Ok for Bush to mislead the country based on dubious intelligence, but not Dan Rather?
- Thread starter Tenchiro
- Start date
Clearly the answer is
Ah, the difference is that Dan Rather knew the doc's were fakes while Pres. Bush was relying on intel that was supported by rest of the world. It ain't like Iraq didn't have a history of using and developing WMD's.
No it just seems funny that CBS basically did the same exact thing as Bush' administration, and the first people out for blood are the republicans.
The rest of the world except for the weapons insspectors that had been in Iraq looking and never found any...N8 said:
It's more like CBS had accurate info from forged documents whilst Bush had inaccurate info from genuine documents.N8 said:
You really think Bush intentionally mislead, i really don't think either of them intended to mislead versus they both wanted and believed things to be true which were not. Maybe i'm naive though....
But what's different is their reaction afterward, i despise the fact that the president is incapable of acknowledging any shortcomings of his administration, at the cost of money and lives, whereas i could give a flyin **** about Dan Blathers blunder. At least he accepts the fact that he's a retard.
Bushy's acceptance speech to me was telling of a man who really feels justified and fulfilled by what he's doing in Iraq. And utterly bored at speaking of domestic policy on the homefront.... To me it was telling on the complexity of the man.
But what's different is their reaction afterward, i despise the fact that the president is incapable of acknowledging any shortcomings of his administration, at the cost of money and lives, whereas i could give a flyin **** about Dan Blathers blunder. At least he accepts the fact that he's a retard.
Bushy's acceptance speech to me was telling of a man who really feels justified and fulfilled by what he's doing in Iraq. And utterly bored at speaking of domestic policy on the homefront.... To me it was telling on the complexity of the man.
haha good point, that to me should take priority in what is worrysome. Intentions here are speculation and not really important to either problem.fluff said:
yes, i think it's very clear that bush and co.'s misleading was intentional. the wolfowitz doctrine has been around, published, for several years, and the iraqi war was the first step in implementing it. given that wolfowitz and the rest of his project for a new american century buddies are firmly ensconced in positions of power in the gwb administration it makes perfect sense that the deception of the public was planned and deliberate -- they lied in order to be able to carry out their plan, which was in existence long before 9/11.Skookum said:
there are many videos that explain and support this better than i can. tim, if you pm me your address i can have my parents send you one of them (they distribute these videos for free as part of their anti war kick).
The cunning linking together of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein (by mentioning them in the same sentence, for example) is a clear case of subtle deception and using one event to drive another agenda.
Bush's administration has been far more misleading then CBS.
Bush's administration has been far more misleading then CBS.
Your evidence for this is....?N8 said:
While I obviously lean in precisely the opposite direction as far as hunches go... the fact is the evidence for or against both is almost identical. They committed strikingly similar errors, and we can only postulate about their relative intelligences/judgements, motives, or intentions.
The other point is the consequences of being wrong.
Dan Rather didn't kill thousands of people by screwing up, and he apologized for being wrong.
Dan Rather didn't kill thousands of people by screwing up, and he apologized for being wrong.
The REALLY funny thing is Robert Novak's vitriol on the subject...'reveal your source?'
Hmmm, shouldn't he be in court, facing prosecution for revealing a covert operative's name to the public, and being forced to reveal HIS source so they can both do hard time? Daily Show had it right on... "Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty."
MD
Hmmm, shouldn't he be in court, facing prosecution for revealing a covert operative's name to the public, and being forced to reveal HIS source so they can both do hard time? Daily Show had it right on... "Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty."
MD
Don't forget the fruitless cruise missile strikes in the Sudan, too.$tinkle said:
Although I think any member of any party would have done something like that...a typically ineffectual, effette response that does nothing to kill your enemy while fostering his hate and recruiting more people to his cause...but provides for great warm fuzzy feelings at home when the military briefings show the video footage.
MD
Civilians? Going once, going twice...$tinkle said:
Gutted?$tinkle said:
The defeats mark a sharp turn from successful disclosure efforts in 1997 and 1998, when officials revealed the intelligence budgets to be $26.6 billion and $26.7 billion, respectively.
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/05/26/fp2s1-csm.shtml
You mean that 26 Billion isn't enough? Maybe if we spent 30 Billion we could have had correct intelligence on Iraq?
So you don't need money for quality then? That would explain the typical Republican response to public education then...
$tinkle said:
What is this comment in reference to?
Or was it a Mod induced comment?