OT: Gloomy Outlook In Iraq

[blueduke]

First, although you can make an argument that Iraq was an enemy of America, you cannot make the argument that Iraq was a radical islamic state. Al-Quaeda "did not have a collaborative relationship" with Iraq because Saddam ran a secular state, and they hated each other. We were told we were going in there to get the WMD; all the other reasons being given are just posturing after the fact.

Sadaam offered monetary compensation to the families of suicide bombers. Al Queda did indeed have a collaborative realtionship with Iraq. Read the 9/11 report. We were going after WMD's but when you give somebody a "deadline" to co-op with the UN that would give plenty of time to send them elsewhere. Not saying that's what happened but if I knew the US was coming after me I'd make an effort to hide them somewhere.

Second, waiting until all the kids are home before saying the war is a mistake is unquestionably ridiculous. Don't question our leaders or their policies? Sounds like fascism to me.

You can't "disagree" without holding demonstrations? Without giving speeches saying the president "lied" and "misled"? Can't disagree without calling the CIC akin to Hitler as John Glenn did? Please. I wish he'd have done things differently too but there's kids over there being shot at and hearing about this BS at the same time. You don't have to yell the loudest from the tallest tree to "disagree".

[pk500]

>>>First off still waiting for your info on your ridicuous claim that China supports terroroists such as Al Queda. I'm not holding my breath however. Al Queda is the biggest threat to the US.....for now. In another few years that will change when China utilizes all the nuclear info obtained from us thanks to Mr Clinton. And yes I am disappointed Bin Laden hasn't been apprehended (you pissed Bill didn't take him? Don't take near as much to get you pissed at Bush). You are aware we're still in Afghanistan hunting him, no? Wouldn't know from your gem posted above.<<<

Now you've gone from annoying me to humoring me, because after reviewing this thread I NEVER ONCE made the connection between Al Queda and China.

I DID say China was a threat to freedom because it's Communist, and even though I never mentioned it, it also has a despicable record of human rights and also has nukes. It also has threatened its neighbors, namely Taiwan, just as Iraq threatened Israel and threatened and invaded Kuwait.

So, find where I mentioned ANYTHING about a direct link between Al Queda and China, and I'll find you a link. You won't; I won't.

You tried to connect the dots where there are none to connect. Not surprising.

My point is that since China has committed many of the same offenses as Iraq -- dictatorship, horrible human rights record, torture and death of its citizens, aggressive posturing toward its neighbors and the U.S. while possessing weapons of mass destruction -- why isn't it next on the U.S. hit list? This war in Iraq is about spreading freedom now, right, since there are no WMD's there? Doesn't China need freedom? Don't we need to eliminate its WMD's?

As for your other "points," yes, it's very unfortunate that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden when he had the chance. He flat blew it and f*cked up. But he didn't get 1,000 Americans and counting killed while failing at it, either.

As for the hunt for Bin Laden, thanks for the news flash that U.S. troops are there. I'm now an informed citizen.

But why aren't there more troops in Afghanistan? Why were troops diverted from there to Iraq?

Why did the object of the mission suddenly shift from finding Bin Laden and eliminating Al Queda, the mission worth using American firepower and shedding American blood to do, which I emphasize for the umpteenth time even though you'll skirt over it again, to toppling a dictator who had tacit connections to Al Queda and didn't pose a proven threat to the U.S.?

Why do we shift from the man responsible for the murder of 3,000 Americans to the man responsible for the murder of his own people? Sort of ironic for the "America First, who cares about the collateral damage" crowd that bangs the drum daily to support this war, huh? It's more important to apprehend the killer of Iraqis than the killer of 3,000 innocent Americans, huh? That deserves more emphasis?

No one from the pro-war side has ever provided me with a legitimate explanation for that. I'm all ears, all eyes.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

>>>I wish he'd have done things differently too but there's kids over there being shot at and hearing about this BS at the same time. You don't have to yell the loudest from the tallest tree to "disagree".<<<

Right. But if you agree, it's OK to be as demonstrative and loud as you want.

Approval of any sort is OK if you agree with Duke; disapproval must be subtle.

Duke, let me guess: You find it inconceivable that someone can support the troops and despise Bush's policies, right?

Well, it's not. I support the troops 1,000 percent and hope they succeed in their mission. My problem is that the mission never should have started and that the utter lack of post-war planning by Bush and his cronies is making the mission MUCH more dangerous than it should be. If anything, that lack of planning by the very party that waves the flag for the troops more than anyone is putting them in more harm's way.

Also, $18.4 billion was appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction LAST YEAR, and only $1 billion has been spent. How is that supporting the troops? The quicker infrastructure can be built, the safer our troops will be and the more quickly they can come home.

If a quicker, safe return of our troops after a successful mission makes me a "candy-ass pacifist," then I'll be proud to wear that label.

Take care,
PK

[blueduke]

My point is that since China has committed many of the same offenses as Iraq -- dictatorship, horrible human rights record, torture and death of its citizens, aggressive posturing toward its neighbors and the U.S. while possessing weapons of mass destruction -- why isn't it next on the U.S. hit list? This war in Iraq is about spreading freedom now, right, since there are no WMD's there? Doesn't China need freedom? Don't we need to eliminate its WMD's?

Your point is you have no point. China wasn't the one giving money, safe haven, and support the AQ. Why the hell even bring them up????? That is unless you were saying China being oppressive is on par as giving aid to people who killed 3,000 of our own on our own soil.

As for your other "points," yes, it's very unfortunate that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden when he had the chance. He flat blew it and f*cked up. But he didn't get 1,000 Americans and counting killed while failing at it, either.

If he would have taken Bin Laden we wouldn't be over there now. DUH

But why aren't there more troops in Afghanistan? Why were troops diverted from there to Iraq?

You obviously don't have a clue regarding the terrain of Afghanistan. lots and lots of mountains with caves pk. If you put alot of troops on the ground guess who is looking down at them? Guess who is the sitting duck?

Why did the object of the mission suddenly shift from finding Bin Laden and eliminating Al Queda, the mission worth using American firepower and shedding American blood to do, which I emphasize for the umpteenth time even though you'll skirt over it again, to toppling a dictator who had tacit connections to Al Queda and didn't pose a proven threat to the U.S.?

1. Bin Laden is still being hunted down

2. Iraq gave aid and comfort to killers and was also in the process of obtaining or at the very least trying to accquire nukes (note to Iran: look for a visit from the US or Israel real soon).

Gee you're right. We have no business being over there! I'll state for the millionth time I would have done this diffrently. Sadaam would have gotten the Quaddfi treatment. People seem to forget alot of the heirarchy of AQ have been killed or captured. More than a few of those in Iraq

[blueduke]

Right. But if you agree, it's OK to be as demonstrative and loud as you want.

Approval of any sort is OK if you agree with Duke; disapproval must be subtle.

Duke, let me guess: You find it inconceivable that someone can support the troops and despise Bush's policies, right?

Newsflash to pk......................I've stated several times if someone like McCain, Keyes, Buchanan were running for prez Bush wouldn't be worth my time. A perceptive person should be able to tell that in my eyes Bush's policies "ain't all that". he's just the lesser of the two evils. Nothing more. Nothing less

Well, it's not. I support the troops 1,000 percent and hope they succeed in their mission. My problem is that the mission never should have started and that the utter lack of post-war planning by Bush and his cronies is making the mission MUCH more dangerous than it should be. If anything, that lack of planning by the very party that waves the flag for the troops more than anyone is putting them in more harm's way.

wow. You got to sit in on Bush's "post-war planning"? Can I have your autograph?

Also, $18.4 billion was appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction LAST YEAR, and only $1 billion has been spent. How is that supporting the troops?

How's this for support..........Kerry voted FOR the mission and once they were over there AGAINST the funding of the mission. This upset you at all? You wouldn't know it.

The quicker infrastructure can be built, the safer our troops will be and the more quickly they can come home.

Agreed.

[pk500]

>>>Your point is you have no point. China wasn't the one giving money, safe haven, and support the AQ. Why the hell even bring them up?????<<<

Because this war first was about WMD's, which China has. Then it was about bringing freedom to Iraqis, something China lacks, too. Then the war morphed into eliminating AQ links, which were tacit and tenuous at best, yet something China lacks. And trust me, that's a good thing, because if China provided direct support to terrorists, those terrorists would be even more dangerous than they are now.

>>>That is unless you were saying China being oppressive is on par as giving aid to people who killed 3,000 of our own on our own soil.<<<

And what about the the people who were DIRECTLY responsible for killing those 3,000 people? Why has the focus shifted away from finding them? Why has our the brunt of our military effort been diverted from finding the killers to those who supported the killers?

>>>If he would have taken Bin Laden we wouldn't be over there now.<<<

Over where? Afghanistan? True. But do you mean Iraq? Not necessarily true. It's been proven that Bush had discussed an invasion of Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. It's possible we could have invaded anyways. Not probable, but possible.

>>>You obviously don't have a clue regarding the terrain of Afghanistan. lots and lots of mountains with caves pk. If you put alot of troops on the ground guess who is looking down at them? Guess who is the sitting duck?<<<

I have a very good clue of the terrain. You're using terrain as an excuse for not trusting the military might and strategy of the U.S. Armed Forces against what amounts to a rebel militia? That's very little faith you put into our men and women in uniform.

Are you trying to say that overwhelming force and large amounts of U.S. manpower wouldn't be able to comb the area more effectively than is being done now with the proportionally tiny force compared to the U.S. presence in Iraq? You talk as if the U.S. can't or never has fought in rugged terrain.

I find that insulting, especially since the 10th Mountain Division trains for such conflicts at Fort Drum, less than 90 miles from my front door. Those soldiers could kick some serious ass if given the same numbers and hardware and political support as the troops in Iraq, which also did a fine, fine job.

>>>1. Bin Laden is still being hunted down<<<

Why isn't he being hunted down with the vigor that the U.S. is pursuing the Iraq conflict? Oh, that's right -- terrain. The U.S. is incapable of winning unless it's fighting in a billiard-table desert.

>>>2. Iraq gave aid and comfort to killers and was also in the process of obtaining or at the very least trying to accquire nukes (note to Iran: look for a visit from the US or Israel real soon).<<<

Holy sh*t! You're more preoccupied with those who gave aid to the killers than the killers themselves? That's odd.

North Korea has nukes and doesn't like us. So why not North Korea? Because they don't have links to Al Queda? Fair enough.

That brings me back to my original question: Why are we diverting more resources and manpower to a nation that aided terrorists than to finding and killing the terrorists themselves?

>>>Gee you're right. We have no business being over there! I'll state for the millionth time I would have done this diffrently. Sadaam would have gotten the Quaddfi treatment. People seem to forget alot of the heirarchy of AQ have been killed or captured.<<<

No question. And that's a good thing. Because while I oppose the war in Iraq, I fully support the hunt for AQ operatives. But most of our fighting now is to snuff out a radical Iraqi cleric, not to find Bin Laden and other direct AQ lieutenants.

I've never seen a credible link between the radical cleric -- why do I always forget his name? -- and Bin Laden or the AQ. If someone could provide one, then maybe I'd feel differently about the Iraqi conflict.

Bush changed the post-9/11 mission midstream from Bin Laden and the AQ to Saddam and Iraq, without any plausible explanation. He used the rationale of WMD's. Well, AQ proved that an American jet airliner is a WMD.

My entire point, in a nutshell, is that the VAST majority of U.S. military resources and manpower are being used to fight a nation and a regime that had LINKS to AQ while we're using a pea-shooter to fight the ACTUAL AQ.

That seems totally f*cked up to me and a totally misguided effort.

If we had gone balls-out and got Bin Laden, that would have sent a much stronger message to terrorists than capturing Saddam. Bin Laden is a top dog among world terrorists; Saddam was a butcher but a politician. I don't think he is held with nearly the reverence by worldwide terrorists that Bin Laden is. I don't think AQ are willing to die for Saddam, but there's no question they're willing to die for Bin Laden.

Out,
PK

[blueduke]

Because this war first was about WMD's, which China has. Then it was about bringing freedom to Iraqis, something China lacks, too. Then the war morphed into eliminating AQ links, which were tacit and tenuous at best, yet something China lacks. And trust me, that's a good thing, because if China provided direct support to terrorists, those terrorists would be even more dangerous than they are now.

China has WMD's? Yes. China gave aid and comfort to AQ? No. Same can be said about our allies. So again..what's your point? Iraq was at the very least trying to obtain nukes AND gave aid and comfort to AQ. What part of that don't you understand?

And what about the the people who were DIRECTLY responsible for killing those 3,000 people? Why has the focus shifted away from finding them? Why has our the brunt of our military effort been diverted from finding the killers to those who supported the killers?

The people DIRECTLY involved are being killed or rounded up. We';re also a little busy making sure another Hussein doesn't step in where the other left and trying to find this little thingy called a nuke.

Over where? Afghanistan? True. But do you mean Iraq? Not necessarily true. It's been proven that Bush had discussed an invasion of Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. It's possible we could have invaded anyways. Not probable, but possible.

Sounds reasonable. But we'll never know for sure

I have a very good clue of the terrain. You're using terrain as an excuse for not trusting the military might and strategy of the U.S. Armed Forces against what amounts to a rebel militia? That's very little faith you put into our men and women in uniform.

Maybe making sure alot of that groundtroops aren't exposed is part of the strategy LOL

Are you trying to say that overwhelming force and large amounts of U.S. manpower wouldn't be able to comb the area more effectively than is being done now with the proportionally tiny force compared to the U.S. presence in Iraq? You talk as if the U.S. can't or never has fought in rugged terrain.

Having an "overwhelming force and large amounts of US manpower" on the ground in mountainous terrain could mean mass losses to the "overwhelming force and large amounts of US manpower".

Why isn't he being hunted down with the vigor that the U.S. is pursuing the Iraq conflict? Oh, that's right -- terrain. The U.S. is incapable of winning unless it's fighting in a billiard-table desert.

How do you know he isn't? Are you over there? I bet the one's who are on the prowl for the little sob would "be insulted" at a pacifists accusations.

Holy sh*t! You're more preoccupied with those who gave aid to the killers than the killers themselves? That's odd.

Please tell me you're not that stupid

That brings me back to my original question: Why are we diverting more resources and manpower to a nation that aided terrorists than to finding and killing the terrorists themselves?

It's like trying to explain something to a fence post. Why even bother?

Yo genius...............the terrorists aren't a country. But Iraq is one of the places they've been rounded up, captured, and in some cases killed. Afghan being another. How old are you?????

If we had gone balls-out and got Bin Laden, that would have sent a much stronger message to terrorists than capturing Saddam.

Game. Set. Match................................Clinton could have prevented it all

[pk500]

>>>Having an "overwhelming force and large amounts of US manpower" on the ground in mountainous terrain could mean mass losses to the "overwhelming force and large amounts of US manpower".<<<

So what's the strategy, then? Using fewer troops and hardware? That's going to beat these guys, in caves they know like the back of their hand?

>>>How do you know he isn't? Are you over there? I bet the one's who are on the prowl for the little sob would "be insulted" at a pacifists accusations.<<<

I bet the ones on the prowl for the SOB also wish their theater was treated with as much importance as the Iraqi theater. They're stretched beyond thin in Afghanistan, and I know that from someone who was there.

>>>Please tell me you're not that stupid<<<

Prove to me otherwise. Tell me why the focus has shifted from Bin Laden and the AQ to Saddam and Iraq. So far you haven't.

>>>It's like trying to explain something to a fence post. Why even bother?<<<

Maybe because you can't provide a compelling case for why the U.S. focus shifted from AQ and Afghanistan to Saddam and Iraq, especially ironic considering the rationale for this war now seems to have switched to eliminating Saddam due to his links with the AQ. We're more concerned with those who have links to the AQ than the AQ itself.

>>>Game. Set. Match................................Clinton could have prevented it all<<<

Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001. He had eight months to get him, too, and didn't. Granted, Clinton had him on a platter and f*cked up -- no question. But the 9/11 Commission that you love to quote criticized intelligence breakdowns in both the Clinton and Bush adminstrations leading up to 9/11.

The convenient conservative excuse -- blame it on Clinton. And what relevance does Clinton have to me? Why always bring him up? I hated him -- didn't vote for him in 1996 or Gore (Clinton Lite) in 2000. You wrongly assume I'm a liberal because I disagree with you. There are only two sides, liberal and conservative, in your narrow world.

I think it's fair to agree that you support the war, and I don't. I'll leave it at that. You may rant on.

Oh, the answer to your trivia question: I'm 39.

Out,
PK

[Jared]

I didn't mean to say all Dem voters want bad things to happen to US, just the kerry campaign. His platform is that bush is bad, ha ha look at this bad event. I have no answers, but who cares, bush is an evil conservative. Please repeat this media.

So, you didn't read the Kerry platform, did you? Back this up...how is this Kerry's platform. Provide me with some evidence to back this up...evidence that Kerry has "no answers" or that his platform is that "Bush is bad". Please. Take some time to actually educate yourself about what his campaign is actually saying instead of parroting baseless talking points.

A bug story justifies in your eyes Goldberg is on par with Micheal Moore? Now THAT'S amazing. The only thing "amazing" about Micheal Moore is his lack of guilt.

Blue, Brando just gave one example. There are plenty of other examples of misleading statements and errors in Goldberg's book. If you are going to defend Goldberg, then why read these articles and then defend Goldberg.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h030402_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h011402_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h020102_1.shtml

And that's just a few...there are quite a few other articles on mistruths and the like in Goldberg's book.

As for everything else....it's the same old same old. Blame everything on Clinton (he actually pre-emptively attack Bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda, Bush didn't), that Hussein gave safe-haven to members of Al Qaeda (no evidence of this), that Al Qaeda had a collaborative relationship with Hussein (the 9-11 report specifically said that there was NO "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, see here), that holding demonstrations against a war that you disagree with is a bad thing (freedom of speech...it's ok AS LONG as you don't personally disrespect troops as a few did in the Vietnam era), etc. If all of these things were true, then I'd understand the worldview of blueduke, anchester, and others. Except these things aren't true. And peddling myths like these and stereotypes about the other side isn't gonna get anyone anywhere in figuring out how to solve these problems.

[blueduke]

So what's the strategy, then? Using fewer troops and hardware? That's going to beat these guys, in caves they know like the back of their hand?

Are you even following what's going on over there? But you find time to complain about what's not being done????? LOL

I bet the ones on the prowl for the SOB also wish their theater was treated with as much importance as the Iraqi theater. They're stretched beyond thin in Afghanistan, and I know that from someone who was there.

They're stretched thin everywhere. Thanks again to Clinton. Those cuts are proving to be real beneficial....to the other side. If it were me I'd tell Europe we've covered their butts long enough. It's time to protect themselves. Other than GB they haven't done much of anything to help us. Use the manpower from Europe to give added manpower where it's needed

Prove to me otherwise. Tell me why the focus has shifted from Bin Laden and the AQ to Saddam and Iraq. So far you haven't.

The reading and comphre bug has bitten pk. Your snappy one-liner was directed at me personally. You were not posing a question. You were just posing

Maybe because you can't provide a compelling case for why the U.S. focus shifted from AQ and Afghanistan to Saddam and Iraq, especially ironic considering the rationale for this war now seems to have switched to eliminating Saddam due to his links with the AQ. We're more concerned with those who have links to the AQ than the AQ itself.

I thought the only ones that had forgotten about Afghanistan was the media. I sure haven't. Not many hotels in afghan for Dan Rather to rest in between "man-in-the-field" reports. You need to pay better attention. Getting rid of AQ has always been the more important. What difference does it make which one gets more ink if both get done? Only to the ones who want to have something to whine about.......as long as it isn't about anything on the left, God forbid

Bush became president Jan. 20, 2001. He had eight months to get him, too

Clinton HAD HIM for the taking. Where's the outrage, pk??????

There are only two sides, liberal and conservative, in your narrow world.

OOOOOOoooo I'm crushed. Can I have a hug?

[Brando70]

A bug story justifies in your eyes Goldberg is on par with Micheal Moore? Now THAT'S amazing. The only thing "amazing" about Micheal Moore is his lack of guilt.

Reading. Is. Fundamental.

I was simply saying that Moore seletively choosing things to support his views is labeled dishonest. Yet Bernie Goldberg does essentially the same thing (and this was just the most glaring example of a lazy use of Lexis-Nexus), it's somehow not considered dishonest.

[blueduke]

I know what your point was but the best you can do is bugs? Was hoping for something a little sexier than that. Maybe he and Jon Stossel from ABC had a thing going or something. Maybe he peed in Dan's cornflakes and blamed it on Bob Scheiffer. But bugs????

[James_E]

I know what your point was but the best you can do is bugs? Was hoping for something a little sexier than that. Maybe he and Jon Stossel from ABC had a thing going or something. Maybe he peed in Dan's cornflakes and blamed it on Bob Scheiffer. But bugs????

The fact that it was bugs, which are so far removed from the topic he was really attempting to discuss, makes it even more sinister in my eyes.

[Brando70]

I know what your point was but the best you can do is bugs? Was hoping for something a little sexier than that. Maybe he and Jon Stossel from ABC had a thing going or something. Maybe he peed in Dan's cornflakes and blamed it on Bob Scheiffer. But bugs????

The fact that it was bugs, which are so far removed from the topic he was really attempting to discuss, makes it even more sinister in my eyes.

Bingo. What does it say about your research when you're not reading the articles you're citing as proof of your thesis?

The whole problem with Goldberg's books, both Bias and Arrogance is that he's trying to make broader arguments about liberal bias in the media, but he doesn't really do research correctly. He just sifts about for anything that supports his view of things, ignoring anything that doesn't, and also not questioning his own evidence. He's not a bad man, and he certainly is in a position to discuss what he perceived as liberal bias at CBS. But beyond that he has been well-documented as not doing his homework -- the bug example is just one of the more ridiculous cases of him doing quick cut-and-paste research.

[blueduke]

Bingo. What does it say about your research when you're not reading the articles you're citing as proof of your thesis?

What does it say when you run with a document story after being warned by everybody they were probably fake and your "unimpeachable source" is a bitter fellow with what seems to be an axe to grind? On his worst day Goldberg has more credibility than Dan Rather

[Jared]

What does it say when you run with a document story after being warned by everybody they were probably fake and your "unimpeachable source" is a bitter fellow with what seems to be an axe to grind? On his worst day Goldberg has more credibility than Dan Rather

Come on Blue. No one here is saying Rather did the right thing here. Of course it's dishonest and bad. The point is that Goldberg was dishonest in his book as well. This doesn't absolve Rather....it's on a completely different point (that claims of liberal media bias are often hyped up and inaccurate).

If you're trying to defend Goldberg, then defend what he said and don't throw out some straw man.

[blueduke]

As for everything else....it's the same old same old. Blame everything on Clinton (he actually pre-emptively attack Bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda, Bush didn't)...yap yap yap

The "same old same old" is true. Clinton had him for the taking and wouldn't. No amount of whining, references to "straw men", bug stories gone bad, or type fonts will take it away either.

[JRod]

As for everything else....it's the same old same old. Blame everything on Clinton (he actually pre-emptively attack Bin Laden and members of Al Qaeda, Bush didn't)...yap yap yap

The "same old same old" is true. Clinton had him for the taking and wouldn't. No amount of whining, references to "straw men", bug stories gone bad, or type fonts will take it away either.

You need to stop talking or start putting logical arguements together.

[Brando70]

Bingo. What does it say about your research when you're not reading the articles you're citing as proof of your thesis?

What does it say when you run with a document story after being warned by everybody they were probably fake and your "unimpeachable source" is a bitter fellow with what seems to be an axe to grind? On his worst day Goldberg has more credibility than Dan Rather

CBS screwed up big time. It is clear they cut a lot of corners to land a big story and now they are going to pay dearly for it. Serves them right.

But it actually relates to what I'm talking about. The memo forgery has much bigger implications than what Goldberg's done in his books, but it's the same symptom -- sensationalism over accuracy, laziness over effort to verify what you're saying or printing. I personally don't know how much Rather is to blame. Depends on what he was told by the people providing the information to him. But no question CBS is going to suffer a similar credibility hit the way the New York Times, the New Republic, and USA Today did in light of similar scandals of false reporting.

And I don't think it proves liberal bias just because it was against Bush. Like I said earlier, the TV networks were more than happy to let the Swift Boat Vets tell their tales and not challenge them. Had someone had a photo of John Kerry's wounds, or other contemporary evidence similar to these memos, I'm sure they would have been aired -- maybe not by 60 Minutes, but by someone else. I mean, 60 Minutes broke the Kathleen Wiley story when Clinton was president, even though she was later discredited (and nearly indicted) by the Office of Independent Council for giving false testimony during the Whitewater investigations. Sadly, the television media in particular has become more interested in who's shouting loudest at the moment rather than what they're shouting about.

[pk500]

I'm not defending Rather or CBS, either, because their shoddy journalism is indefensible.

But besides Brando's excellent deduction that TV journalism tends to listen to the loudest screamer, network TV news is under pressure like never before to break stories.

Think about it: Twenty-five years ago, TV news consisted of the 6 p.m. local news and the 6:30 p.m. national news with Uncle Walter, John Chancellor and Frank Reynolds/Howard K. Smith/Harry Reasoner. There was no CNN, no MSNBC, no FOX News airing stories 24/7.

So network news could be more careful in its reporting and not be afraid to lose a scoop. Plus it only had two TV competitors -- the other two networks.

Now networks face competition from all corners and at all times of the day, which puts the kind of pressure on them that will make these kinds of reporting screw-ups more commonplace.

"60 Minutes" also faces similar pressure. It had zero competition until other networks and now cable started "news magazine" shows.

Bottom line: Rather and CBS f*cked up big time and deserve to have their reputations tarnished by this. I don't trust CBS News right now, that's for sure, and I bet many others don't either.

But I expect network news operations to continue to make these mistakes as they try to beat the cable outlets on stories despite only being on the air 30 minutes per day instead of 24 hours per day.

Take care,
PK

[blueduke]

PK you make a very sound a valid argument. In fact I don't see how anyone would in good conscience disagree with alot of it. The sad thing about this whole thing though is that a journalist sacrifices truth for a scoop (or to settle an old score). In Rather's case I think that not only getting "the scoop" was important, but getting who he thought he was getting was just as important. CBS ought to fire this man and a few others along with him. In alot of people's eyes CBS appears to have been complicit in a criminal conspiracy to use forged U.S. government documents to bring down a president. The man who passes counterfeit money he knows or suspects to be counterfeit is guilty of a felony. And CBS must have suspected it was using counterfeit documents to damage President Bush. Hell hours after they were published authenticity bells were ringing off all over the place.

[blueduke]

Jared I'd like you to show me where anyone here or anywhere else tried to link Iraq to 9/11. A realtionship between Iraq and AQ? Yes. Read and comphrehend as you lefists are always saying here. Btw, "thedailyhowler.com" is your site of choice for "proof" Goldberg is a fraud? Yet the Media Research Center is too one-sided. [/i]

[GTHobbes]

It's funny how different people look at things different ways. Personally, I think Rather and CBS did a good thing by evening the playing field a little bit. I watch Hannity and O'Reily and Anne Coulter (sp?) on Fox all the time (like a train wreck, I can't get myself to turn away), and they never apologize for any of the sh&t they talk about on there.

In my mind, the only person who can end the whole controversy is W. Prove that he fulfilled his military commitment, instead of skating away, and he's got my vote. I don't really hold much faith of that happening, though.

It boggles my mind how some guy who skipped out on the military during Vietnam is now the same guy who is entrusted with the calls on our troops. The same guy who barely made it through school (with no real apparent successes there other than snorting coke and raising hell with his fraternity bros.), who was pretty much an all-around business failure, and who can't speak worth a lick in public, is the same guy who is now the figure head of our great nation.

I guess the only thing that bothers me more is the thought that we're only a skiing accident away from being led by Dick Cheney. I wonder if his Haliburton connections would be any more (Repubs would argue less) of a conflict if he was the President and personally in charge of war decisions. Maybe his stock options would automatically become void in that instance. Oh well, thank God for sports videogames to help get our mind off this stuff every once in awhile. I find it all too depressing to think very much about.

EDIT: Now I jump over to USA Today and see that they diverted Cat Stevens' plane because he was on some "Federal watch list." They're putting him on a plane and getting him out of the US first thing in the morning. I wonder if he was on some watch list because Richard Ashcroft listened to the song Wild World backwards and heard some satanic lyrics. Probably happened while Ashcroft was sitting around and doing nothing after losing that election to the dead guy. Unbelievable.

[Jared]

Jared I'd like you to show me where anyone here or anywhere else tried to link Iraq to 9/11.

Nowhere in this thread brought that up. The only related this close was that you said "Al Queda did indeed have a collaborative realtionship with Iraq. Read the 9/11 report." I then provided a link that showed that the 9/11 report said the exact opposite. Is this what you're talking about?

A realtionship between Iraq and AQ? Yes. Read and comphrehend as you lefists are always saying here. Btw, "thedailyhowler.com" is your site of choice for "proof" Goldberg is a fraud? Yet the Media Research Center is too one-sided. [/i]

Blue. We've provided evidence that Goldberg has been dishonest. And you haven't addressed it. Instead, you make some comment about the site as if it were untrustworthy. Why don't you address the claims made in the links? Or the claims in these posts? Instead of doing that, you keep throwing out grade-school level debate attacks. Are you going to address what we've presented?

[anchester]

gt hobbes....do you really believe the stuff you right....how old are you

Do you think that rather and CBS evened the playing field of hannity, oreilly and coulter at one semi conservative network. I count 5 liberal networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, CNN) to one conservative network (fox). I don't see how it is now evened up. Chalk up 95% of all major newspapers (less talk radio) and the balance is more liberal.

As for you cheney is evil insinuation. Why does everybody keep talkign about Halliburton. Halliburton is one of the few companies that can do the kind of work in Iraq, it made distinctly less money on the IRaq contracts than domestic work, and its stock has not done well over the last couple of years.

As far as your comment on How can a draft dodger like bush lead our troops, did you say the same thing so vehemently when your boy clinton was pres. (even though bush didn't dodge the draft anyway like clinton).

I think most people who hate conservative or republicans do so b/c they are fed contempt from the major media all their lives. It is politically correct to diss and spit on conservatives and "the rich". Its the only real group that people can badmouth unabated.