own a broadcasting network.
Snowball @ 12:
What Snowball said.
Times 1000.
Trust me on this, there are real journalism profs out there banging their heads against the wall, trying like hell to instill that rarest of commodities into their students, "journalistic integrity."
They have an uphill battle to fight.
I wondered why Abrams was promoted. He was like a glorified ambulance chaser and then over night the head honcho. Between him and Rita Crosby I could get migraines. Cured the migraines, just flipped the channel till Olberman came on.
Snowball @ 12:
Yep, they say cream rises to the top, but so does hot-air-filled shit.
We should all send this to Dan and ask where his apology is. Does he need David Schuster to write it for him?
Abrams doesn't have to apologize. Didn't you notice he cleverly used the Cavuto by stating "if"? It's the journalistic equivalency of Monopoly's get out of jail free card. I bet Farrell longs for the day when all he had to put up with was Frank Burns.
[The story Abrams referred to had been on the Washington Post’s front page the day before, and was completely untrue.]
That story makes me sick just to look at it. It's complete BS. I still can't get over how much we were lied to by everybody. Why should we ever believe a damn thing any of them say ever again? Without a free press that the public can trust, there is no such thing as a democracy. It's but a charade.
Never did like Abrams.Seems like kind of a weasel. He seems like a kiss ass kind of guy too. Thats probably how he got the GM job. I miss Joe in that time slot. No longer watch that time slot now. What's with all these apologies the thin skined repubs always demand when someone calls them out. Not so tough are they, I guess huh? War mongers afraid of words of truth. Truth really hurts them. When you live in their world of lies and deception, truth is the enemy. No apology was necessary. If apologies are required anywhere the repubs are way behind on them for their comments.
ah, clips of back peddling talking heads, way back when--and not so way back-- rah rah-ing george's war.
you guys are the best for being the firstest with the mostest.
there are few of them that did not cheerlead this shit. drag all the rats into the daylight.
Putz proves Peter principle plenty percent.
A also can't possibly heap enough praise on Mike Farrell for being able to see right through the BS.
What PR firm was he talking about back in 2002? I have always kept my ear to the ground and i don't remember that being reported until James Bamford blew the lid off of it in 2005 with his Rendon Group story. I knew all about Cheney's White House Iraq Group before the invasion, but not that they actually had hired a PR firm to feed us bad intel until much later.
Rob M @ 24:
You mean the same way that Fox uses "Is Obama a secret Islamo-terrorist"?
Are you as cynical as Mr. Farrell about the administration, basically suggesting that any possible al Qaeda connection, etcetera, simply would be false?
You'd think educated people would know better than to confuse being cynical with being skeptical. (Unless the goal is to cause or increase confusion.)
Wow, hold on a minute.
As I understand it, Abrams has been a pretty big supporter of Olbermann and it might be that Abrams was too concerned with the fallout, and that makes him a paranoid guy but I'm not sure about the right wing shill thing. You all might be right but from what I see on his show, while he is aggressive, etc., I don't see him carrying water for the Bush Administration at the moment.
"leave no ambulance unchased"-Dan Abrams
it's all about the money. . .
Robert1014 @ 6:
first time in this site. the bush administration and media, includiing msnbc (except olbermann)brought is this war. oh, i forgot, the spineless democrats and the uninformed American people gave us this war too. keep shopping America.
Bravo to Mike Farrell, who has long been several notches of intellect higher than the average, and who has a heart as big as his smile.
Dan Abrams is a pretty boy in Way over his head. Go to the back of the class Abrams. P.S. I was banned, but I'm back, figure that one out.
Mike Farrell should run for Senator, or Congress.
This is the same fucker who laughs as Tucker Ann Carlson talks of gay bashing someone he "thought' was coming on to him.
He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, I have challenged him to take me on as media critic and
Dan can't handle the truth.
The times his lips are not glued to Bush's ass they are being used as a mouthpiece for destruction.
His very words above prove that he is, in part, to blame for the deaths of many.
If the man had any balls he woudl bring me on his show, as a professional journailst and TV personality to challenge him.
Jack Jett
This is only one of a number of notorious performances that Abrams turned in during that period, on both MS-NBC & NBC (on which he appeared immediately after the invasion). A comprehensive look at the transcripts would show that he was one of the most bellicose, egregious 'journalists' on any of the networks. (And the most debased aspects of his performances aren't fully captured by the transcripts; you really have to see the tapes to get a clear sense of what he was doing.) No one who saw those performances & had the least remnant of regard for journalistic standards would have tolerated his continued employment in a newsroom, much less promoted him.
that is dispicable....the media has failed us. We all knew Bush would do this when he was appointed President in 2000; it is the media who have to answer for their crimes.
Abrams is a joke.
I would love to see the video, because the transcript is blowing my mind.
the whole pep-rally in the run up to the war in Iraq was disgusting to me, and it is something that I don't think I will ever be able to recover from.
Dan Abrams is the main reason MSNBC cannot get it's act together and appears schizo every day. Abrams is another 'out of OJ' talking head which we need none of now. GE and NBC need to put someone with a real skillset in charge and make a go of this 'network' instead of treating it like the toy it is now.
Chris, saying that the media has failed us reveals your naiveté, which I shared with you until a few days ago when I read a post (here on C & L?) that explained that the so-called news media is thought to exist to provide the service of truthfully informing its audience when, in fact, it exists only to provide an audience to its true customers, the buyers of advertising space/time. Now, why divisive, bloviating liars are better at attracting us, the product, is a mystery to me and a sad comment on the values of a large segment of our society.
Mike Farrell is a Patroit....Dan Abrams is a waterboy for the Bush Administration!! Is that true???
Wow, and wow again. Now I so want to see a Mike Farrell get his own show. Any chance of unearthing this Abrams video?
Farrell's really quite impressive there. MSNBC should can Abrans and hire Farrell.
The entire media, including MSNBC, are chasing Fox News for right wingnut viewers. Only Olbermann provides respite from the constant parroting of RNC/PNAC talking points.
There is no rational reason for this except corporate control of what gets reported and why. If that's the case, and it likely is, we are doomed to a Groundhog Day like repetition of the current debacle. I used to hope the American people would rise up - if not literally at least with their voices. They haven't and they won't. As long as beer is cheap, NASCAR plentiful and American Idol like "entertainment" is available to distract them...
yellow dog @ 48:
A quote from some big media honcho back in the day:
"Of course we can't control what the public thinks, but we can control what the public thinks about."
Jenny'O @ 35:
Abrams' expertise is legal. Not politics. He was out of line telling Shuster to apologize. He should have let it rest as it was. The apology caused more notice to the hypocrite republican spouting the daily RNC points. Abrams, IMO, made an error in judgment.
That Fox news, under Murdoch's tutelage, is as narrow and fixed as it could get, smacks of brown nosing an inept president and the dying party line. For once, I would like to see MSNBC become more progressive (democratic) and liberal. Murdoch needs competition, not duplication. Let Olbermann lead the way!
MSNBC is so fucking stupid, just like the rest of the MSM. The country is moving to the left but the MSM keeps giving jobs to these RW dickwads like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson whose ratings leave skidmarks on the bowl. If they would fire Matthews and Tucker and Scarborough and hire people like Phil Donohue (who had the top-rated show on MSNBC before he was fired for his anti-war views) and Rachel Maddow to go along with Keith Olbermann their ratings would go through the roof. Look, the ratings are the only thing that matter in the TV business. If they are only keeping these RW shills to satisfy their corporate masters then let them go down the drain. But there's a huge untapped liberal audience out there, especially among the netroots, and MSNBC is stupid to ignore it. They are doing the same thing that the networks did toward gay people until they finally realized it was in their best interest to go after the gay audience instead of worrying about what the RW Christians would think about it. People don't want an imitation of FauxNews when they can get the real thing. Move to the left or fade away, MSNBC!
Come on, damn it to hell. WHY? ... its not the "right wing", its not the "corporatocracy" (well, not directly, anyway), its not the money, its obviously not his talent and its not his daddy. IT IS ZIONISM, DUMMY! Oh, gosh! I just committed thinkcrime ... confirmation? Check out anti-zionist Jew Richard Blankfort's "Jews in the Media" (although a "self-loathing Jew", he has the "moral authority" to commit thinkcrime ... as does Alfred Lillienthal or Norman Finklestein and others). Meanwhile, back at Rancho Neocon the Israelists are premiering to Idiot America their Groundhog Day sequel titled "Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran".
Thank God for reminders that people like Mike Farrell (along with many of us on this site) were publicly questioning the "intelligence" on WMDs and the rationale for preemptive war early on, and C&L for publishing those questions. What the HECK happened to real journalists who should have been doing the same, and happily did not? They were complicit with this administration in shoving this democracy down the slippery slope toward fascism. Leave it to the clear-headed artists (i.e. actors and comedians) in a society to tell truth to power, not emotional broadcasters like Dan Abrams.
NOW THAT is an exchange for the history books.
Too bad no one reads history books.
I must be out of the loop on this one. I didn't hear about David Shuster apology to Rep. Blackburn! Is there a link to this or was it on the side? He should NOT have done that, she is a total phony and drives me crazy with her holier than thou crap. I would like to read the apology or hear more about it. And I think I know what is going on... ??!! ; - )
Dan Abrams and Elliott Abrams, the convicted Iran-Contra criminal and current Bush administration National Security Advisor on creating havoc in the Mideast, are first cousins once removed (i.e. Dan's dad is first cousins with Elliott)
.......Hey danny boy........ thanks to OJ Simpson you have a career and a platform to be one of the EMPIRE yssup point man in the MSM.
David Shuster should have done his home work and present his facts to danny boy before he made this unnecessary apology.
EXCELENT Work! This is how we'll expose these pigs from the top down.
Dan Abrams is just another war pig. Its sickening to think of how many in
the press are nourishing themselves on the the blood of our young.
THIS -- THIS should be shoved hard in Abrams' face, and he absolutely owes Mike Farrell an apology.
sacredcow @ 53:
I call bullshit on this one. What makes Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Lieberman so salient is that their apocalyptic views are far to the right of mainstream Jewish and Zionist thought in this country. When this was going on, I would characterize that thought process as more Scowcroftian than Neocon -- i.e., the risk of losing a counterbalance to Iran was too great, and blowing up the Middle East political structure would destabilize the region in a way that was strategically negative, not positive, for Israel. Again, not a particularly altruistic viewpoint, but certainly not the craziness that this Administration unleashed on the world. Granted, mainstream Jewish and Zionist organizations hated Saddam for his general support for terrorism and bellicosity towards Israel, and wanted to see him gone, but the concept of an American occupation of the country was not something anyone wanted.
I'm not saying that, once the war started, Jewish and Zionist establishment organizations didn't get on board with much of the rest of the country, but I'm saying there was a lot more skepticism of the likelihood that it would be good for Israel during the run-up. Just my sense of things, of course.
Not too long ago, Abrams made a remark on his new show, that he takes exception to the charges that the MSM is responsible for not reporting the run up to the war both fairly and accurately. I was disturbed to hear him say that, having thought he was more progressive than that. I hope he reads this, and I think he needs to appologize to David Shuster and the rest of us for his contribution to the absolute mess the MSM has made of the past 7 years. They let us all down, and should be so ashamed of the lack of work ethics we've witnessed!
Absolutely no disrespect intended towards Mike Farrell.
Why wouldn't Dan engage a political analyst or someone like Seymour Hersch for instance? Debating Mike Farrell would be like debating me. As knowledgeable as we may be, we are still 'ordinary citizens.'
Dan, my man, you may be interested in reading this exposé of one of your shows.
dan.abrams@msnbc.com
letters@msnbc.com
viewerservices@msnbc.com
Abrams is yet another Far Right necon example of someone who's scared witless, has been handed the megaphone, and then shows that he has no interest whatsoever in carefully considering and reflecting upon the b/c administration's actions before climbing on board with its war-mongering policy bandwagon.
And here is proof of his fear, straight out of his own mouth: "The question is, if it is true, it is scary ... And that is much more important to me than how [information re any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq is] being released [by the Bush administration]…"
I have seen this Mr. Farrell in many a news interview, and
he is extremely bright and quick thinking..He should have
a higher profile..he really knows his stuff.
Stick to what you know Abrahms. "O.J."! Leave the war analysis to the grownups
I thought MSNBC was changed to "the Pat Buchanan channel???" He's their all day, everyday guy for everything isn't he???
vastleft @ 8:
Exactly.
And how many reporters got fired for false reporting that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?
Yet Dan Rather is fired for reporting a TRUE AND ACCURATE story because his sources lied to him. (I'm glad Dan Rather got his balls back and is suing CBS.)
No doubt whatsoever: the media is as responsible for the war as Bush himself. And they have learned nothing. NOTHING.
5 years from now:
"It turns out much of the Intelligence that we reported in front page headlines on a daily basis, used to justify the invasion of Iran, was not true." ...
Careerist Abrams is as phony as his hair.
We should dig up the thousands of other transcripts during that time. They will show that ALL of the MSM was pushing for the war. Farrell must have been that rare 2% that was allowed to talk against the war.
Janet @ 23:
When are you writing your apology to the real reporter (Mr. David Schuster ) Mr. Abrams?
"ABRAMS: I agree with you both when it comes to how information is released. The question is, if it is true, it is scary."
Wow. Just... wow.
oh my.
give mike farrell a gold star; he did a tremendous job in getting abrams to stick to the question (and look foolish in doing so). for a hollywood star, he did better than the actual politicians. maybe he should run for congress???
Login or Register to post comments.