Why isn’t the on the news every night…
But the Niger component of the White House case for war quickly imploded. Asked for evidence to support President Bush’s contention in his State of the Union speech that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, the administration turned over the Niger documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within two hours, using the Google search engine, IAEA officials in Vienna determined the documents to be a crude forgery. At the urging of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI launched an investigation into the Niger documents in an effort to determine if the United States government had been duped by a deliberate “disinformation” campaign organized by a foreign intelligence agency or others with a political agenda relating to Iraq.
FBI probing forged papers on Niger uranium
FBI probing forged papers on Niger uranium
President Bush chastised senior advisers, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and outgoing press spokesman Ari Fleischer, about the uranium intelligence flap and the White House's handling of it several times during the recent trip to Africa.
"The president wanted the matter settled," one official said of Mr. Bush's harsh words for his advisers.
Looks like there was outrage.
"The president wanted the matter settled," one official said of Mr. Bush's harsh words for his advisers.
Looks like there was outrage.
There was a huge amount of outrage that I caught, and it remains on the laundry list of “talking points” for the so-called Left. You must have missed it… better go check in at moveon.org and get back up to speed.
It wasn’t, however, a blatent attempt to influence a presidential election by a major network.
Now I better put that stupid smilie on so y’all know I’m just a happy little clown, right?
Also, think about it, the more CNN, NBC, ABC, FOx etc. make CBS look bad, the more they can potentially steal viewers. It is in the interest of CBS’ competitors to make as big a stink as possible about it.
Dan Rather is still in denial about whether those documents were forged. In the story that was referenced above, Bush did not hold onto a false notion about that set of documents - a much different scenario.
A lot of this talk just reinforces the point about how useless it is to scream “Kerry’s better!” or “Bush is stupid!”. The President makes decisions based on information from his advisors and other gummint officials. It only adds grief to the misery when you KNOW that a lot of times they just give the prez their “best guess”! The prez cannot KNOW everything about everything. That’s why he has advisors. While it’s true, he did get to appoint a bunch of 'em, they are not perfect either.
2 pesos…
TG
Outrage my ass. I don’t care what side you’re on. This was criminally under-reported. Just ask the common Joe on the street if they even REMEMBER it. They won’t. At the time the media was more concerned about spewing bullshitty lies about my fellow West Virginian Jessica Lynch in some sick effort to get us pumped about the war.
I guess I missed it - too bad.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Outrage my ass. I don’t care what side you’re on. This was criminally under-reported. |
That’s the “liberal press” missing a good chance to get at Bush.
It wasn't, however, a blatent attempt to influence a presidential election by a major network.
This is a laughable if you think that was actually what CBS was trying to do.
This is a laughable if you think that was actually what CBS was trying to do.
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Sep. 23 2004,13:51) |
| I guess I missed it - too bad. |
You didn't miss a thing. The media didn't report it very well at all. I know Pete will jump in and say, "BUT I KNEW ABOUT IT!!!" but hey, think about the rest of the world for a second.
Pete and Mike can watch every channel and read every website and it doesn't mean jack shit. The important question is this: How much impact did this news story really have on society as a whole? The answer? Not very much - not many people know about it.
...But that doesn't mean it's not important.
No Pete won’t chime in because it doesn’t support his theory about the liberal media, i.e., this is a story that the liberal media would love but yet they don’t report on it.
Isn’t the issue still being investigated? The reason I brought it up today is that msnbc.com was talking about it TODAY.
No Pete won't chime in because it doesn't support his theory about the liberal media, i.e., this is a story that the liberal media would love but yet they don't report on it.
No... Pete won't chime in because discussing anything with you even involved on the sidelines is pointless. I have better things to do with my life, and other challenging places to post that don't have a resident primadonna hovering who stomps on every remark I make.
No... Pete won't chime in because discussing anything with you even involved on the sidelines is pointless. I have better things to do with my life, and other challenging places to post that don't have a resident primadonna hovering who stomps on every remark I make.
I only stomp on outrageous remarks that you make. Otherwise, I like and/or agree with what you post.
I only stomp on outrageous remarks that you make. Otherwise, I like and/or agree with what you post.
C'mon, Mike. You wouldn't even let Tom and me have a conversation without intervening, driving it off topic and then "discrediting" me.
There's a great deal I could say on this topic, but why bother? What end would it serve, other than to offer you entertainment in your ecstatic drive to prove me "inconsistant" by extracting three words out of a post and comparing them with two out-of-context sentences I wrote ten years ago? Have at it. Go ahead and explain my "right wing" agendas and theories to everybody. I'm sure they could give a rat's ass anyway.
I paused and thought a lot about that, you know. The bottom line is pretty straightforward - it is wasted energy, effort and time. With my time at a premium right now, I had to let a lot of things go. Being involved in conversations with you was one of the very first things I chose to release. You are incapable of getting it, and that's that. Time to move on.
C'mon, Mike. You wouldn't even let Tom and me have a conversation without intervening, driving it off topic and then "discrediting" me.
There's a great deal I could say on this topic, but why bother? What end would it serve, other than to offer you entertainment in your ecstatic drive to prove me "inconsistant" by extracting three words out of a post and comparing them with two out-of-context sentences I wrote ten years ago? Have at it. Go ahead and explain my "right wing" agendas and theories to everybody. I'm sure they could give a rat's ass anyway.
I paused and thought a lot about that, you know. The bottom line is pretty straightforward - it is wasted energy, effort and time. With my time at a premium right now, I had to let a lot of things go. Being involved in conversations with you was one of the very first things I chose to release. You are incapable of getting it, and that's that. Time to move on.
C'mon, Mike. You wouldn't even let Tom and me have a conversation without intervening, driving it off topic and then "discrediting" me.
C'mon Pete - I asked you to clarify some statements that you made in that thread & that's now off-topic?!?! That whole thread went in several directions as I re-call, so don't go blaming me from the thread to going off-topic. Lot's of others posted to that thread - were they preventing you & Tom from having your conversation.
There's a great deal I could say on this topic, but why bother? What end would it serve, other than to offer you entertainment in your ecstatic drive to prove me "inconsistant" by extracting three words out of a post and comparing them with two out-of-context sentences I wrote ten years ago?
Sorry you feel that way but I will show your inconsistencies in the same way you try to show mine. I posted your concluding statement about Bush & you say it's out-of-context. It was your CONCLUDING statement for cryin' out loud - the thrust of the whole essay!!!!
I'm still waiting for you to post on your web site an essay on why Bush is unfit to be President.
Have at it. Go ahead and explain my "right wing" agendas and theories to everybody. I'm sure they could give a rat's ass anyway.
I don't have to do that - people can see your "right-wing" agenda for themselves - The Very Few.
I agree it's time to move on, but as soon as you admit to your confessed "extremist" ways & right-wing bias, the sooner that people can see why you & I are always fighting.
I look forward to your posts but I won't let you define me in any particular way or present just right-wing bias.
C'mon Pete - I asked you to clarify some statements that you made in that thread & that's now off-topic?!?! That whole thread went in several directions as I re-call, so don't go blaming me from the thread to going off-topic. Lot's of others posted to that thread - were they preventing you & Tom from having your conversation.
There's a great deal I could say on this topic, but why bother? What end would it serve, other than to offer you entertainment in your ecstatic drive to prove me "inconsistant" by extracting three words out of a post and comparing them with two out-of-context sentences I wrote ten years ago?
Sorry you feel that way but I will show your inconsistencies in the same way you try to show mine. I posted your concluding statement about Bush & you say it's out-of-context. It was your CONCLUDING statement for cryin' out loud - the thrust of the whole essay!!!!
I'm still waiting for you to post on your web site an essay on why Bush is unfit to be President.
Have at it. Go ahead and explain my "right wing" agendas and theories to everybody. I'm sure they could give a rat's ass anyway.
I don't have to do that - people can see your "right-wing" agenda for themselves - The Very Few.
I agree it's time to move on, but as soon as you admit to your confessed "extremist" ways & right-wing bias, the sooner that people can see why you & I are always fighting.
I look forward to your posts but I won't let you define me in any particular way or present just right-wing bias.