PunBB

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's great! :o
Oh, the irony...

It'd be easy to mount counter arguments for either side, but in the interest of avoiding a partisan argument I'll just say this:

When John Kerry changes his mind, it's a "flip-flop"

When Bush, Rummy or Colin change their minds (As the latter two did in public this weekend regarding Iraq elections) it's a "nuanced decision"

No matter what your political stripe: spin sucks.

That was great...I can't believe that after all these years, people are calling for Rather's head for this mistake. Hopefully he stands his ground and people let this blow over...the rhetoric surrounding this minor flap (minor in contrast to Swift Vets for Truth's propaganda) is overwhelming.

grooveless touque Wrote:...the rhetoric surrounding this minor flap (minor in contrast to Swift Vets for Truth's propaganda) is overwhelming.

'Minor flap'? It may be 'minor' in comparison to the real issues on the table in this upcoming election, but this 'mistake' constitutes nothing short of journalistic malpractice at a network news outlet which has influnce over a large and far-reaching audience. Unlike CBS, the swiftboat group does not tout itself as an unbiased news source, for crying out loud. Any private group can claim anything they want, but is still always subject to public scrutiny. Furthermore, such a group's bias is openly exhibited, and makes no attempt to obscure said bias.

The improprieties of Rather's report is completely apart from the candidates themselves and their platforms. Surely you understand that the 'freedom of the press' is an essential freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, and serves as an additional "check and balance" outside of those constitutionally built into our system of goverment. This 'mistake' compromises the integrity of fair, ethical journalists and news outlets across this great land, and heads should absolutely roll.

Please read this column....it presents some logic from a journalistic standpoint as to why this issue IS, in fact, a serious one:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.html">http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.html</a><!-- m -->

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

grooveless touque Wrote:...the rhetoric surrounding this minor flap (minor in contrast to Swift Vets for Truth's propaganda) is overwhelming.

'Minor flap'? It may be 'minor' in comparison to the real issues on the table in this upcoming election, but this 'mistake' constitutes nothing short of journalistic malpractice at a network news outlet which has influnce over a large and far-reaching audience. Unlike CBS, the swiftboat group does not tout itself as an unbiased news source, for crying out loud. Any private group can claim anything they want, but is still always subject to public scrutiny. Furthermore, such a group's bias is openly exhibited, and makes no attempt to obscure said bias.

The improprieties of Rather's report is completely apart from the candidates themselves and their platforms. Surely you understand that the 'freedom of the press' is an essential freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, and serves as an additional "check and balance" outside of those constitutionally built into our system of goverment. This 'mistake' compromises the integrity of fair, ethical journalists and news outlets across this great land, and heads should absolutely roll.

Please read this column....it presents some logic from a journalistic standpoint as to why this issue IS, in fact, a serious one:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.html">http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.html</a><!-- m -->

As a journalist, I couldn't disagree with you more. Rather messed up. Bush and crew are kings of calculated misinformation.

Stephen Dame Wrote:As a journalist, I couldn't disagree with you more. Rather messed up. Bush and crew are kings of calculated misinformation.

That's a pretty weak dissent, Dame. Bush is only the subject of the journalism itself, which, may I remind you, is the issue at hand. As a journalist, you certainly ought to be able to divorce yourself from the subject of the piece and focus on the issue here, which is Rather's shoddy report featuring fraudulent documents which his own people urged him not to use.

What do you disagree with? That Rather simply 'messed up' and is exempt from accusations of unethical journalistic practices?

Funny....every journalist I know - even liberal journalists - are disgusted by Rather's gaff.

Amazing how some people's politics and hate for GW clouds their ability to be logical, ethical, rational and fair.

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

Stephen Dame Wrote:As a journalist, I couldn't disagree with you more. Rather messed up. Bush and crew are kings of calculated misinformation.

That's a pretty weak dissent, Dame..

Nah... as an expereinced journalist, and Hipbaser, I've learned that you're just a blind partisan, totally unwilling to even consider the point of view of the other. Hence my quick rebuke of your points. Arguing with you is impossible, so I don't waste my time.

Have a good one, E.

Stephen Dame Wrote:

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

Stephen Dame Wrote:As a journalist, I couldn't disagree with you more. Rather messed up. Bush and crew are kings of calculated misinformation.

That's a pretty weak dissent, Dame..

Nah... as an expereinced journalist, and Hipbaser, I've learned that you're just a blind partisan, totally unwilling to even consider the point of view of the other. Hence my quick rebuke of your points. Arguing with you is impossible, so I don't waste my time.

Have a good one, E.

Typical. No substance, no facts for me to even "consider" regarding your point of view in the first place - only finger pointing in the place of logic. I'm certainly not surprised.

:roll:

I find it amazing that the media and liberal interest groups continue to make the claim that Bush went to war on faulty information purposely when the majority of intelligence agencies had basically the same info, with different caveats, that Saddam had the ability to re-constitute his WMD programs and the desire to do so. Rather made claims about Bush's National Guard service for which he had no documentable proof of. The difference between the WMD memos and the Guard memos is a chasm. In the intelligence field, one is never quite sure exactly of an enemy's intentions and capabilities because they are not going to be upfront about what they desire to do and the resources they have. The key questions that the media and the liberal interest groups are refusing to answer are 1) Did Saddam have the know how and capability to reconstitute his WMD program had sanctions been lifted? The answer clearly is yes because he had the scientists and scientific research from his previous WMD programs to go on and possible willing partners to sell him the technology on the nuclear black market. 2) Was Saddam willingly cooperating with the WMD inspectors? No, he was dragging out the process and being indirectly helped by France and other nations who didnt want to upset the economic apple cart which benefitted them and Saddam under the UN Oil for Food program. That is what the key part of Kerry's thought process that makes me uncomfortable with him, he's too focused on "process" and not enough of clear results and by focusing too much on "process" he allows other foreign actors to manipulate the system for their own benefit and jeopardize American and regional security.

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

Stephen Dame Wrote:

The Horrible Esthete Wrote:

Stephen Dame Wrote:As a journalist, I couldn't disagree with you more. Rather messed up. Bush and crew are kings of calculated misinformation.

That's a pretty weak dissent, Dame..

Nah... as an expereinced journalist, and Hipbaser, I've learned that you're just a blind partisan, totally unwilling to even consider the point of view of the other. Hence my quick rebuke of your points. Arguing with you is impossible, so I don't waste my time.

Have a good one, E.

Typical. No substance, no facts for me to even "consider" regarding your point of view in the first place - only finger pointing in the place of logic. I'm certainly not surprised.

:roll:

E, there are reasons I'm not debating with you. Your unwillingness to discuss and your tendency to badger, insult and argue is just one of those reasons. Your arguments in the past, especially your offensive (and borderline racist) remarks in a political discussion a few months ago are what first alerted me to stear clear of your path... you can have your name calling, you can feel as superior as you wish. I'll leave this thread to you, and wish you the best.

What are you so worked up about anyway? Does everyone have to agree with you? You really need to start considering that other opinions, while perhaps not your own (Such as Bush deliberatly doctoring information as opposed to CBS news being lax and getting duped) may have some validity.

Rolling eyes can't say enough.

I'm not convinced Saddam had WMD or the know-how and capability to make them, but even if he did - why would he go ahead with that plan? He's a villain but he's not retarded. When you're up against a force such as the US Army, and pretty much the rest of the world for that matter, you have to be beyond stupid to actually consider going ahead with something like that.

I still believe that in terms of national security Iraq should not have been priority number one.
How come the whole world forgot about Osama bin Laden all of a sudden?

Kim, I don't think the world has forgotten about trying to capture Osama Bin Laden- it's just not sexy enough for the network news to send media to the caves of southern Afghanistan and Pakistan to cover that. Plus if we focus all of our attention on capturing Osama we risk letting a suicide bomber or somebody who directly finances terrorist operations through the net. On the Saddam question, what do you suppose the world's reaction would be if Saddam managed to produce some WMD and threaten Kuwait, Israel, Iran or Saudi Arabia? My guess would horror, outrage and unwillingness to send troops because they are afraid of the casualty count. Just take a look at Sudan and Rwanda, the UN expresses outrage at the violation of human rights standards by these nations and do nothing but pat themselves on the back for expressing their outrage. They sent that Canadian general Dallaire(correct?) to be portable cannon fodder and did too little, too late when he requested backup. Now, the US isnt willing to be up front and center sending in troops because we have no strategic national interests despite our disgust over the human carnage, but none of the other world players (France, Germany, etc) wanted to step up to the plate and take a chance.

No strategic national interests in Iraq? cratch: Even that female republican Michael Moore persona admitted that the US went to Iraq for oil.

As for France and Germany; seems to me its more than simply "stepping up to the plate and taking a chance". Lives are at stake, something Europe seems to deem more important than the US (35 iraqi kids killed today). I'm sure the Rwanda tape has been playing over and over in the back of the minds of European heads of state but I think it's more than that. The U.S. didn't have enough valid reasons to invade Iraq and the way they've tackled the situation since then doesn't provide much cause for comfort. I have respect for France and Germany, for not letting themselves get bullied into a war they didn't believe in in the first place.

Quote:'Minor flap'? It may be 'minor' in comparison to the real issues on the table in this upcoming election, but this 'mistake' constitutes nothing short of journalistic malpractice at a network news outlet which has influnce over a large and far-reaching audience. Unlike CBS, the swiftboat group does not tout itself as an unbiased news source, for crying out loud. Any private group can claim anything they want, but is still always subject to public scrutiny. Furthermore, such a group's bias is openly exhibited, and makes no attempt to obscure said bias.

The improprieties of Rather's report is completely apart from the candidates themselves and their platforms. Surely you understand that the 'freedom of the press' is an essential freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, and serves as an additional "check and balance" outside of those constitutionally built into our system of goverment. This 'mistake' compromises the integrity of fair, ethical journalists and news outlets across this great land, and heads should absolutely roll.

I actually agree with these statements. I think Rather should be reprimanded. A simple "I'm sorry" shouldn't suffice. It's time for a new newsperson at CBS. I also am taken aback by the pro Democratic beliefs on this message board. I am not for either man. I think Bush has made many mistakes and is a liar but I don't see Kerry as being any better. Don't come down on Esthete just because he doesn't hate Bush as much as everyone else here.

I don't want to get in the middle of this seemingly personal battle between you two though. Thank you.