CBS definitely should have checked their facts better--especially Rather. Ain't nothing like eating crow on national television!
But, c'mon--everyone knows there's a media bias. Liberals have CBS, conservatives have FNN.
I did like the little jab Bush Sr. made about Rather's walk-off. Ahahahaha!
But one quote in the article really stood out to me--
"After Rathergate, the first thought of any critical mind upon hearing Dan report anything -- including that the Pope is Catholic, that the Earth is round, or that fire is hot -- should be: Is Rather telling the truth?"
--you could replace Rather's name with "President Bush" and pose a similar question. The American public was told about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 and their possession of WMD, but as we've found out--neither was true.
Shouldn't the governing administration have "checked their facts" a bit more thoroughly? Or, like Rather, were they so blinded my their agenda that fact-checking became less of a priority?
After discovering that we went to war under "misguided principles" (purposefully or not)--shouldn't we be a little more critical of what the government tells us?
Shouldn't a critical mind be asking: "Is George W. Bush telling the truth?"
If we're holding CBS/Rather to the fire for their flawed information, shouldn't we do the same for our government?
Why don't you post a picture of you beating a dead horse instead? We've already had this discussion and arrived at an impasse. I suppose that you base your arguments about WMD and 9/11 on the 9/11 Commission, a branch of government that you don't question. It's obvious you oppose the current administration and that's fine. But you come across as the Liberal in Libertarian clothes. You sound like you're reading from Terry McAuliffes talking points. Is this the official Libertarian party line? Or is it a Moore rehash? Who exactly is getting rich off this? Can you point to some numbers that show this? Do you truly believe that Iraq NEVER possessed WMD? Does the lack of something prove it's non-existence? Yeah, that's a great question for you, although I doubt I can follow the mental gymnastics necessary to debate the answer. Frankly, I'm fairly convinced that whatever WMD Iraq had are in Syria. But you have to admint that if you wanted to hide something, the desert is a pretty good place (Remember Indiana Jones? Well of the Souls? Only in movies can you actually find stuff in the desert)? The Saddam-terrorism connections are too many to even list. Just because your vaunted commission didn't draw an "operational" connection to 9/11 doesn't answer the question for me. What's the answer after Afghanistan? do we just go home and say, "well, that's over"? Your analogy between the President and Rather is wrong. If every other news agency ran that story, then the analogy is correct. In this case, the other media outlets stayed away from this story for a reason. In President Bush's case, our allies around the world used the same intelligence and reached the same conclusions. There's still nothing to apologize for.
Correction: Even if all the other news outlets ran that story, your analogy would still not fit. You'd have to prove that a Bush politico created all the intelligence this administration and the administrations around the world used to arrive at the decision to enforce UN sanctions. So someone would have to have fabricated all this intelligence, not "misinterpreted" or "misled".
Sorry, buddy--all my "dead horse" pictures are still at the Fotomat.
To answer your question--yes, neutrality and non-intervention are the official Libertarian party lines. Libertarians believe that the US government has no authority to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries--except in response to a military attack on American soil.
For me to come off as a "liberal in Libertarian clothes", I would have to adopt the opposite viewpoint. Liberals believe that the United States _should_ get involved in the affairs of third world countries--especially to advance the cause of human rights. Moore and his followers aren't against helping the people of Iraq. They are upset because they feel that they were "lied to" and led to believe that the war in Iraq was about "toppling a dictator". They, of course, feel that it is more about the oil.
Did Iraq ever possess WMD? No one has proved it yet. You ask, "Does the lack of something prove its non-existence?" Of course not--but until it is proven, it's just a theory, not truth. And, as you know, the burden of proof lies with the person(s) making the assertion.
I understand how you feel skeptical about the 9/11 commission's findings--but again, I ask "where's the proof?" If there was a considerable connection between Iraq and 9/11, why hasn't someone found it?
"What's the answer after Afghanistan? Do we just go home and say, 'well, that's over'?" Good questions. Doesn't it feel like that situation is already "over"? The country seems to have been forgotten with the start of the war in Iraq. Why didn't we comb Afghanistan for Bin Laden? He _is_ the one that everyone agrees was responsible for the 9/11 attack, right?
I do think we should bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm afraid that we aren't going to win these conflicts. I predict that they will end much like our involvement in Vietnam. We will eventually pull out of these countries with our missions unaccomplished, but costing us insane amounts of money and American lives.
I still believe my anaolgy between Rather and the Bush administration is correct. The "other media outlets" who "stayed away from this story" would be the other countries of the world who did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq. My main comparison between the two is primarily the fact that action was taken before all the facts checked out.
Never is quite a long time, that goes back as far as 1980, when Iraq employed chemical weapons, ie mustard gas, against Iran. I don't know about you, but I consider these chemical weapons of mass destruction. Confirmed by the CIA as well as the UN (although this is a dubious source. While they can't actually find the weapons stockpiles or manufacturing facilities, they claim to be able to recognize the effects). Never even extends to 1988, when Iraq again used chemical weapons, ie sarin nerve gas (again, a WMD in my book) against Iraqi-Kurds, again verified. I suppose you can call these verified attacks and the tens of thousands of dead bodies a theory, but close enough for facts to me. Iraq possessed WMD. As of the commission, you may want to read the report a little more closely. They continuously cite "connections" b/w Iraq(Saddam) and Al Qaeda, although they refused to draw an "operational" connection. Go figure. Your analogy is based on the false premise that the intelligence documents were fabricated by a Bush politico. The intelligence wasn't fabricated. The Rather memo's were, and Dan knew it.
Yeah, ask the Kurds about Saddam's WMD. He gassed about 5,000 Kurds right around the time of the first Gulf War. There were vivid pictures of the victims in Time Magazine. I believe Iraq also used poison gas against the Iranians in that war too.
Well, what can you say? He f*cked up.
ReplyDeleteCBS definitely should have checked their facts better--especially Rather. Ain't nothing like eating crow on national television!
But, c'mon--everyone knows there's a media bias. Liberals have CBS, conservatives have FNN.
I did like the little jab Bush Sr. made about Rather's walk-off. Ahahahaha!
But one quote in the article really stood out to me--
"After Rathergate, the first thought of any critical mind upon hearing Dan report anything -- including that the Pope is Catholic, that the Earth is round, or that fire is hot -- should be: Is Rather telling the truth?"
--you could replace Rather's name with "President Bush" and pose a similar question. The American public was told about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 and their possession of WMD, but as we've found out--neither was true.
Shouldn't the governing administration have "checked their facts" a bit more thoroughly? Or, like Rather, were they so blinded my their agenda that fact-checking became less of a priority?
After discovering that we went to war under "misguided principles" (purposefully or not)--shouldn't we be a little more critical of what the government tells us?
Shouldn't a critical mind be asking: "Is George W. Bush telling the truth?"
If we're holding CBS/Rather to the fire for their flawed information, shouldn't we do the same for our government?
And at least Rather apologized for his mistake.
Why don't you post a picture of you beating a dead horse instead? We've already had this discussion and arrived at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that you base your arguments about WMD and 9/11 on the 9/11 Commission, a branch of government that you don't question. It's obvious you oppose the current administration and that's fine. But you come across as the Liberal in Libertarian clothes. You sound like you're reading from Terry McAuliffes talking points. Is this the official Libertarian party line? Or is it a Moore rehash? Who exactly is getting rich off this? Can you point to some numbers that show this?
Do you truly believe that Iraq NEVER possessed WMD? Does the lack of something prove it's non-existence? Yeah, that's a great question for you, although I doubt I can follow the mental gymnastics necessary to debate the answer. Frankly, I'm fairly convinced that whatever WMD Iraq had are in Syria. But you have to admint that if you wanted to hide something, the desert is a pretty good place (Remember Indiana Jones? Well of the Souls? Only in movies can you actually find stuff in the desert)?
The Saddam-terrorism connections are too many to even list. Just because your vaunted commission didn't draw an "operational" connection to 9/11 doesn't answer the question for me. What's the answer after Afghanistan? do we just go home and say, "well, that's over"?
Your analogy between the President and Rather is wrong. If every other news agency ran that story, then the analogy is correct. In this case, the other media outlets stayed away from this story for a reason. In President Bush's case, our allies around the world used the same intelligence and reached the same conclusions. There's still nothing to apologize for.
Correction: Even if all the other news outlets ran that story, your analogy would still not fit. You'd have to prove that a Bush politico created all the intelligence this administration and the administrations around the world used to arrive at the decision to enforce UN sanctions. So someone would have to have fabricated all this intelligence, not "misinterpreted" or "misled".
ReplyDeleteSorry, buddy--all my "dead horse" pictures are still at the Fotomat.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question--yes, neutrality and non-intervention are the official Libertarian party lines. Libertarians believe that the US government has no authority to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries--except in response to a military attack on American soil.
For me to come off as a "liberal in Libertarian clothes", I would have to adopt the opposite viewpoint. Liberals believe that the United States _should_ get involved in the affairs of third world countries--especially to advance the cause of human rights. Moore and his followers aren't against helping the people of Iraq. They are upset because they feel that they were "lied to" and led to believe that the war in Iraq was about "toppling a dictator". They, of course, feel that it is more about the oil.
Did Iraq ever possess WMD? No one has proved it yet. You ask, "Does the lack of something prove its non-existence?" Of course not--but until it is proven, it's just a theory, not truth. And, as you know, the burden of proof lies with the person(s) making the assertion.
I understand how you feel skeptical about the 9/11 commission's findings--but again, I ask "where's the proof?" If there was a considerable connection between Iraq and 9/11, why hasn't someone found it?
"What's the answer after Afghanistan? Do we just go home and say, 'well, that's over'?" Good questions. Doesn't it feel like that situation is already "over"? The country seems to have been forgotten with the start of the war in Iraq. Why didn't we comb Afghanistan for Bin Laden? He _is_ the one that everyone agrees was responsible for the 9/11 attack, right?
I do think we should bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm afraid that we aren't going to win these conflicts. I predict that they will end much like our involvement in Vietnam. We will eventually pull out of these countries with our missions unaccomplished, but costing us insane amounts of money and American lives.
I still believe my anaolgy between Rather and the Bush administration is correct. The "other media outlets" who "stayed away from this story" would be the other countries of the world who did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq. My main comparison between the two is primarily the fact that action was taken before all the facts checked out.
Never is quite a long time, that goes back as far as 1980, when Iraq employed chemical weapons, ie mustard gas, against Iran. I don't know about you, but I consider these chemical weapons of mass destruction. Confirmed by the CIA as well as the UN (although this is a dubious source. While they can't actually find the weapons stockpiles or manufacturing facilities, they claim to be able to recognize the effects). Never even extends to 1988, when Iraq again used chemical weapons, ie sarin nerve gas (again, a WMD in my book) against Iraqi-Kurds, again verified.
ReplyDeleteI suppose you can call these verified attacks and the tens of thousands of dead bodies a theory, but close enough for facts to me. Iraq possessed WMD.
As of the commission, you may want to read the report a little more closely. They continuously cite "connections" b/w Iraq(Saddam) and Al Qaeda, although they refused to draw an "operational" connection. Go figure.
Your analogy is based on the false premise that the intelligence documents were fabricated by a Bush politico. The intelligence wasn't fabricated. The Rather memo's were, and Dan knew it.
Yeah, ask the Kurds about Saddam's WMD. He gassed about 5,000 Kurds right around the time of the first Gulf War. There were vivid pictures of the victims in Time Magazine. I believe Iraq also used poison gas against the Iranians in that war too.
ReplyDeletesee the following from Physician's for Human Rights:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html